[House Hearing, 107 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] CHALLENGES TO NATIONAL SECURITY: CONSTRAINTS ON MILITARY TRAINING ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ MAY 9, 2001 __________ Serial No. 107-3 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 75-041 WASHINGTON : 2001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio BOB BARR, Georgia ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois DAN MILLER, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois DOUG OSE, California JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts RON LEWIS, Kentucky JIM TURNER, Texas JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois DAVE WELDON, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRIS CANNON, Utah ------ ------ ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida ------ ------ C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho ------ EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont ------ ------ (Independent) Kevin Binger, Staff Director Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on May 9, 2001...................................... 1 Statement of: Fallon, Admiral William J., Vice Chief, Naval Operations, U.S. Navy; General John P. Jumper, Commanding Commander, Headquarters Air Combat Command, U.S. Air Force, Langley Air Force Base; Lieutenant General Larry R. Ellis, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, U.S. Army; and Major General Edward Hanlon, Jr., Commanding General, U.S. Marines Corps, Camp Pendleton.............................. 32 LaPorte, Lieutenant General Leon J., Commanding General, III Corps and Ft. Hood, U.S. Army; Brigadier General James R. Battaglini, Deputy Commanding General, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, U.S. Marine Corps; Captain William H. McRaven, Commodore, Naval Special Warfare, Seal Group One, U.S. Navy; and Colonel Herbert J. Carlisle, Commander, 33rd Fighter Wing, Eglin Air Force Base, U.S. Air Force......... 170 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Barr, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, prepared statement of.......................... 46 Battaglini, Brigadier General James R., Deputy Commanding General, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, U.S. Marine Corps, prepared statement of...................................... 216 Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana, prepared statement of.......................... 9 Carlisle, Colonel Herbert J., Commander, 33rd Fighter Wing, Eglin Air Force Base, U.S. Air Force, prepared statement of 258 Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri, prepared statement of................... 22 Davis, Hon. Jo Ann, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 27 Delahunt, Hon. William D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts, prepared statement of.......... 135 Ellis, Lieutenant General Larry R., Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, U.S. Army, prepared statement of..... 76 Fallon, Admiral William J., Vice Chief, Naval Operations, U.S. Navy, prepared statement of........................... 34 Gilman, Hon. Benjamin A., a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, prepared statement of............... 3 Hanlon, Major General Edward, Jr., Commanding General, U.S. Marines Corps, Camp Pendleton, prepared statement of....... 105 Jumper, General John P., Commanding Commander, Headquarters Air Combat Command, U.S. Air Force, Langley Air Force Base, prepared statement of...................................... 50 LaPorte, Lieutenant General Leon J., Commanding General, III Corps and Ft. Hood, U.S. Army, prepared statement of....... 172 McRaven, Captain William H., Commodore, Naval Special Warfare, Seal Group One, U.S. Navy, prepared statement of.. 238 Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a Representative in Congress from the State of Hawaii: Information concerning a resolution...................... 147 Information concerning Makua............................. 152 Prepared statement of.................................... 144 Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut, prepared statement of............ 16 Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of................. 133 CHALLENGES TO NATIONAL SECURITY: CONSTRAINTS ON MILITARY TRAINING ---------- WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2001 House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:45 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Burton, Gilman, Morella, Horn, Davis of Virginia, Barr, Ose, Lewis, Davis, Putnam, Otter, Schrock, Hansen, Mink, Maloney, Cummings, Kucinich, Tierney, and Clay. Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; David A. Kass, deputy chief counsel; Grace Washbourne, professional staff member; Thomas Bowman, senior counsel; Lawrence Halloran, staff director, Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations; Gil Macklin, senior investigator; Nicholas Palarino, senior policy analyst, Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations; Mark Corallo, director of communications; Andre Hollis, counsel; Sarah Anderson, staff assistant; Robert A. Briggs, chief clerk; Robin Butler, office manager; Michael Canty, legislative assistant; Josie Duckett, deputy communications director; John Sare, deputy chief clerk; Danleigh Halfast, assistant to chief counsel; Corinne Zaccagnini, systems administrator; and Jean Gosa and Earley Green, minority assistant clerks. Mr. Burton. The committee will come to order. I ask unanimous consent that all Members' and witnesses' opening statements be included in the record and without objection, so ordered. I ask unanimous consent that all articles, exhibits, extraneous and tabular material referred to be included in the record and without objection, so ordered. I ask unanimous consent that Chairman Hansen and Delahunt who are not members of the committee be allowed to participate in today's hearing, and without objection, so ordered. I will defer my opening statement in deference to the youthful, vigorous Ben Gilman. Mr. Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are very kind to allow me to precede the regular order. I do have an important hearing on Iran in subcommittee. I want to commend you for conducting this hearing on challenges to national security and the constraints on our military training. I want to commend all of our officers who are here today, who are willing to give the best of their experience and ability to our committee as we examine this issue. Our Nation continues progress in science and technology that makes us the envy of peoples around the globe. These advances facilitate development and renewal in our Nation fostering a better quality of life for us all. With the new possibilities in communications and growth in the technology, leadership has to cope with these changes which affect training and exercise programs. These shifts in technology and the quality of life expectations, some we can anticipate and some we may not, must be accommodated in a way that keeps our military second to none as we facilitate advances in our technology and the growing expectations that improve all of our lives. Our hearings today are a part of that process. I look forward to learning from our distinguished military commanders and working with you, Mr. Chairman, to find ways to protect our national interest in all of these issues. Thank you for allowing me to precede the normal order. [The prepared statement of Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.003 Mr. Burton. Thank you, Chairman Gilman. You are excused. When you get a chance, come back. First of all, let me say I was a private in the Army. I don't want to hear any hisses from the Marines, the Air Force or the Navy. I haven't seen this many stars, unless I was out at night looking up at the sky. I am very impressed with all the military personnel, the admirals, the generals, and the colonels and other personnel who are here today. We appreciate your being here. We think this is a very important hearing. Let me start by saying to perform a growing number of missions from peacekeeping to assaulting and keeping a hostile beachhead, the men and women of our Armed Forces must train as they would fight. They must train under conditions as much like the real thing as possible. More than anything else, military readiness depends on realistic training. Sending units into unfamiliar terrain increases mission risks. Combining air, sea and ground forces for the first time in battle will invite disaster. Dropping dummy bombs and firing inert ordnance cannot replace live fire drills. Commanders must be sure both men and machines are mission capable, but the availability of realistic training is eroding. Defense Department training ranges here and overseas are under siege from the land, the water, the air and the airways. From Vieques to San Clemente Island, from Norfolk, VA to Camp Pendleton, CA, combat training is being hemmed in. It is being hemmed in by commercial development, environmental regulations, air space restrictions and conflicts over use of the radio frequency spectrum. Urban development has marched literally to the front gates of the once remote training installations. War is a noisy business, so is training for war. Noise restrictions that are often demanded by a base's new neighbors limit the use of artillery ranges and force important low altitude maneuvers to unrealistically high altitudes. As development consumes open space around training ranges, compliance with State and Federal environmental regulations becomes more complex and more costly. Some Defense Department land has become a haven for endangered species, a habit of last resort. The burden of protecting wildlife and habitat may be overwhelming the primary training mission as the amount of land in the Defense Department set aside to protect species like the fairy shrimp, the gnat-catcher and the checker-spot butterfly expands, training lanes become artificially narrow. Drills become predictable and repetitive. Readiness declines which is something we cannot tolerate because we don't know what the future holds and we have to have the military prepared to deal with any eventuality. The vast growing demand for commercial air travel means less air space for military pilots and already overcrowded skies. The explosion of wireless technologies threatens to push military equipment off the prime radio frequencies just as we are spending billions to link our forces on the digital battlefield. Today we are convening the first in a series of hearings on this group of issues known as encroachment. The term encroachment is used because these developments gradually operate to crowd out the large scale, realistic training indispensable to force readiness. For the most part, the military's answer to encroachment challenges has been to work around the immediate problems while attempting to minimize the impact on the quality and quantity of training but the cumulative impact of this stop gap approach is not being addressed. The previous administration studied these issues but made no real proposals for long term solutions. These problems are affecting the ability of our forces to fight and this administration needs to tackle this problem before it gets out of control. We will be reporting what is said at this hearing to the President and the administration to make sure they are aware of all the concerns of the people who are in the military who are leading our fighting forces. In 1999 at the Citadel, President Bush said, ``The military must improve the quality of training. Shortfalls on the proving ground become disasters on the battlefield.'' The people sitting before us today do not need to be told that, so today we invite the Army, the Navy, the Marines and the Air Force to describe the unique encroachment challenges facing each service. I will ask them to discuss the operational difficulties faced by those whose job it is to make American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines ready for war. Just like professionals everywhere, the members of our Armed Services need to continually practice their skills in the most realistic settings. They are the heart of this hearing. We want to know in detail how military readiness and national security are being affected by limitations and constraints on the size, shape and amount of training. In future hearings, we will hear from the other Federal agencies involved with the Defense Department in addressing these issues, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. In my view, the issue is not readiness versus the environment or readiness versus development, or readiness versus commercial aviation. We should not have to choose. The central question before us in these hearings is how all these important national interests can be advanced in a balanced and cooperative way. Foreign military leaders often ask how it is possible for us to assign major combat responsibilities to non-commissioned officers and enlisted personnel, responsibilities that would only be entrusted to high-ranking officers in their countries. The answer is training. In an amphibious assault, our most advanced, over the horizon craft is a $23 million per copy landing craft air cushion. It is operated entirely by a crew of five enlisted sailors. When we call upon our military, active duty reservists and National Guard to go into harm's way, we should do so only with the complete confidence that they are ready. They will only be ready if they are thoroughly trained and they have the right to expect training that is going to be thorough. We as a Nation have an obligation to provide it. We have a number of very senior officers from all four of the branches of our Armed Services here to testify today. It is a very distinguished group. As an enlisted man, I have difficulty talking. When I was in the Army, when a Second Lieutenant, the lowest form of officer life, would walk by, I would get the quivers, I would shake and say, yes, sir. So when four star generals come before this committee, I can't hardly stand it but I have to tell you, it is a real honor to have you all here. Thank you for being here and I look forward to hearing your testimony. We have Mr. Hansen here and I am pleased to welcome him to today's hearing. As chairman of the House Committee on Resources and a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, Congressman Hansen has been a leader in ensuring our military personnel receive the best possible training and particular, he has been a leader in focusing us all on the encroachment issues we are addressing here today. It was largely as a result of his efforts that the Pentagon began to focus on encroachment. I really appreciate your being here today. We don't see any of our Democratic colleagues here yet, but I am sure they will be here. Let me start with Congresswoman Morella for an opening statement if you choose. [The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.008 Mrs. Morella. I don't have any opening statement except I am also in awe and want to thank those who are going to be testifying and also those who serve us in our Armed Forces who are here today. Thank you. Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays. Mr. Shays. I do have a statement given our National Security Committee has jurisdiction over this issue as well. From the wreckage of Desert One, the site of the failed hostage rescue mission to Iran in 1980, an iron rule of military readiness was forged, trained personnel and test equipment under combat mission conditions. Adherence to that doctrine meant U.S. forces were ready to lead the coalition to victory in the Gulf war and it has sustained a skilled, technologically superior military through an accelerated pace of regional actions and peacekeeping operations. Now as the administration begins to explore the expanding strategic landscape into which we will be sending our forces in the future, the training platform they need to prepare for those missions is shrinking. Here at home and abroad, the land, sea lanes, air space and frequency spectrum once used for indispensable, realistic military training are being put to other uses. Readiness is being compromised. Last year a Navy battle group sailed for the Middle East without having completed the combined air, sea, land firing exercises required for the deployment. Denied access to the training ranges on Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, separate parts of the battle group had to go begging for access to foreign ranges on the way to be sure their guns fired properly before they took their post in that volatile part of the world. The Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations, which I chair, has held numerous hearings on how the Federal Government should be organized and prepared to combat terrorism. Just as the Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications Commission and other agencies have a role to play in meeting the national security threat, they have a responsibility to help sustain military readiness against all threats. Our hearings on challenges to readiness will explore those shared responsibilities. We begin today with the military service branches charged by law to provide trained and ready forces. It is too easy and ultimately unproductive to cast this issue solely in terms of military readiness versus environmental compliance. If all questions of environmental compliance could be resolved tomorrow, training space would still be shrinking under the accumulated weight of other challenges. To be sure, we will hear a good deal today about the loss of training ground and about the cost and inconvenience of environmental stewardship on training ranges. In this and in future hearings, we may well also hear about some notable and regrettable lapses in DOD natural resource management. Neither point of view justifies succumbing to the false choice between national security and environmental security. As one Army study put it, ``Reconciling these interests is not a question of black and white, but a more complex and subtle matter requiring appreciation of many shades of green.'' A lighter more mobile Army, an expeditionary Air Force, a global Navy, unmanned aerial vehicles, space-based assets supporting a linked digital battle space all will extend the reach of U.S. forces. The hard lessons learned in Desert One compel us to be sure realistic training will be available to the men and women called upon to fight and win those future battles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.010 Mr. Burton. Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis. No statement. Mr. Burton. Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis. I will be brief. I want to thank you and your staff for holding this hearing today and I believe today's subject matter is critical as we determine the constraints our military faces in training and how these restrictions might affect our readiness. This hearing will bring to light many issues relating to encroachment on training ranges which presents a serious and growing challenge to force readiness. I want to thank all the witnesses for taking time from their busy schedules to be here today. The United States has the best and most prepared military in the world today and our military is the envy of every nation. Our forces continue to demonstrate their effectiveness whenever they are called to duty. Our U.S. Marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen work together to protect our national interests around the world and our freedom here at home. The men and women in uniform are the key to our strength and the source of our pride. Congress has become increasingly concerned about the state of our military readiness, not only in terms of modernization but also training and preparation, especially in this global and ever-changing environment. It is undeniable that technology has pushed the edge on what we can do and increased the need for speed, stealth and accuracy. This is especially true when it comes to educating, coordinating and training Marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen. Military training is unique, difficult and extensive. I have heard from our men and women in uniform who have expressed serious concerns about the limitations and restrictions which have been imposed on training due to such challenges as noise complaints, competition of air space, loss of spectrum frequency and most commonly, rapid and expanding suburban growth around military bases. I look forward to hearing our witnesses testify and having the opportunity to listen to their firsthand experience working on these complicated issues while focusing on training and readiness. Thank you. Mr. Burton. Mr. Schrock. Mr. Schrock. I want to thank you for holding these hearings today. As a retired Navy captain and a representative of a district that is home to the world's largest naval base and 6 other major military commands and 138 small commands, the status of military readiness and training is a very important issue to me. Today, this committee will hear testimony regarding the Naval Air Station Oceana located in the center of Virginia Beach, VA's largest city. Oceana is home to various fighter aircraft, specifically the F-18 Hornet and Super Hornet and the F-14 Tomcat. These aircraft are deployed with the aircraft battle groups from the Hampton Roads area. To prepare for deployment, a first tour pilot is required to successfully perform approximately 180 to 200 takeoffs and landings at Oceana and nearby naval auxiliary landing field, Fentress in Chesapeake, VA. Over the past two decades, residential and commercial development has expanded in the Virginia Beach and Chesapeake areas. Today, the two airfields are completely surrounded by residential development. In response to citizen concerns about excessive jet noise, the Navy has modified the flight patterns by increasing the normal carrier landing pattern altitude of 600 feet to 800 feet and 1,000 feet for Fentress and Oceana respectively. The Navy has further modified their standard flight pattern to avoid two new housing subdivisions that were constructed while Fentress was closed for runway repairs. The cumulative effect of these modifications is that Navy pilots do not practice in a realistic training environment in what many say is the most crucial phase of a flight for a naval aviator, landing on an aircraft carrier. Last month, nine families from Virginia Beach and Chesapeake filed a class action lawsuit against the Navy for inverse condemnation. They claim that the noise from military aircraft has reduced the value of their homes resulting in a Federal taking of private property without just compensation by the Navy or the Federal Government. The Navy has been working in good faith with the local government bodies, civic leagues and other groups on military aircraft noise issues. The Navy is spending millions of dollars to construct a hush house for ground level aircraft engine testing and is committed to building a new outlying field in a remote area where naval aviators can practice their maneuvers while preventing disturbances in residential areas. We need to face the facts, military aircraft make a lot of noise and this noise disturbs the people living in the areas surrounding military airfields. Expectations for the commercial air transportation system are primarily related to quality of life issues. The public's demand for reductions in aircraft related noise is justified and will continue until the public's expectations are met. Evidence that concerns over aircraft noise is growing is the dramatic growth in local noise-related restrictions at commercial airfields which have grown from 257 ordinances in 1980 to over 832 in 2000. The military operates under different but critical guidelines. Our Nation's military aircraft are designed to be the best in the world. Because of this, military aircraft are optimized for performance with virtually no significant discussion of military jet noise. Unfortunately, with optimal performance comes more noise. However, current technologies that have led to the reduction of noise by commercial aircraft can apply to military aircraft as well. Today, I am submitting an appropriations request for $30 million to be provided to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Facility, Hampton, VA for military aircraft noise reduction research. It is important to insert here that no one is suggesting that we negotiate on our military aircraft performance, speed or maneuvering abilities. NASA has developed noise reduction technologies for commercial aircraft which has reduced the 1997 noise footprint baseline by 40 percent. Historically, NASA has developed technological solutions for tomorrow's community noise impact issues for commercial air transportation. In this role, NASA is the technological broker between the FAA, industry and citizens groups. NASA is unique in its expertise, facilities and inherent government role to lead the technology development to meet military aircraft noise related issues. It is critical that Navy pilots are provided realistic training prior to deployment. It is also critical that the military do whatever they can to address the quality of life issues for both the communities and our pilots. I am looking forward to hearing from the members of the military here to testify today. Thank you again for holding this hearing. Mr. Burton. Thank you. Mr. Clay. Mr. Clay. I welcome the opportunity to meet with the committee today and I also welcome the military leaders who are testifying today. I do understand that your job is not an easy one. On the one hand, you have the training mission of your respective branch of service to implement and on the other hand, you have the responsibility to not adversely impact the lives of the inhabitants of areas in which you train. Some adverse impacts occur that are almost unavoidable. They happen because certain agents are used and the accumulated residue of their use becomes a hazard. Some occur because of accidents, carelessness and other causes. Whatever the reasons, remedies must be used to quickly and efficiently eliminate hazards caused by training. The health of the communities impacted by training should not be compromised. I am sure we all agree on this. This is not a forum to bash the men who serve our Nation's flag. I salute all of you knowing that you individually would not be here were you not a top soldier. I too advocate a strong military and in doing so realize that to be strong necessitates training. I also advocate making repairs of damages that may result as a byproduct of that training. I represent the First District of Missouri. It is located in St. Louis, MO. In my district, we have problems that have existed for several years. The Army closed the Aviation and Troop Command as required by the 1995 Base Realignment and Closing Initiative. Across the street, the Army closed the St. Louis Ordnance Plant beginning in the early 1990's and completed the closing in 1998. The communities affected by the process were eligible for assistance through DOD funds channeled through the Economic Development Administration to help replace the loss of jobs and related economic activity. Unfortunately, in St. Louis this was not the case. The Army did not own the ADCOM or the SLAP sites. The sites were leased from GSA. Consequently, St. Louis has been ineligible to receive any share of the hundreds of millions of dollars granted to other communities for infrastructure improvement associated with economic development and job replacement strategies. Closure of ADCOM and SLAP has cost the St. Louis community in excess of 4,700 well paying jobs. The loss has been devastating to the local economy, yet the city has received only limited planning dollars from DOD's Office of Economic Adjustment and no assistance in the form of land or infrastructure improvement dollars. I have some questions I will ask the panels regarding this matter. I ask unanimous consent to submit my statement. [The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.013 Mr. Burton. Mr. Otter. Mr. Otter. Let me associate myself with your earlier comments about being an enlisted man in front of all the stars. Coming from the armored cab at Ft. Knox, KY, I too was always in absolute fright whenever I would see those stars come around. Thank you for the opportunity to address this issue and thank you to the soldiers in uniform who have taken the time out of their busy schedules to be here today. Military readiness and training is essential to national security. In George Washington's first annual address to Congress, he underscored the importance of a strong military by stating, ``To be prepared for war is the most effectual means of preserving the peace.'' What he said over 200 years ago still rings true today. However, no one in Washington's day could have envisioned the onslaught of Federal regulations and rules and red tape that have threatened the national security and our military readiness. Our military is increasingly faced with defending more lawsuits than they are defending our Nation and is forced to comply with scientifically baseless regulations which severely restrain its ability to train new recruits. Truly a national tragedy is that years ago when the Army Corps of Engineers built the roads and the bridges to advance these same corps, they now build barriers to halt them in their tracks. This trend must come to an end. We simply should not have to tell the parents of a downed American soldier that their son or daughter wasn't ready for war potentially because we couldn't prepare them. We should not have to explain to American parents that instead of training their sons and daughters for battle, we had to spend time and money focusing on the red tape and the bureaucracies. In recent years, millions of acres have been set aside and designed for land and wildlife protection and preservation. These lands are regulated and managed by the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. While no one disputes the value of setting aside certain lands for certain species in certain areas, land setaside for military training must be protected from frivolous lawsuits. Without the national security of this Nation to protect the sage brush, the crickets, rats, bugs and other creatures will be meaningless. We cannot let these lawsuits compromise our military training. Let me give you an example of how a few people can compromise readiness and tie the hands of our men and women in the military. In Idaho, Mountain Home Air Force Base has been tied up by several environmental lawsuits from the Wilderness Society, Committee on Idaho's High Desert, the Idaho Conservation League and the Idaho Rivers United amongst many, many others. One of these lawsuits was filed because the Air Force wanted to build a bridge for maneuvering exercises. However, a small wetland at a potential bridge site may have been suitable habitat for spotted frogs, northern leopard frogs and western toads. Even though none of these species were found at the site, the project was halted for a temporary period of time. In the international world, the United States will face many greater enemies. Among those 82 nations I have had an opportunity to travel to I have found the seeds of greater armies and greater strength than we have ever faced before. As such, we must ensure that our men and women are prepared to fight for freedom, that needed equipment and supplies do not receive lower priority than environmental studies and the military readiness will be at an all time high. Aside from those most distinguished who appear before us today, I am hopeful we will also invite airmen and airwomen, sailors and soldiers who have firsthand experience having been in harms way and having not had sufficient training as a result of some environmental overload so that they can come before us and give us a firsthand story of what happened to them. Again, thank you for bringing these important issues to the attention of our committee. I hope through investigation and testimony, we can restore common sense and bring the importance of national security and military training back into focus. Mr. Burton. I will say that is something we had not considered but will consider, talking to some enlisted personnel whose training was cut short or affected by some of these frivolous suits. We will take a look at that. Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis. I have submitted a statement for the record. [The prepared statement of Hon. Jo Ann Davis follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.015 Mr. Burton. Mr. Horn. Let me say the last hearing we had, you had a number of questions and for some reason, we didn't get to you in a timely fashion and I want to apologize for that. Mr. Horn. Thank you. I have in front of me this paper, ``Military Installations by Congressional District.'' There are a number of errors in it and whoever handled it, I would be glad to tell them where the errors are. Jane Harmon is not a Republican, she is a Democratic. I must say if there is anything left of the Long Beach Naval Station where there was some 30 vessels and thousands of people starting in 1991, there is probably one little brick left. The Long Beach Naval Shipyard, which was put out of business because of Portsmouth is still around and yet they didn't have 10 percent of the record, that has been completely leveled except for the 1,000 foot long dock. There are some training operations there by the Coast Guard, the Marines and the Army. That is about it. We would love to have more training. We were sorry to see the Navy close up the pharmacy and I think it was moved to Seal Beach which is a few miles down the road. I did this in another hearing yesterday. We just haven't had the expertise of the Pentagon in getting rid of some of the contamination and that kind of thing and that is what we need in most of these barracks when they are closed. There are real problems. You need to get a brownfield there where you can have something industrial and that is what we have done. We have put it to the Port of Long Beach to use that property. Thank you. Mr. Burton. Mr. Cummings, do you have an opening statement? Mr. Cummings. No, I don't, Mr. Chairman. I am looking forward to hearing from the witnesses. Mr. Burton. Chairman Hansen, we saved the best for last. Do you have an opening statement? Mr. Hansen. I appreciate the opportunity to meet with this committee today. As I have been listening to the opening statements, they have covered almost everything I would like to say but if I may hit a few things I would appreciate it. I find it interesting every time we have the President of the United States here because one of the things they always say in their remarks is we have the best equipped and best trained military. That is nice to say but I almost think that promise we have given all our people is somewhat in jeopardy right now because I don't know how the training will go. I don't think there is any question in anybody's mind if you want to have the casualties go up, just stop training. I think that is the thing that is going to happen. We find ourselves in a situation on the Armed Services Committee and the Resource Committee of trying to say where is all this encroachment coming from? Frankly, it is like a slow moving cancer, every time I turn around there is another fire to put out on another range somewhere whether it is done for political reasons as I think some have been, or done because of commercial reasons, or environmental reasons, I don't know but every time I turn around there is another staring me in the face. As I take a very active part as chairman of the Resource Committee and one of the old dogs on the Armed Services Committee, I find myself in that position but I think there are a few things we have to look at. First and foremost is the fact that national defense benefits all Americans, it is not a luxury. The economic well being of our Nation depends on the security provided by the Armed Forces and far too often this is taken for granted. The second issue is the ability of the military to accomplish its assigned mission that is tied directly to readiness and the readiness of our military men and women requires access to realistic training. Therefore, our military ranges must be treated as the national asset they are and must be preserved for the security of the Nation. The third fact is training saves lives. It bothers me if I may say so as we look for what these Navy and Marine folks have on the East Coast, the thing that has always been a great asset to them has been Vieques. I have been there a couple of times and I am somewhat amazed that we are now going through this exercise of whether or not they will train there. I don't know if I will have this opportunity later but I would be very curious to know where you Navy folks, Marine people think you are going to go on the East Coast. I have heard everything from Jordan--have fun going up the Suez Canal, folks. I think that will be very interesting. I have heard Scotland, Italy and other areas. I really seriously doubt if any of those are going to work. The Air Force people as I look at the 33 areas we have in which we have live fire in the United States in the lower 48, every one of those we have now made an inventory and have gone through a certain amount of problems they have. The Utah Testing Training Range, in my district, is a huge district, zero to 58,000 feet of clear air space. Where do you find that. Where else do you find clear air space like that? Everyone says a few F-16s fly over there, they don't understand that. We have the Navy coming in from Fallon, the Air Force coming up from Nellis, the Air Force coming from Mountain Home, and I use that as an example. I could talk about all of them but I know I don't have that time. As I look at that, we now have a huge encroachment from the environmental community because they found a slimy slug or the ``ring-tailed ruperts'' or something out there that they want to work on and it comes down to the idea that some of these things you have to balance one between the other. We now finally after 4 years put the desert big horn sheep on it and that was after we looked at it in great detail to make sure the Newfoundland mountains were safe for them and safe for everyone and would not encroach upon the range. I hope some hot rod kid in an F-16 doesn't find those an easy target after all the work we went through. I say that respectfully. Don't take that any other way. We also get down to the idea of Goshan Indians want to put in the high level nuclear waste in that area. Fine. What do I hear from the Commander of the 388th, we don't want to fly there if there is an infinitesimal chance of something occurring. That may cut the range back 30 to 40 percent all by itself. The list goes on and on. Overflights, last year a very big environmental community or club you would all recognize filed a lawsuit right here in Washington before a very liberal judge that said you can't fly military aircraft over public land under 2,000 feet. Tell me how you are going to train? I put an amendment in the Armed Services bill that grandfathered that. Strangely enough when we finally got up to conference what did we find, we find the Secretary of Defense wrote over and said please take the Hansen language out because the environmental community would find it offensive. I can't believe that. We left it in. It comes down to the idea that negated that lawsuit. Then I find people who say we can't train on BLM ground, the environmentalists don't want us there. We have been training, the Army and the Marines, on BLM ground for years and probably can continue to do it. I personally have gone to some of those sites. They are in good shape, they reclaim them. They do a fine job doing it. In fact, some are better than when they went in there. Yet every year we are challenged with lawsuits in areas like that. Someone has to get their grips on this thing and come up to the realistic fact that we have to train our people. If we don't, I think we are in great jeopardy. As far as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, I think Chairman Stump is going to hold similar meetings to yours and I compliment you for doing this. Thank you. Mr. Burton. We will be contacting the administration as I am sure the Armed Services Committee will, giving them a full report on what the panel said and what the members of the military say. We would like you to stand to be sworn in if you don't mind. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Burton. Mr. Schrock, I think you have an introduction you would like to make? Mr. Schrock. It is my distinct pleasure to introduce to you and the members of the Government Reform Committee Admiral William Fox Fallon. Admiral Fallon currently serves as the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, the Navy's second highest position. For our topic of discussion today, Admiral Fallon brings a wealth of experience, wisdom and knowledge he has received from a very distinguished career. Admiral Fallon began his career flying combat missions in Vietnam. He has logged over 1,300 carrier landings and has flown over 4,800 hours in tactical jet aircraft. He was in charge of the Air Wing on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt during Operation Desert Storm. As an Admiral, he commanded the entire Roosevelt Battle Group during combat operations in Bosnia. More recently, then Vice Admiral Fallon was the Commander of the Second Fleet. During that assignment, Admiral Fallon became the Navy's foremost expert on training and ranges. Along with General Pete Pace, then the Commanding General of all Marine forces in the Atlantic, Admiral Fallon authored the July 1999 study on ``National Security Needs for Vieques,'' an effort that included an exhaustive investigation of alternative training sites. Last October, Admiral Fallon received his fourth star and became the 31st Vice Chief of Naval Operations. As the Navy's second highest ranking officer, Admiral Fallon remains the point man and principal advocate for the absolutely critical training that our naval forces require to ensure they are prepared to go at a moment's notice into harms way. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to present to you and the members of the committee, Admiral Bill Fox Fallon. Mr. Burton. How did you get the nickname of Fox? Admiral Fallon. If I can respectfully request to defer that question. Mr. Burton. We will let that go. Do you have an opening statement? STATEMENTS OF ADMIRAL WILLIAM J. FALLON, VICE CHIEF, NAVAL OPERATIONS, U.S. NAVY; GENERAL JOHN P. JUMPER, COMMANDING COMMANDER, HEADQUARTERS AIR COMBAT COMMAND, U.S. AIR FORCE, LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE; LIEUTENANT GENERAL LARRY R. ELLIS, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONS AND PLANS, U.S. ARMY; AND MAJOR GENERAL EDWARD HANLON, JR., COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. MARINES CORPS, CAMP PENDLETON Admiral Fallon. Members of the committee, it is a great honor to be invited here to offer some thoughts to you on this most important topic. I have a written statement which I would enter for the record. I would like to make a couple of points. The fundamental issue today is without realistic combat training, particularly training with live ordnance, we are unable to adequately prepare our young men and women for the operations and potential combat service which they may be required to perform in service to this Nation. That is the real issue. Increasingly we are having difficulty in attaining and maintaining the required readiness standards for our people in view of encroachment of all kinds throughout the world but particularly the training sites where we find it essential to have our people train before they go forward to their rotational deployments around the world. Navy and Marine Corps forces in their rotational scheme of deployment need to be fully trained before they leave the United States for a very important reason, the vast majority of our carrier battle groups that have left the United States from both the Atlantic and Pacific Coast in the last several years have been in combat operations over southern Iraq or in the Balkans and in some cases, immediately upon departure within a couple of weeks of leaving the States. It is imperative that we make sure this training is done correctly and to the fullest extent possible before they get in position where they have to go overseas because there is no telling how quickly they may have to. The opportunity to use foreign ranges, although welcome, there is no guarantee and it is not something we ought to plan on. We are finding that we are challenged particularly at sea these days in complying with the appropriate regulations which we fully do to the full extent, both in the spirit and letter of the legislation that is currently enacted but we are finding it a real challenge. We are having to modify our training operations to accommodate the regulations to the extent that our commanders must consult an often and growing lengthy list of rules and requirements as a prerequisite to training or planning any training exercise. That is increasingly a challenge for our people. Without live combat training, realistic combat training, not a patchwork workaround but the things they have to execute in the operational world must be training in advance. Without that, we can't send them forward in good conscience to take up this burden they so generously volunteered to perform on our behalf. I thank you for the opportunity to appear and answer your questions. We solicit your support in helping us with these issues. I stand ready to answer any of your questions. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Admiral Fallon follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.026 Mr. Burton. We were just joined by the vice chairman of the committee, Mr. Barr. Do you have an opening statement? Mr. Barr. I have an opening statement but in the interest of moving forward with the hearing, I would ask consent to include it in the record. Mr. Burton. Without objection. [The prepared statement of Hon. Bob Barr follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.028 Mr. Burton. Ms. Davis, you have an introduction? Ms. Davis. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for holding this hearing. I look forward to serving you and this committee in our oversight duties as we work in an effort to rid our government of fraud and abuse, making it more efficient and effective. I firmly believe the issues you have brought before us today are critically important to our national security and our forces are finding it more difficult to operate and train with the environmental, Federal and population issues that have increasingly risen. I am delighted to have the opportunity to find out from our military exactly where we stand on these matters. In this light, I am honored and privileged to introduce to this committee John P. Jumper, Commander of the Command Headquarters at Langley Air Force Base in my First District of Virginia. General Jumper is a man of high integrity and one of our Armed Forces' finest leaders. I have had the pleasure of meeting with General Jumper several times and I consider him a friend. As Commander of the Air Combat Command Headquarters at Langley Air Force Base, General Jumper holds the awesome responsibility of overseeing the organization, training and maintenance of combat ready forces for rapid deployment and employment while ensuring that our strategic air defense forces are prepared to meet the challenges of peacetime air sovereignty and wartime defense. Originally from Paris, TX, General Jumper earned his commission as a distinguished graduate of Virginia Military Institute, Class of 1966. He has commanded a fighter squadron and two fighter wings. The General also served in the Pentagon as Deputy Chief of Staff for Air and Space Operations, as a Senior Military Assistant to two Secretaries of Defense, and as a Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff for Roles and Missions. Before assuming his current duties, the General was the Commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Commander, Allied Air Forces Central Europe where he served as the Chief Air Component Commander during Operation Allied Force. I look forward to hearing General Jumper's testimony concerning the impact of restrictions on training ranges and military readiness. With his knowledge of military affairs and his extensive experience, I am certain the General will provide valuable insight into this matter. I introduce to you today, General John P. Jumper. Mr. Burton. General Jumper. General Jumper. Thank you. It is a pleasure to appear before you today. Let me echo the remarks of my good friend, Bill Fallon, as he described very accurately the status of not only naval forces but air forces in the training environment we find ourselves in today. Let me give you two very distinct examples of why training is so vital to our combat capability. The first example is a B-1. The B-1s that we tried very hard to bring into Operation Allied Force in the war against Serbia. We couldn't bring them in right away because they needed some additional testing for the defensive systems to include a new version of the tow decoy that was critical to their defensive suite. The testing was done on this on the ranges at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida and Ellis Air Force Base in Nevada. I gave them the last minute confirmation that we needed to confirm that capability. They deployed even with the test crews into Operation Allied Force and we watched them on the first night as they penetrated through Serbia air space and those two towed decoys were actually shot off the back of those airplanes saving the lives of those crews as they prosecuted their mission. We couldn't have done that had we not had immediate access to complete in a very rapid fashion this testing that was critical to the combat capability of the B-1 bomber. Those seven B-1s that we had in combat went on to perform magnificently during the rest of the war and actually closed a Serbian air field that stayed close for a year after the war was over. A second incident with Lieutenant Colonel Rico Rodriguez. Rico is a Captain in Operation Desert Storm who had shot down two MIG-29s in combat. He returned again in Operation Allied Force in Serbia as a Lieutenant Colonel. On this occasion, he was chasing down two MIG-29s that were attempting to get to one of our ingressing strike forces. He shot down one of the aircraft and chased the other off in exactly the type of scenario that we train for day in and day out at Nellis Air Force Base, where all the services come and work together in exactly the same kind of scenario and give us the confidence to be able to do in the heat of combat. Colonel Rodriguez trained as a young captain at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida and his skills were honed in the skies over Nellis, UT and other places as he was growing up in the Air Force. I also commend Chairman Hansen and his committee and the Resources Committee on their efforts to coordinate with the military services on those pieces of legislation that could have profound effect. It might not even be noticed if it wasn't for Chairman Hansen and his staff that comes forward to the military services and seek out our advice on where those impacts might take place. It is that kind of cooperation and coordination that makes us keep these ranges viable and useful to us for advanced training. I would say the services have a part to play in this too. I confess to you with some guilt that it wasn't until about 1994 or 1995 that the U.S. Air Force formally organized ourselves to address these range problems head on and formally coordinate with those agencies and interested citizens groups whose lives we impact when we do fly over the pieces of territory about which they are concerned. We have done this in the Pentagon, we have interfaced with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Air Combat Command. We have formal groups that go out and interface, listen to the concerns of the people and work out the differences. We find this open communication, just as with Chairman Hansen's Resource Committee, has gone a long way to help us resolve some of these range issues. We plan to continue to do that. I thank you for the opportunity to be here today. We look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of General Jumper follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.051 Mr. Burton. Thank you. Mrs. Mink has joined us. Do you have an opening statement? Mrs. Mink. No. Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays, you have an introduction? Mr. Shays. Lieutenant General Larry Ellis is the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans for the U.S. Army. In his capacity, he is responsible for developing Army policy, military programs and designing systems architecture. Additionally, he prioritizes all Army requirements and validates an annual $70 to $80 billion Army program. He is the chairman of several committees in the Department of Defense. In business sector terms, he is the chief operating officer for the Army. General Ellis has spent over 31 years serving in a variety of staff and command positions in the United States, Vietnam, Germany, the Republic of Korea and Bosnia. He has served in staff assignments at major Army Headquarters, the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the Department of Army Staff, Joint, United Nations and Combined Headquarters. He has commanded at every level platoon command, battalion, and brigade and division. Before assuming his current position General Ellis concurrently commanded 15,000 soldiers in the First Army Division in Germany and 14,000 soldiers in a multinational division, North Bosnia. I am happy to introduce and present to you General Ellis. I would also like to say, General Ellis, we always appreciated the cooperation you have given our National Security Subcommittee, Government Reform. Mr. Burton. General Ellis. General Ellis. Thank you for the introduction. Thank you for providing the Army with the opportunity to present our concerns about what has become known as encroachment to our training ranges and land. This is a challenging issue. The fact that we are discussing it today is recognition that societal changes, demographics and environmental issues are affecting training. In discussing this subject, we ask that you recognize the unique role of the Army in national security. We carry out our training not for profit or personal gain, but to ensure the readiness of our forces. As you are aware, a high state of readiness is critical to the mission accomplishment and to ensure we do not have excessive casualties. We have learned hard lessons in the past when our priorities overshadowed the need to train young Americans to face the uncompromising conditions of war. When we lose sight of our critical mission, we risk tragic consequences. We place in jeopardy soldiers who volunteered to serve this Nation. It is interesting to note that while maintaining our areas for training, about one half of 1 percent of the Nation's total land area, we isolate those areas from development. This creates havens for natural and cultural resources found in very few other locations. Army land preservation and training activities carried out long before environmental statutes were enacted served to protect the environment. We would ask those who seek to limit essential training to recall that it was good range management practices that permitted havens to exist and continue to flourish. Havens have occurred not in spite of training but because of the Army's excellent range management program. Today I want to deliver three key messages. First, the Army requires continuous, rigorous training to perform its Title 10 missions. Second, the cumulative effects of encroachment are restricting our ability to train and third, the Army has a strategy for addressing encroachment. It is a strategy of compliance with environmental laws and proved range management and seeking balanced application of environmental statutes. Turning to training, our units must train in the field and train often under conditions that replicate war fighting. Live training is an absolute requirement to maintaining readiness. Unlike some other professions, soldiers must occupy and move across terrain and when required, dig survival positions. To exercise these skills requires land and ranges. Modern Army weapons systems dictate the types of ranges and amount of land required. The land available to us already falls short of requirements to replicate battle spaces. As a result commanders must create and implement workarounds to train to standard. These workarounds are common and diminish the realism of training even before the effects of encroachment are felt. Simulations have served to help compensate for some shortfalls created by the absence and adherence to environmental restrictions but there is no substitute for live training. My second point concerns encroachment. The Army's training lands are now faced with the cumulative effects of over 30 years of progressive encroachment. As the areas around our once remote installations becomes urbanized, commanders have had to reduce training because of noise, smoke and other environmental considerations. Our two primary concerns are the management of threatened and endangered species and the potential for increased regulations of munitions during live fire training. Providing habitats for threatened and endangered species takes away from usable maneuver space already constrained and forces us to alter our ways of training. As a result, training becomes fragmented making it difficult to train under realistic conditions in order to hone soldier skills. As we project into the future, regulations of munitions and the aspect of encroachment could seriously disrupt live fire training. The application of regulations could ultimately end live weapons training as we know it. Discontinuing live fire training at a major installation would have grave repercussions on our training readiness. The Army's encroachment strategy focuses on continuing to comply with the law while fulfilling our mandated responsibilities. In doing so, we spent more than $1 billion last year on environmental management. In the execution of our responsibilities, we employ hundreds of trained environmental professionals and we are exploring new technologies to lessen the impact of training on the environment. We are implementing an even more sophisticated approach called Sustainable Range Management. This approach draws together training, environmental, explosive safety and facilities perspectives. We would hope to see environmental statutes administered based on consistent, measurable and objective standards. We seek a predictable application of statutes to balance soldier readiness with the requirements to protect the environment. In closing, I would ask you to recognize the unique role of your Army in national security. Rigorous and live training is an absolute requirement to remain trained and ready. The readiness of your Army is being restricted by the cumulative effects of encroachment. We fully understand that compliance with the law and protection of the environment is an absolute requirement. Our strategy is to maintain a balance between training and protecting the environment. Thank you for affording me the opportunity to appear before you today concerning this important issue. I have provided a statement for the record. [The prepared statement of General Ellis follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.077 Mr. Burton. Thank you. I don't know how this happened with the staff but I am an Army man, I thought I would be introducing General Ellis but now they have me introducing a Marine. We had tough times when I was in the Army with the Marines. I won't tell you some of the things that were said, I am just going to introduce you. We have high regard and respect for every Marine. [Laughter.] Major General Edward Hanlon, Jr. is currently serving as the Commanding General, Marine Corps, Camp Pendleton, CA which is home to 90,000 service and family members. General Hanlon is also responsible for providing training support to over 40,000 active duty and 26,000 reserve service members from all the services that train at Camp Pendleton each year. During his distinguished career of over 33 years, he served in key command and staff positions including a tour in Vietnam, Deputy Commander, Naval Striking and Support Forces, Southern Europe, and the Director of Expeditionary Warfare at the Pentagon. His personal decorations include Defense Superior Service Medal with oak leaf; Legion of Merit with two gold stars; Defense Meritorious Service Medal; Meritorious Service Medal; Navy Marine Corps Service Medal with Combat V and gold star; and the Combat Action Ribbon. General Hanlon I want to thank you for appearing here today. I hope you consider it an honor to have an Army man introduce you. General Hanlon. Thank you and indeed I do consider it an honor. Like my colleagues, I certainly appreciate the chance to be here this morning to talk to this committee. I am privileged to command Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, CA which is the Nation's premiere amphibious training base, 125,000 beautiful acres located along the southern California coastline. I am also here today with Brigadier General Jim Battaglini and he will speak at the later panel. Whereas I command the base, General Battaglini is the Deputy Commander of I Marine Expeditionary Force and can talk to you about some of the operational issues we face with encroachment. Based on my almost 33 months in command at Camp Pendleton supporting the Marines of I MEF who train there every day. I believe we have a problem. The problem is something we refer to as the conflict, a conflict between our military readiness or preparedness and what we refer to as encroachment. It has already been said by my distinguished colleagues but in the Marine Corps one of our central maxims is we train as we must fight. We must replicate or duplicate the modern battlefield with realistic, dynamic training and as General Ellis pointed out, training with live ammunition is essential. As Marines, we are a bit unique in that we train at sea, from the sea, on the land and in the air, using all elements of our Marine Air/Ground Task Force Combined Arms Team. We train for missions across the full spectrum from high intensity conflict such as Desert Storm all the way to humanitarian operations which have become so common place today. Camp Pendleton is a very busy place; we train over 360 days a year. About 45,000 training events go on there per year. That is about 130 a day. There is everything from squad patrolling exercises to brigade or regimental landing team amphibious exercises. My job as the base Commanding General is providing the environment for the Marines of I MEF to train, to provide to them the ranges, the training areas, the landing beaches and the air space they need to do their job. Encroachment can be defined many different ways but basically at Camp Pendleton we view it as pressure to curtail the military use of land, sea and air space in favor of nonmilitary uses. Pressure comes in many forms with urbanization I believe being the root problem. Urbanization leads to decreased tolerance for military noise, pressure on special use air space and commercial air needs, and increased demands for nonmilitary land use for regional infrastructure such as roads or an international airport which is a major issue in San Diego as the city of San Diego tries to come to grips with an international airport. They have run out of options and are looking at some of the military bases as possibly being a solution. Another aspect of encroachment is the unintended consequences of the well intentioned laws passed by the Congress. One that comes to mind for me is the application of the Endangered Species Act. At Camp Pendleton for years and years we have been exemplary stewards of the land and the natural resources you have entrusted to us. Today at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton we have some 17 endangered species on our base. Back in 1977, there were 3 and in 1994, there were 10 and now that number has risen to 17. There are many other endangered species out there under duress. I personally feel there will be more coming down the line. Along with that is the issue of critical habitat designations which we believe are unnecessary in view of our stewardship record. We believe critical habitat at least at Camp Pendleton is incompatible with military land use and our mission. Finally, the application of the Endangered Species Act through litigation is something we see as a concern. I believe that solutions are possible. I believe we are capable of being able to train Marines and at the same time, take care of our environment. I would like all of you to know we have an active public outreach that is significant and substantial. We reach out to our local communities, to the regulatory agencies we deal with such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Corps of Engineers, the EPA and others and we have a very active and very successful dialog with the State of California. I would like to compliment Governor Davis, his cabinet and members of the legislature in Sacramento for the initiative they have taken over the last 2 years to reach out to all the services in California to help us work through some of the challenges we face in that State. I am here to ask for your assistance because I believe the Congress can help us. It is the Congress that passes the laws of this great Nation and it is the Congress that gives us our Title 10 responsibilities. When these raise conflicts, conflicts we cannot resolve through outreach, engagement or negotiation at my level, we must turn to the Congress for guidance and clarification. We are not seeking special treatment. We are simply asking for scrutiny of the laws that affect our military readiness, we are asking for clarification of the laws that impact our readiness and asking for accommodation of our military missions, policies, regulations and laws. Our job is to be ready to fight and win our Nation's battles. We cannot compromise or abrogate that responsibility. If we do not reach solutions, I believe we will have increased risk to combat readiness paid by our Marines. Chairman Hansen I certainly agree with your comment 100 percent and that is that training saves lives. Thank you. That is all I have. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. [The prepared statement of General Hanlon follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.102 Mr. Burton. In your statement, General Hanlon, you lost training locations to a variety of factors. I know there is a lot of endangered species there but somebody told me there is about 17 miles you have of ocean frontage for training and it has been restricted to 1 mile or so for amphibious landings? General Hanlon. You are right. We have 17 miles of coastline that runs from San Clemente to our border with Oceanside, of which about 2.25 miles are available for what we call landings. Mr. Burton. Is that adequate? General Hanlon. If we had year round access to those almost 2.5 miles of beach, it would be adequate for what we are doing. The issue is because of seasonal restrictions to access to those beaches, we don't have year round access to the beaches. Mr. Burton. What do you mean seasonal restrictions? General Hanlon. Along our beach area there are a number of species, mainly birds that live along the beach area and particularly between March and September of every year they have a breeding season. During that time we are restricted in what we can do along those beaches. Mr. Burton. Is that 2\1/2\ mile stretch the only place they can breed? General Hanlon. No, sir but other parts were leased to the State of California years ago as part of a State park. Those 2.5 miles we use, the birds breed there as they do along the entire 17 mile coastline. Mr. Burton. If you had amphibious landing training year round, the birds probably would move down the beach someplace else? General Hanlon. Perhaps so, yes. Mr. Burton. So you have to stop training for 2\1/2\ months because of the birds? General Hanlon. During that time we are in that restricted period, we go through a very modified procedure in terms of our amphibious landings. It is almost an administrative landing. We bring the troops ashore on the beach and immediately drive down certain designated roads or areas and go inland getting off that beach. Mr. Burton. But that is not adequate training? General Hanlon. No, sir, it is not. Mr. Burton. What about the young men and women who are training during that period who may have to go into active combat? Are they adequately trained? General Hanlon. That is an issue and that is one of the reasons I am here because I believe it is concern. Particularly since we have units at Camp Pendleton that train all year, we put out what we call Marine expeditionary units that go out with the fleets. There are two that are in training year around and use the beaches extensively. During the period of time, the March-September timeframe, their access to the beaches is definitely restricted and they have to do workarounds as far as training is concerned. Mr. Burton. This is March to September? General Hanlon. To September. Mr. Burton. About 6 months? General Hanlon. About 6 months. Mr. Burton. 6 months of the year you can't use that beach for active training? General Hanlon. I would answer that by saying during those 6 months we have to modify how we use those beaches. Mr. Burton. You don't have to be political with me, it is not really adequate? General Hanlon. No, sir, it is not what we would like to do. Mr. Burton. If it comes to a choice between birds breeding and people surviving in combat because of lack of training, I think I would go for the people every time, the military personnel. We will submit what you just said to the Secretary of Defense and the President to point out that is something that should be addressed. Is this the only area on the West Coast where they can train for these things? General Hanlon. The only amphibious training base I am aware of on the West Coast is Camp Pendleton, CA. Mr. Burton. So for 6 months you have to do the work around because of the birds? General Hanlon. Yes, sir, correct. Mr. Burton. Did everybody get that? That is amazing. I hope the press is picking up on this. We ought to have every television camera in the country picking up this. General Jumper, what specific challenges does the Air Force face regarding air space acquisition? As currently proposed, how might the FAA's free flight program affect military operations? General Jumper. The plans that the FAA has to reconstruct the air space throughout the United States essentially will allow more point to point flights and limit the use of existing airways, do away essentially with the use of existing air ways. Mr. Burton. How will that affect your training? General Jumper. These point to point flights, if it is not properly coordinated with all the military services, will affect all our ranges, would essentially allow flights to go over or through our ranges. We do a good job today of coordinating with the FAA. You can see on charts during the times of peak air activity how the FAA vectors around all of our heavy use ranges. We do a fairly good job of coordinating on those things. On the weekends and times we are not using the ranges, you can see those airplanes go right through the ranges. Mr. Burton. Is there a restriction of training because of this? General Jumper. There could be. Mr. Burton. Is there danger added to the mix because you have these commercial flights going over these training areas? General Jumper. Yes, sir. We see that we will have altitude restrictions potentially and for this reason as this reconstruction continues, we need to do this in negotiation and consultation with the FAA so that the right rule sets can be put in place to accommodate our training. This is just getting under way but the potential for this to severely limit our training areas is very high, sir. Mr. Burton. It inhibits training which would endanger in combat our pilots and how about commercial aircraft? If I am flying across, are there commercial aircraft that might in some way be jeopardized? General Jumper. Again, this is just getting underway and I think through a process of negotiations, we can certainly make sure those kinds of dangers didn't happen. As it is currently proposed and without any negotiations with the military, the potential for those kinds of conflicts are certainly there. Mr. Burton. We will report this to the proper people to make sure we look into that as well? Mr. Clay. Mr. Clay. I would like to submit a statement of our ranking member. Mr. Burton. Yes. Mr. Delahunt also had a statement that we will also add to the record. [The prepared statements of Hon. Henry A. Waxman and Hon. William D. Delahunt follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.109 Mr. Clay. Let me ask the entire panel I want to make sure I understand what you are not saying. None of you is saying the services should somehow be exempt from the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act and other major environmental protections, are you? No? OK. General Ellis, having a former installation in my congressional district, does the Army feel any responsibility to those communities when base closings occur? I see in your statement that you try hard to be good neighbors. Is there any effort or can the Army reach a final disposition on that property in St. Louis, MO? I don't know if you are aware of all the facts but I would like you to take a look at the circumstances there. I think it is quite extraordinary. You have a munitions plant in existence since 1944 that provided ammunition for World War II and the Korean conflict and the Southeast Asian conflict and some of the byproducts are still there. Is there a possibility for you to take a look at that situation? General Ellis. I certainly share your concerns about past contamination at any Army base. I will take back your question to the appropriate staff agency and we will get back to you. I am not familiar with the specifics of the case you are asking but I will take it to my counterpart and see if we can get you an answer. Mr. Clay. I hear you talk about urbanization. Does the military take a different approach in relationship to urban inner city installations as opposed to more rural or suburban installations? Is there a different approach the military takes with urban installations like the one I am referring to? General Ellis. I am not sure there is a different approach. We approach all our installations by complying with the applicable laws and regulations, be it Federal, State or local, so our approach would be the same. Mr. Clay. Let me ask you some questions relating to Congressman Delahunt's concerns over the Massachusetts military reservation. As I understand, the installation is located above a sole source aquifer for drinking water, correct? General Ellis. Correct. Mr. Clay. EPA found that continued training activities threatened to contaminate the drinking water for nearly 150,000 permanent residents of Cape Code and over 400,000 seasonal residents, correct? General Ellis. Not exactly. Mr. Clay. Does the Army know how many of its other installations are located directly over or in close proximity to water aquifers similar to the Massachusetts military reservation? General Ellis. As I understand it at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, the groundwater is contaminated but not the drinking water. It may sound like I am splitting hairs but it is the groundwater contamination, not the drinking water. In response to are there other military installations that set on sole source aquifers, I will have to get back to you with that. I do not have that information available to me. Mr. Clay. I yield the balance of my time. Mr. Barr. I would like to extend my thanks to the panel for appearing here today and for the tremendous and lengthy distinguished service you have rendered to the United States. We very much appreciate that and are honored to have you here with us today. In addition to some of the matters we have touched on already, some of the matters the chairman discussed, one of the other issues that concerns us is the state of readiness of our fighting forces. Some of us recall last year there were a number of documents from the Army that I remember reading it was that 12 of the 20 schools training our soldiers in skills such as field artillery, infantry and aviation received the lowest readiness ratings and also in November 2000, the Pentagon rated two of the Army's 10 active divisions at the lowest readiness level. General Ellis, what can we do to improve this readiness situation both in the short term and the long term? General Ellis. In both of those cases, the readiness ratings were not necessarily directly related to training land and ranges. In the first case of the two divisions that were deemed not ready, it was primarily related to availability of personnel. We had no major shortfalls necessarily in training land availability. In reference to the most recent question concerning one of our divisions in terms of readiness, it was an issue of being able to redeploy back to home station in time to train and meet its wartime mission. The method we use for measuring readiness is readiness against our wartime mission. In the case of the latest division, it was deployed to the Balkans and in order for it to meet its wartime mission, it would have to disengage from the Balkans, redeploy to home station and then prepare to go to the war fight. So it was an issue of availability of time in that case. Mr. Barr. Is it your position there are no improvements that can be made or that need be made with regard to the readiness of our troops? General Ellis. I think there are always improvements that can be made. We have some shortfalls in readiness in other areas which we have addressed before the House Committee previously. we have some shortfalls. Those primarily fall in the category of shortfall in resources in some cases in terms of dollars, some shortfalls in ammunition in some cases, but most of those are being addressed. Mr. Barr. Do you have copies of the documents to which I refer? They were leaked Army documents that indicated 12 of the 20 schools training our soldiers in skills such as field artillery, infantry and aviation received the lowest readiness ratings? General Ellis. I do not have copies. I recall the article and that referred primarily to our training and doctrine command schools which we call a part of our base generating force. That is the force that prepares our soldiers for training. In most cases, those shortfalls were tied directly to dollar resources in many cases and the other was shortage of personnel. Mr. Barr. Will those be addressed in the budget that the President is submitting and the Secretary of Defense will be submitting? General Ellis. It will be. Mr. Barr. Admiral Fallon, what challenges does the Marine Mammal Protection Act present to Navy training and testing? Do you find that act is ambiguous? Admiral Fallon. This particular act presents some very significant challenges for a couple of reasons. One because it is applicable worldwide and primarily because the definition of the term harassment has been understood at least by most of the interpretations that are applied against us when these issues go before various courts and by the protection agencies as any disturbance of behavior. Mr. Barr. Any disturbance of the behavior of the fish? How do they figure that out? It is difficult enough with humans? Admiral Fallon. I don't know. That is a real challenge, I would think but something as simple as the sea mammal for example, picks up a sound and if he is eating, he stops. Mr. Barr. How do you know if he or she picks up the sound? Admiral Fallon. That is a good question. Mr. Barr. Are you being drawn into court on these issues? Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir. The way this typically works is various organizations will file lawsuits to restrict our training or some aspect of our training in a particular exercise. The ruling by the presiding official is usually taken back to a review of the legislation and interpretation of whether harassment has taken place or might take place. In terms of a concrete example, both the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act apply to turtles. So on the Atlantic Coast in Vieques where we have had lots of challenges to our training, the Navy has managed through good stewardship with the environment to introduce more than 10,000 hatching turtles to this island and we understand there has been a 70 percent success rate in these animals staying alive. In a recent exercise, we were restricted to one, the term is take, but one fatality to a turtle as the threshold of continuing that operation. So if two of these turtles were noted as being deceased in the vicinity, that would constitute grounds to terminate the exercise. It is this type of interpretation of the regulations that is creating a challenge for us. Mr. Barr. I know it is hard to argue this stuff with a straight face because it is so ludicrous. Admiral Fallon. We enter consultations with the various regulatory agencies as prescribed by the various statutes. We do this in good faith. It is a process by which we engage and exchange information but typically what results is a formal declaration or letter sent by the agency to the Navy or the particular agency of the Navy involved in the training. Increasingly these documents will contain very restrictive language regarding activities that frankly are operational matters. For example, in an exercise last year in the Atlantic in July 2000, we received a letter in which we were restricted to only 30 percent of our ordnance delivery operations at night because the feeling was that the night operations might be disruptive to some kind of mammal. Mr. Barr. It might wake them up? Admiral Fallon. Further restriction, only 10 percent of the surface fire support, the 5 inch guns from our cruisers and destroyers might be fired at night for a similar reason. These become a matter of record and the cumulative effect of all these notes and restrictions to the consultations become the groundwork for the next consultations. As we go into each of these engagements with the agencies, we have a higher and higher stack of restrictions with which we are trying to comply. It is very challenging. Let me show you how this becomes an almost endless stream of pain for our operational commanders. In Vieques because of the disruptions in the last 2 years to our ability to train, we have had to do workarounds. Many of them have been done on short notice. The consultation process is very lengthy quite often, so we end up scrambling with last minute patchwork attempts to put together something and faced with a last minute decision, our commanders will often accept what I consider sometimes very onerous restrictions on their operations because they are out of time, they need to get the training done and that is a way to get the nod from the presiding jurisdiction to do the operation. This is not a matter of something in the future. It is something we are dealing with right now every day around the world. Mr. Barr. Thank you. Mr. Burton. The gentlelady from Hawaii is recognized for 5 minutes. Mrs. Mink. I would like to ask permission to submit a statement on various issues covered in the testimony in view of the fact that we have a vote on the floor. [The prepared statement of Hon. Patsy T. Mink follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.111 Mrs. Mink. General Ellis, in your testimony you referenced prevention of use of the range since 1988 at Pohakuloa. I would like to ask if you could provide the committee with a fuller explanation of the circumstances of this issue was raised and whether that range is still not in use. My understanding is it is. The other question you raised has to do with the current controversy on the Island of Oahu at Makua Valley, a very live issue and one that presents concerns on both sides. It is difficult in a hearing like this because it puts those of us who question a particular training activity as though we were against the preparedness of our military. Of course that is not true. There are in many cases circumstances that require the military and use of these lands to pay particular attention to the cultural values that exist. That is the problem at Makua. My understanding is alternate training has occurred at Pohakuloa while Makua has been closed. I have a council resolution adopted by the Honolulu City Council in 1999 in which they point out that the Army has control over 4,000 acres, 3,000 of which are ceded lands. Ceded lands probably has no meaning for you but for the people in Hawaii that has tremendous significance. These were lands taken from the crown at the time of the overthrow of the monarchy and particular responsibilities to revert back to the Native Hawaiian community. It is over those 3,000 acres of ceded land that the Native Hawaiians pay particular attention. The live fire training has occurred on this property for many years. In the Makua Reservation are dozens of endangered species. The Hawaiian muck seal comes on its shore as well as the threatened green turtle and many others. It has sacred Hawaiian religious sites and over 150 archeological features. So it is not an idle issue over which concerns are being expressed by the Native Hawaiian community. Your reference to the fact that the Army has been meticulous in range management is something that needs to be taken into account. We want to make sure that where there is live fire, there is range management but as this resolution points out, 270 fires have occurred at Makua since 1990, only less than a decade. These are the concerns that have to be weighed against your general statement that concerns for endangered species by itself obstructs contests which have been permitted by the Congress. I take great deference to that statement. I would ask unanimous consent that this resolution be placed in the record at this point. [The information referred to follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.115 Mrs. Mink. Also, on the question of Makua Valley, I have a letter from the Army in 1999 in which they explicitly say ``Nevertheless as part of the settlement, the Army has chosen to do an environmental impact statement of its activities at Makua.'' I would like to have this inserted at this point also. [The information referred to follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.117 Mrs. Mink. The only remaining issue with regard to Makua where firing has been suspended since 1998 is whether an environmental impact statement is to be done. Despite the call of the council and others for an EIS, I don't understand why one has not been done. The court is to make a decision unfortunately on this matter at the end of May. Why should it have to go to a court if the Army acknowledged it would do so? I think a lengthy response to my general statement is in order. I would invite the Army to submit that for the record. In my submission of other comments, I would also say I have comments about the Navy as well. Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays, we have about 8 minutes; do you want to take your 5 quickly? Mr. Shays. I would like take my time and yield to Mr. Hansen. Mr. Hansen. As I listen to this testimony regarding the problems of the Endangered Species Act, I would appreciate some input from the people here because we have now put together a working group on the Resource Committee composed of five Republicans and five Democrats. This bill was passed in 1973 and if you read the original intent, it has gone way beyond that. It was never intended to go into subspecies, never intended to get into botany. It was always intended to be and always referred to the grizzly bear and the bald eagle. As we see now, it is an encroachment not only on you but in other areas. This should have been reauthorized in 1992 and it wasn't. We are hoping this equally divided committee can come up with some good criteria. We have meant to ask the military if you feel you could, we would love to have your input as to how you think it would work in regard to your work. Frankly, as I see it, the two things I would like to look at is the economy of the area and military, plus the idea of listing is way too easy and delisting way to hard. There are two things I think we should get into. That is some of the general guidance we have given the new working group. If you feel you could give us some information on how it would best serve you folks, that would be fine. We feel it has gone way beyond the original intent and it is now used as a harassing took by many organizations. If you look at the lawsuits filed by the extreme environmental groups, almost 85 percent regard Endangered Species Act. Somehow this has to be curtailed and get to the original intent of the act. I thank you for allowing me to be here today. Mr. Shays. Thank you. Admiral Fallon, I am very concerned about Vieques. I have visited there and I simply don't know where our Marine pilots, our Marines and our Navy practice. I would like to know if we lose Vieques where do we go? Admiral Fallon. The simple answer is we don't have an alternative to several of the key aspects of training conducted only on Vieques. We got ourselves in this position through a long series of realities of encroachment, population growth on the East Coast of the United States to the point where we had gotten to Vieques as the sole spot to be able to do several critical competencies. There is no place. We have been looking. Mr. Shays. We have 33 live ammunition areas but you need to be able to coordinate the activity of the Marines, the pilots and the Navy as well, correct? Admiral Fallon. There are really three critical pieces that cannot be done today at other sites. One is the surface fire support, to have a safe range where you can fire the 5 inch guns from cruisers and destroyers. Second is the tactical employment of air power. As General Jumper indicated, increasing air space restrictions even in the west where our premiere western range at Fallon, NV inaccessible to East Coast-based aircraft carriers is too far away, has air space cap restrictions on it a good portion of time because of FAA requirements for commercial traffic overhead. The only place left was Vieques and without it, we don't have an alternate site. Mr. Shays. We don't want to hold this panel while we vote. I have other questions and I will hand them to you. I would like to make sure the full committee gets a response to them and the National Security Subcommittee. I would like the Marines to answer them as well. Mr. Burton. We have a vote on the floor, so we will adjourn until the vote is finished. We will reconvene as soon as the last vote. [Recess.] Mr. Burton. Mr. Schrock. Mr. Schrock. I have heard this stuff and I sit here and seethe when I hear it. When the yellow bellied snail darter from some foreign country is more important than one of our Marines landing on Pendleton's beach for training that could save his life, I think something is wrong and common sense has left the equation. We need to get it back in there. I would like to ask Admiral Fallon and General Hanlon, what can we do? Obviously there is a bill somewhere that is conflicted. The Fish and Wildlife people are interpreting it one way because of what we did and the military is trying to adhere to what we want them to do. It needs to be deconflicted so we don't have these problems because it will not get better until we do. What do you want us to do? The ball is in our court. We need to do something. We created this mess and need to get it cleaned up. Admiral Fallon. Of particular help would be anything that would help to add consistency and shorten the time lines in the interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, particularly the understanding that certain actions may affect behavior of the various species. That would be a concrete example. The other in the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the term harassment is the key issue that is widely interpreted. Mr. Schrock. What is the definition of harassment in that case? Admiral Fallon. That question comes up again and again in the courts and other regulatory bodies. That is one if you could help us in that area to more narrowly define what this means, it would help. Mr. Schrock. My guess is if two birds are doing their thing on the beach at Pendleton and a tank rolls up, they are going to move. I think we are hampering the operations. Admiral Fallon. There is one other aspect. We heard from every one of the general officers today that we really do make a tremendous effort to take care of the environment. We are Americans, we live here, our families live here and are concerned about this. We go to extraordinary lengths and spend large sums of money to ensure we take care of the environment. Many times, we are not getting the appropriate credit. When we do things to take care of certain species, as General Hanlon mentioned in California, in Vieques and Coronado and San Clemente Island, we go to extraordinary lengths. We have on the West Coast at Camp Pendleton a 6-month time where we are severely restricted, San Clemente Island our closest counterpart to Vieques on the Pacific Coast has a 6-month period in which we cannot conduct activity, same kind of 6 month rule applies because of certain shore birds at Coronado on the Southern Coast, and we would like to get some credit for doing these things in terms of relief if you would in the act. The example of Vieques, thousands of turtles we have managed to propagate back into the environment through these conservation zones exist on the island but in the event more than one meets an untimely fate, then we are penalized with immediate cessation of the training activity. Another example is we have a very serious operational challenge in that there are some nations that have submarines that operate very quietly and are extremely difficult for us to find. There is a technology known as low frequency active sonar that has a tremendous amount of promise we feel in this area. We have been 5 years in an extended attempt to get this technology to the point where we can actually use it at sea. There is a seeming unending stream of objections to the use of this particular sonar. We have gone to extraordinary lengths with lots of scientific data in an attempt to show this does not cause physical damage to mammals and other creatures in the sea. We are yet to be able to use this thing. It may be absolutely crucial to readiness if we have to go against the current generation of undersea craft. Those are some examples of areas where you could help. General Hanlon. I would like to dovetail Admiral Fallon's comments. I would like to say that I was delighted to hear Chairman Hansen's suggestion about the working group that would take a look at the Endangered Species Act in terms of reauthorization and see how we might make it better. I think if I had to hone down my concerns to the real nub, what has happened is when you take a look at the Endangered Species Act when it was passed and how it has been interpreted to the present and responsibilities you give us in Title 10, it has come to a conflict, one that we are unable to break the log jam at our level. I think it comes back to the Congress to ask you to clarify the intent, specifically what it is the act is supposed to do and what it is you want us to do as far as Title 10 responsibilities and our ability to train the force. I think this working group from what he said is a step in the right direction and I applaud that. Mr. Burton. The sonar you talked about, I have watched some television news shows and they say beached whales and other mammals are being beached because of some of the experimental technology being used. Is there any validity to that at all? Admiral Fallon. You are probably referring to the incident last year in the Bahamas in the New Providence Channel where there were several whales, 9 or 11, that were stranded on beaches in the vicinity of that channel. There was naval activity ongoing at the time. The activity was going on that might have been pertinent to that and I think there was some cause and effect in this regard. It was not anything experimental at all, they were ship sonars that had been in use for decades. Mr. Burton. So it wasn't the new technology? Admiral Fallon. The new technology is a different kind of lower frequency sonar that has an ability for better detection properties against submerged objects. Mr. Burton. We don't know how that would affect sea mammals? Admiral Fallon. Yes, we have done many, many months and years of studies and we have concluded or the scientists have concluded this particular device does not cause damage to the creatures, the mammals. Mr. Burton. If you could send us some information, we will put that with our package and send it on to the Secretary of Defense as well as the President. Under the President's emergency powers, does he have the ability to suspend any part of the Endangered Species Act if it would endanger our national security or training of the military? Admiral Fallon. I don't know that. Mr. Burton. I would like to have staff check on that. In addition to correcting some deficiencies in the act, it might be advisable to also find out if the President has the ability through regulation or through suspension because of the defense needs of the country to suspend parts of it for training. General Hanlon. I am not an expert on this by any stretch of the imagination of a lawyer but I did ask my staff a similar question early on in my tenure at Camp Pendleton. The response I got as I recall is that in national emergencies, in dire national need, the President could probably do that for a short period of time, like all out war, something of that sort. The issue there is that is not what we deal with day to day. To the best of my knowledge, it has never been done. Mr. Burton. We will look into that and also look into the Endangered Species Act. Mr. Ose. Mr. Ose. I want to make sure I understand from General Hanlon the point at which your operations will hit the wall relative to encroachment? There has to be some point at which you cannot operate beyond. How close to that are you? General Hanlon. I guess I would try to answer that this way. When you use the term hitting the wall, it is like the marathon runner who at the 22 mile mark suddenly runs out of steam or stops. I would change that analogy and say it is more like the long distance runner who keeps running and every time he goes around the bend, there is more of an uphill and it becomes more and more difficult to run and progress. That is the issue we are dealing with today. I don't know you can reach out and say there is a sudden wall where everything suddenly stops but I will tell you that every day, every month, every year it gets more difficult to train. The point I make to the leadership in the Marine Corps is that one of the concerns I really have as I have been privileged to command at Pendleton is we are raising an entire generation of young officers and NCOs now dealing with workarounds. I remember when I was a battery commander in the 11th Marine Regiment at Camp Pendleton in the early 1980's, we could take out our howitzers, dig them in, bring in our engineer equipment, our bulldozers to dig berms, things that training people like you would do in combat. We cannot do that today. You tell the troops if you were in combat what you would do is dig this, dig that, bring bulldozers in and these are workarounds. These are becoming routine for us to do there and I think the lessons learned from that are in the long run very, very dangerous. That concerns me. As the guy responsible for providing a training environment for I MEF, this is why I bring it to your attention because I think we need to do something about that. Mr. Ose. I did appreciate reading your written statement. Thank you for the comments. Mr. Burton. Let me ask the same to all the others in particular the Army because when I was in the Army we went through maneuvers. Do you have constraints upon you as well as when you have to dig in and bring out howitzers and that sort of thing? General Ellis. Absolutely. We call them workarounds also. Instead of digging the foxhole, you would take engineer tape and you mark the area. Mr. Burton. Instead of digging a foxhole, you have to put a tape around and that is where the hole would be? General Ellis. We use engineer tape as a workaround and you would lay out the area. Mr. Burton. You mean to tell me those guys don't have to dig a hole like I did? General Ellis. In many cases, depending if there are environmental constraints. Mr. Burton. With that little shovel we had in our back pack? General Ellis. You don't do that anymore. Mr. Burton. What do they do when they go into combat and you hand them that shovel, do they say where is the tape? General Ellis. They could do that. That would be an example of a workaround. Mr. Burton. That is insane. General Ellis. There are numerous workarounds. There are others where there are issues during the mating season where we are required to stay on trails or paths because of disturbing habitat. Mr. Burton. So you cannot go out in a junglelike setting where you would actually be in combat? General Ellis. That area you must put off limits. General Jumper. I would say talking about where is the wall, I think another way to put it might be that the wall is just around the corner and we don't know where it is. We spend a lot of time trying to anticipate that thing that is going to close the final door. You wake up one morning at Nellis Air Force Base and there is a housing development you failed to anticipate being erected off the end of the runway and all of a sudden, you don't have the routes you need to get to the ranges. It is closed off for one reason or another because you failed to anticipate it or a piece of legislation to do with national parks that nobody thinks has to do with ranges but are in close enough proximity to ranges that legislation now has to do with the way you conduct normal training activity. It is those sort of things we live in fear of every day that you didn't properly anticipate or didn't have a chance to coordinate that loom large in our lives every day. So it is sort of creeping. It is uphill but I would suggest around one of these corners is a wall that we might come against we didn't anticipate properly. Admiral Fallon. We have a good chance of finding this wall in a very ugly way some day when we end up in a situation where we have people seriously hurt or who lose their lives in some type of military operation. There will be the inevitable finger pointing and how did this happen. We walk this dog back and find out we did the best we could here and there and given this and that restriction and that circumstances, it is the small steps, some seemingly insignificant. It is the issue we face every day--don't do it here, there has to be some other place to do it, here, there, everywhere, so we are like nomads looking for the solution. Reality today in aviation training, I think our strike leaders, our mission commanders are more focused in my opinion often on doing the administrative work of getting from one place to another so they can safely execute the mission given the myriad of restrictions with which they have to deal rather than sitting down and taking a looking at the problem and the optimal tactical or operational solution of that problem. The more that we get into that mode of operation, the more dangerous the path is going to be for our people in the future. I think it is insidious. Young people who never had the opportunity to do the extensive live fire training that we had to do, I think we run the risk of putting people in danger. That is probably the way things will go. Mr. Burton. I hope the Joint Chiefs of Staff express as clearly to the Secretary of Defense and the President the problems as you have. We will make sure this information gets to the proper sources. Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis. General Jumper, the example you used of the young captain, now lieutenant colonel who performed the same maneuver he learned in training, could he have performed that same maneuver if he had learned that training on simulation as opposed to actually doing it? General Jumper. The issue of simulation is one that we pay quite a bit of attention. We do quite a bit of simulation today but especially in the case I cited of air to air combat, there is no way you can sit in a simulator and appreciate the G forces and the physical stress on your body in a prolonged aerial engagement. No is there any way that you properly simulate all those frictions that go along in a real situation, like there is always a bad piece of communication, always having to sort out the good information from the bad. Simulations tend to be a bit more ideal and you don't get into the real frictions of war until you are out there in the real environment. Then the more we bring on these long range weapons, and there is a new series of joint weapons that are really missiles that fly out for hundreds of miles, it is difficult to train for those. We will train for those mostly in simulations but they are also going to require increasing amount of air spaces to go up and verify the results of your simulations. It makes the training ranges even more important because you don't get to drop these very expensive weapons in training, you do it in simulation and then the one or two times you get to do it for real, you are verifying all you learned. It makes the ranges more important. I think we have a good balance of simulation right now, we are doing a lot more distributed simulation between and among units, taking a lesson from the Army who does it very well and I think we will continue but it doesn't obviate the need for the kind of training we talked about today. Ms. Davis. Are there any bases or ranges right now that come to mind that could be critically affected by the restriction of the air space? General Jumper. There are none we are not working on very hard. All of them could be but we think we have done a better job of anticipating these sorts of resource management issues and other potential restrictions that we are trying to stay ahead of. I can't tell you there is a disaster waiting to happen. All of them are potential disasters if we don't stay one step ahead. That is working with all the local organizations and the concerned citizens. For instance, in the Idaho area this past week in one of the places on the range we have been negotiating for years to put some sensing devices there to do threat simulations and while they were doing excavation for this antenna, they found Indian artifacts. We immediately submitted them through the appropriate channels for proper consideration and there will be a 6-month delay before we can determine what our courses of action are that will be able to protect what will now be an artifact area. Those sorts of things I think we will get through eventually but it is now another 6 month delay on top of an appreciable delay working out this problem in Idaho. That is an example. Ms. Davis. Is there anything we can do to ensure that air combat fighters and bombers continue to get the training they need? General Jumper. I would suggest two things. One is the subject of this committee today, communication. You have given us the opportunity to talk about these things, you opened up this subject and I think that is critically important. The subject of legislation we talked about earlier, the ability for us to be able to coordinate legislation with potential impact I think is important and probably the best tool we have. If there is a way to consider from a policy point of view these very valuable ranges we have that give us the combat capability we have today, if there is a way to articulate the conservation need in terms of we will do the best we can to comply with the laws in these particular places, but maybe with due consideration that their prime responsibility in these areas is to train our people to go to combat. If there is a way we could do that, I think it would be helpful to our cause. Mr. Ose. One of the things General Jumper touched on that is a nuance here that I didn't realize until I read the statements last night was the manner in which we are conducting or preparing to conduct war has changed from a set piece kind of engagement where we are relatively close to the opposition to one where we are further back, stand off and the range of the weaponry is much longer. What we are confronted with is our training bases are designed on the historical norm of a set piece battle with relatively close proximity but the manner in which our technology now allows us to conduct warfare has taken that distance, that closeness to this kind of thing. So we are confronted with a situation not only on the environmental side, but how do we train for standoff battle when our training facilities are all set piece, close proximity? Mr. Burton. Mr. Barr. Mr. Barr. General Hanlon, we have MAG Unit 42 in our district at Naval Air Station Atlanta that share the runway and some facilities jointly with the Air Force at Dobbins. I do hear from your folks there they are concerned about not having sufficient flying time and sufficient training. This doesn't have anything directly to do with the recent problem with the close air support accident in Kuwait a few years ago but is that the sort of thing in your view could be avoided, that sort of accident with better training, more predeployment exercises with live fire? General Hanlon. When I was listening to Admiral Fallon earlier answer the question about Vieques and the training, put in the perspective of the Marine Corps, the reason a facility like Vieques is so important is it is an environment we can bring all the aspects that Marines could possibly use in combat, whether close air support, naval surface fire support, artillery, weapons, bringing them together at the same time as opposed to separate ranges. You can see the cumulative effect of all these combined arms on a target at one time and to understand timing considerations that go with that because timing is crucial. One of the other things you deal with is the issue of fratricide. The fact is how do you time things in such a way so you ensure the safety of not only your own personnel but other collateral damage you don't want to happen. That is one of the reasons you do this training to get that timing and get that sequencing and coordination and command and control together. Mr. Barr. Bring us up to date on litigation at Camp Pendleton with something called the California gnatcatcher. What is the status of that? General Hanlon. One thing I have learned about in the last 3 years are birds. The gnatcatcher is a small species of bird that is unique to southern California, a particular species of that bird the southern California or coastal California gnatcatcher that has been identified as an endangered species. That happens to enjoy using coastal sage where it likes to live. At Camp Pendleton we have a lot of coastal sage, about 50,000 acres as a matter of fact. The decision was made to declare it an endangered species not just at Camp Pendleton but throughout the southern California area. The Fish and Wildlife Service was going to declare a large area as critical habitat for the gnatcatcher. Fortunately, we were able to engage with Fish and Wildlife and get excluded from that particular critical habitat. We have 612 breeding pair. We have people that go out and find them. Each one, using GPS, we find each nesting pair, what coastal sage they are in and we locate it and on a map put a 300 foot barrier or circle around that nest to make sure our Marines don't go in there and disturb it. To the best of our knowledge there is about 8,000 acres that are affected by those 612 pair. What really concerned us was the original declaration of critical habitat was going to declare 50,000 acres on Camp Pendleton, just extraordinary in my mind. If there was only 8,000 acres being used by the birds, why would you use 50,000 acres. There were a lot of reasons but not the least of which was of budgetary constraints, it was easier to just do broader areas. To their credit, we were excluded. What happened is other folks affected by that designation of critical habitat, some developers and other communities, took umbrage with the fact that we were excluded. Camp Pendleton, the Federal agency, the Marine Corps, was excluded and they have now said they are going to sue the Fish and Wildlife Service saying they didn't think that was fair. That is in the beginning stages of litigation and I am not exactly sure where it is in the court system. Mr. Barr. So when your Marines go out on an exercise, they have to carry with them some sort of map that shows where these bird nesting areas are and they can't trespass on those? General Hanlon. We do. Mr. Barr. If they go into a real situation overseas somewhere, are they going to go like this rather than take a straight line somewhere? General Hanlon. No, sir, they are not. Company commanders and battalion commanders, squad leaders, platoon leaders, one of the things they are taught when they come is they go through a course where we show them exactly where the various areas are and what they can and cannot do. We talked about workarounds earlier. We have one area called DZ Tank Park a very famous place on Camp Pendleton that for years has been used for mechanized units to train, tanks, AAVs, light armored vehicles and what have you. It was good because you could maneuver over a large area. That has been severely restricted because of what we call the fairy shrimp located along that area. We have had to confine our units to the roads. Mr. Barr. A what? General Hanlon. A fairy shrimp, a small animal that lies dormant until the rainy season comes. They lie in what we call mud puddles but out there they call them vernal pools. During the rainy season in California they come alive. As a result, the units in that area have to stay on roads. Again, this is one of the workarounds. You don't want your Marines learning when they go through an area they have to stick to a road because that is not the way they do it in combat. Mr. Barr. Thank you. Mr. Burton. Is this the only place these birds nest? General Hanlon. The gnatcatcher? No, the gnatcatcher has a range throughout southern California. It is in Orange and San Diego Counties. Mr. Burton. Do they stop at the Mexican border or go south below the Mexican border? General Hanlon. My understanding is they are also located in Baja, south of the border. Mr. Burton. If you conducted exercises that would upset these birds, they probably would move a little further south, right? General Hanlon. I am sure they would move yes, sir. Mr. Burton. We had a problem like this with the spotted owl and they stopped something like 40,000 acres of logging and said the spotted owl couldn't live anyplace except in these trees. After they stopped the logging and put about 5,000 or 6,000 people out of work, the spotted owls were nesting behind billboards, on top of light poles and everything else. Some of this just sounds goofy to me. The birds can move south. They don't stop at the border and there are places where they go down there in the Baja where there is no military training and yet you do workarounds? In the Army, you take tape and make circles showing this is a foxhole so you don't dig into the ground and disturb the worms I suppose. What nonsense. Who is next? Mrs. Maloney? Mrs. Maloney. They wanted to take 50,000 acres in Camp Pendleton? General Hanlon. Yes. Mrs. Maloney. Condemn it or what? General Hanlon. No, declare it as critical habitat, an area which if we were going to use that area for any kind of military training, we could not do that without consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service. That is what critical habitat means. Mrs. Maloney. You appealed this decision? General Hanlon. Yes. Mrs. Maloney. And you got it changed. What would that have done to you if you couldn't have 50,000 acres? General Hanlon. The cumulative effect of all the critical habitat at Camp Pendleton, not just the gnatcatcher but others as well, is about 70,000 acres. The base is 125,000 acres. So we were talking potentially 70,000 of 125,000 acres being declared as critical habitat. That means before a Marine unit can go in there and train, you have to consult. Consultation can go anywhere from 90 days to a year depending how large and complex the evolution is going to be. What happens is it takes the spontaneity and the flexibility that a battalion commander or regimental commander or platoon commander would want to have. Mrs. Maloney. You basically couldn't use the property in the traditional way it had to be totally changed but you got it back. It is 50,000 acres. General Hanlon. The Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to exclude us and not declare that 50,000 acres as critical habitat because we engaged with them and said this would be unsatisfactory. Mrs. Maloney. You mentioned many private property owners were very upset that you were able to negotiate for yourselves but not for them. What about the private property owners, what recourse do they have? Is there a way to appeal the decision or do they just have to go into court, with Fish and Wildlife? General Hanlon. As I understand, the folks concerned about it were some of the larger landowners and developers in Orange County who were concerned we were excluded. Through their attorneys they have put together a lawsuit against the Fish and Wildlife Service for excluding us and not excluding them. I don't know where that is right now. Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays. Mr. Shays. There clearly needs to be a balance between the first need, national defense and ways you can accommodate the training facilities and still get the job done. General Ellis, you are nodding more than others, thank you. For the record, the answer is yes and the question is balance. There are some absurdities which we can laugh and make jokes about. I think an honest dialog about this is absolutely imperative. We have sadly a record within the military of chemicals being misused, thrown on property. Isn't it true we still have sites around the country that have necessary chemical cleanups? General Ellis. I can't specifically answer that question. I am sure there probably are. Most of those issues are worked at the local level with the commander. Mr. Shays. The obvious answer is we have the New London submarine base that has some chemical challenges, military bases, Army bases, Marine bases and we haven't the resources and money to take care of them, so we basically ignore them. Isn't that true, gentlemen? General Ellis. No, we don't ignore them. Each of those issues is being worked. I am not sure we are ignoring any of them. Mr. Shays. Maybe I am using ignore differently than you. We have not yet cleaned up. All of you are high ranking officials, the Air Force, the Navy, the Marines and the Army. Mr. Burton. Excuse me for interrupting. Evidently there is a fire someplace in the building and they have asked everyone to evacuate. I am sorry but we will have to suspend the hearing until this is finalized. We will see you back as soon as the fire alarm goes off. [Recess.] Mr. Burton. Let us try to conclude the first panel. I appreciate your patience. Ms. Davis, questions? Ms. Davis. Does anyone have any idea dollarwise what the military spends fighting these lawsuits for these species? General Ellis. I am not sure we can put it in terms of dollars to fight a lawsuit but I can tell you what we spend in trying to be good stewards. I asked for the information in reference to Mr. Shays' question earlier. The Army has several programs to address the clean up of contaminated areas and he asked what were we doing. In three areas, in installation restoration programs, we have $390 million a year we are spending; in BRAC to address the clean up we have $280 million a year; and then something called formerly used defense sites, FUDS, we spend $230 million a year and that goes to the Corps of Engineers to facilitate, for a total of $900 million a year from the Army in this area. The question was are we doing anything to correct past sins and the answer is yes, we are. In fact, all known past sins we take those on. If there is one out there, we don't know about it. Mr. Burton. What are you spending on enhancing training, are you spending $900 million on it? General Ellis. I would like to have an additional $900 million. Our training is tied into what we call our up-tempo program. Mr. Burton. I am curious to see how it equates to the money you are spending on these environmental issues. General Webster. For training each year, we are spending about $9 billion a year for training. Mixed in there are training enhancements. Ms. Davis. I wondered if anyone knew the court costs, the lawsuit costs? General Ellis. I don't know. General Hanlon. In the case of the gnatcatcher the lawsuit right now is with the Fish and Wildlife Service, so they are involved in the litigation and costs associated with that. So far it has not crossed back over to us. I could find out from Headquarters Marine Corps what other costs we may have had to pay over the years in terms of similar lawsuits. We can find that for the record. General Jumper. In the Air Force, we have about $400 million a year we spend on environmental compliance of one type or other. I don't know how that breaks out to the lawsuits in particular but we can also supply that for the record. Admiral Fallon. The Navy spends over $300 million a year and we project continuing expenditure at that rate through the next 5 years working environmental cleanup. Again, I don't have a breakout of the legal fees but I do know it is more than the Navy--we use Justice Department legal help with most of these lawsuits, so it is bigger than just the military. Mr. Burton. Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis. After the Rumsfeld report comes out and the smoke clears, there is probably going to be another round of BRAC. My question when or if there is another round of base closures, how much in your recommendation to a BRAC Commission of this plays into the closing of bases and forts, the community support, the environmental problems that may be at a particular installation? Can you give me an idea how much that plays into your recommendations to a BRAC Commission on whether that base or fort should stay in existence? Admiral Fallon. I'll take a stab. Just an opinion. I can tell you that the community support aspect is very significant. It makes a tremendous difference to have the confidence of the local population in any one of our activities. I would tell you there has been such a change just in the last decade. I was here when we went through the early BRAC rounds and I would say from my perspective then, the environmental piece was not that significant. Given the dramatic growth in issues and problems over the last decade, it is probably going to be more of a factor than before. How much, what percentage you give that versus some other, I couldn't tell you but it would be more significant than the last time. General Jumper. I can tell you when we look at Air Force bases, range accessibility, distance to ranges, the regulatory problems with those ranges weigh very large in our decision on such a recommendation. I think it plays a significant part in how we would consider. Mr. Lewis. That plays very heavily in your cost analysis of whether you can keep that installation viable or not? General Jumper. Yes, sir. General Ellis. I don't know I can add anything to that. I know there is usually a set of criteria and we weigh the criteria. In most cases, those decisions are made in other rounds after we make recommendations. Oftentimes the recommendation we make is not necessarily the one taken. Mr. Lewis. General Ellis, I have Ft. Knox in my district and I didn't see it in your written statement as being one of the installations with particular problems as far as environmental concerns. I am sure there are some but I didn't notice any. It wasn't pointed out like some of the others. Do you know of any particular problems Ft. Knox may have? General Ellis. I would have to get that for the record. What I know is we have 153 endangered species across 94 installations, across the Army. It runs the gamut and I would have to look up Ft. Knox to be exact. I can provide that to you. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Mr. Burton. Mr. Schrock. Mr. Schrock. I heard General Hanlon talk about the endangered species, the gnatcatcher. I was wondering does the Navy have comparable problems with endangered species since you are at sea all the time? Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir, there are lots of issues. One that comes to mind immediately out on the West Coast, San Clemente Island, there is another small bird known as the logger head shrike in small numbers and on San Clemente there was a major effort to actually count the total number. When this was done a couple of years ago, the number was 13 and the population has grown to 42. We have now introduced a domestic breed, a basic program of reintroducing these ourselves. Our people are spending their time going around counting birds but the impact is because of the nesting areas, the restrictions that have been imposed include one of the two live firing ranges has been reduced in size by 90 percent and the other by 50 percent. The other side is you do well in preserving these things and they tend to expand their range, so they are now encroaching on the remaining two live ordnance spaces. During the breeding season, the shore bombardment range is closed 4 of 7 days of the week so they can count the birds. Mr. Schrock. Who pays for that? Admiral Fallon. We do. Mr. Burton. I have been informed that the cost for maintaining the logger head shrike and all the investigations is $2.4 million. Ms. Davis. Is that our military men and women going around counting the birds? Admiral Fallon. I would say there is probably a mix of military people and our civilians that we hire to do it. I know many of the conservation people I have run into are civilian hires working for the Navy Department. We probably have some military engaged in this as well. General Jumper. It is a combination of both. We have the same situation with the prong horned antelope out in Arizona. They roam the plains in Arizona and New Mexico. We have hired biologists to go out and monitor the movement of these antelope so when the airplanes come on the range, the people on the ground can tell the airplanes they can't bomb there during that period of time. We hired the two biologists on the range to monitor the animals and we have to react accordingly. Mr. Burton. Don't the animals leave when a bomb goes off? General Jumper. Yes, sir. They are pretty smart, they do leave when they hear the sound of the airplanes most of the time. To be fair, we don't lose a lot of sorties because of this but every time you brief a sortie onto this range, you always have to brief the backup antelope plan what you are going to do in case the antelope are there and you have to do something else. Like Admiral Fallon said, it digs into your administrative time that you are spending and not doing the mission. Admiral Fallon. We have aircraft that fly continuously on the ranges and the waters along Vieques looking for sea turtles and if they find one, all operation ceases. Mr. Burton. Because of a sea turtle. Let me conclude with this panel with this question and I have a request for all of you. Do you believe these encroachment issues are of such significance that it is time for the Service Secretaries and Chiefs to formally address them as a serious readiness concern when they appear before the military committees of the Congress? Admiral Fallon. It is a growing problem. The answer is yes and I think there is a recognition of that fact. I can tell you when I first came to Washington about 6 months ago I was invited to a Secretary of Defense/OSD meeting at which this issue of encroachment was discussed in readiness terms in exactly the right forum with the right kind of discussion going on. It is clear to me this is recognized as a major and growing issue and I think it is going to be addressed. Mr. Burton. Do you all agree? General Jumper. The answer is yes and I think my Service Chief is anxious to bring it up if it doesn't come any other way. General Hanlon. Our Commandant I think already has brought it up in front of some of the Defense committees in his testimony. Mr. Burton. General Ellis, the same? General Ellis. Yes. Mr. Burton. Secretary Rumsfeld you believe will be made aware of this in addition? Let me ask you after the hearing would you please provide us a comprehensive list of suggestions on how the Congress might be able to address some of these issues. We would like that in writing so we can put it possibly in the form of legislation as well as referring the issue to the President and the Secretary of the Defense Department. Would you please ask your Service Chief to provide this committee examples of your military units with fluctuating C- ratings attributable to incomplete training, insufficient type training time or inadequate training areas from January 2000 to the present. I think you probably were prepared for that question, so if you could send us that information, we would appreciate it. With that, thank you very much for your patience, your candidness and I promise you we will be sending correspondence with your recommendations to the people in question and probably have a number of Members of Congress sign that. Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis. Could I ask unanimous consent to ask further questions in writing and have them included in the record? Mr. Burton. Yes. Any other Member that has questions, if you wouldn't mind we would like to submit those for answers as well. Thank you. We will now have our next panel come forward. Panel two will be Lieutenant General Leon J. LaPorte; Brigadier General James R. Battaglini; Captain William H. McRaven; and Colonel Herbert J. Carlisle. Would you please stand and be sworn as well? [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Burton. Mr. Ose. Mr. Ose. I have the distinct pleasure of introducing one of our witnesses, Brigadier General James R. Battaglini. General Battaglini is currently serving as the Deputy Commanding General of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force which is comprised of an infantry division, an air wing, a service support group and a command and control headquarters located at several bases in southern California and Arizona. At over 43,000 Marines and sailors, it is the largest standing air/ground combat task force in the world. It is responsible for conducting missions throughout the spectrum of war from high intensity combat such as might occur in the Korean peninsula or did occur in Desert Storm, down to low intensity operations and humanitarian assistance operations. His areas of responsibilities are primarily in the Pacific, Asia, southwest Asia or the Persian Gulf area and eastern Africa. This force has a proud combat history that includes every major conflict in the last century. General Battaglini was commissioned a Marine Corps officer in 1971 and served in key command and staff assignments at every level in the United States and overseas. Some of his career highlights include Reconnaissance and Infantry Platoon Commander, Infantry Company and Recruiting Station Commander, Infantry Battalion Commander, Operations Officer for the 2d Marine Division during Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm; Commanding Officer, 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit with Special Operations capabilities; Chief, United Nations Division, J-5 on the Joint Staff; Military Aid to the Secretary of the Navy. He has also been the Commanding General of the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at Parris Island in South Carolina. His personal military decorations include the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with gold star, the Bronze Star with combat V and the Combat Action medal. I am pleased to introduce General Battaglini. Mr. Burton. In order to expedite the introductions because of time constraints and because we are running late, let me introduce the other members of the panel as well. Lieutenant General Leon J. LaPorte is the Commanding General of the III Armored Corps in Ft. Hood, TX. There he is responsible for 37 percent of all U.S. active Army ground combat power to include the III Corps, the 1st Calvary, the 4th Infantry Division and the III Armored Calvary Regiment. The III Corps has over 75,000 soldiers and 24,000 combat vehicles and aircraft. The III Corps is the most powerful armored corps in the world and has installations in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado as well as units and soldiers deployed worldwide. In fiscal year 2000, III Corps deployed over 46,000 soldiers outside the United States. General LaPorte was commissioned a second lieutenant in 1968 and has served in a variety of command and staff positions in the United States, Vietnam, Germany and Southwest Asia during the Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He has commanded at every level platoon, company, battalion, brigade, division and now the III Corps. He has also served in a variety of staff positions to include instructor and assistant professor at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, Armored Colonels' assignment officer and before assuming command at III Corps, served as Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Operations at Headquarters, Department of the Army. Welcome to you. Captain William McRaven, U.S. Navy, is a 1977 graduate of the University of Texas and has been a Navy Seal for the past 24 years. He has served in every leadership position within the Seals including Seal Platoon Commander, the Officer in Charge of Regional Security Team for Central and South America Task, Unit Commander during Desert Shield and Desert Storm and the Commanding Officer of Seal Team III. Captain McRaven is a qualified diver, parachutist, demolition expert and submersible pilot. He has a Masters Degree in National Security Affairs and is the author of a book on special operations. He is currently the Commander of Naval Special Warfare Group I in San Diego. Group I is responsible for training and deploying Seal platoons to the Pacific Command and the Central Command. Our final panelist is Colonel Herbert Carlisle, Commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. The Wing's mission is to maintain the world's best rapidly deployable air control and superiority forces for theater commanders in chief. Since World War II, the Wing has superbly executed that mission and is nicknamed the Nomads for its consistent travel. During World War II, the Wing saw action in North Africa, Mediterranean and CVI theaters. Upon activation at Eglin during the Vietnam conflict, the 33rd deployed eight squadrons of F-4s to southeast Asia. Over the skies of Vietnam they scored two of the toughest aerial victories of that conflict. Throughout the 1980's the Wing was called upon to support numerous contingency operations such as the urgent fury in Granada and Just Cause in Panama. About 1990 of August, they were one of the first wings to deploy for Operation Desert Shield and as Desert Storm began, their winning tradition in the skies continued as Nomads scored 16 aerial victories including the first kill of the war and the most kills of any single unit. The Wing also flew more combat hours and sorties than any other unit in the theater. Subsequently the 33rd Wing has been involved with numerous rotations enforcing the no fly zones over Iraq in support of U.N. sanctions. Likewise the Wing has supported Operation Restore Hope in Haiti, flight over Bosnia and more recently the Allied Force in Yugoslavia. As you can see, the Nomads are one of the most experienced combat wings in the U.S. Air Force today. The Wing currently has two fighter squadrons consisting of 54 F-15 CD air superior aircraft and Air Control Squadron, Operations Support Squadron, Logistic Support Squadron and Maintenance Squadron. This equates to 1,800 assigned personnel and approximately 3,000 family members. On a yearly basis, the Wing flies over 10,000 sorties and 14,000 flying hours, primarily utilizing 25,000 square miles over water and over land air space in the England- Gulf Coast range complex. Very impressive all of you and thank you for being here. We will start with General LaPorte. STATEMENTS OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL LEON J. LAPORTE, COMMANDING GENERAL, III CORPS AND FT. HOOD, U.S. ARMY; BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES R. BATTAGLINI, DEPUTY COMMANDING GENERAL, 1ST MARINE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE, U.S. MARINE CORPS; CAPTAIN WILLIAM H. MCRAVEN, COMMODORE, NAVAL SPECIAL WARFARE, SEAL GROUP ONE, U.S. NAVY; AND COLONEL HERBERT J. CARLISLE, COMMANDER, 33RD FIGHTER WING, EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, U.S. AIR FORCE General LaPorte. Thank you. III Corps is a war fighting organization. Every day this past 2 years we have had nearly 6,000 soldiers deployed overseas, so our concern is always having our soldiers prepared to fight. Military training is not incompatible with environmental stewardship. In fact, I would ask the committee to constantly remind us of our stewardship responsibility because as American citizens we need to do what is right. We work hard each day to achieve the appropriate balance to accomplish both these tasks. We have had considerable success at Ft. Hood because of tremendous relationships we have forged with the community, Federal and State environmental regulators. I will tell you very candidly we are suboptimizing our training. Eighty-four percent of Ft. Hood, an installation of nearly 200,000 acres has some form of restriction that limits the training that can be conducted on the reservation. The cumulative effect of these restrictions impacts our ability to execute realistic and demanding training that our soldiers deserve and require. The recognition that valid military training requirements must be an element of the analysis, decision and enforcement of our Title 10 responsibilities as we implement the environmental laws is critical. I believe we must have a more holistic approach to application of the environmental laws and regulations on our ranges and training lands. Laws that protect the environment are currently applied independently of one another. Too often this leads to the protection of some resources at the expense of other resources and the overall detriment, the overall health of our ranges and training areas. The myriad of restrictions makes the use of available training lands more difficult for units and more complex than is necessary for the sustainability of these lands. You must be able to balance training and environmental stewardship to maintain readiness and sustain healthy ecosystems. I look forward to answering your questions. [The prepared statement of General LaPorte follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.159 Mr. Burton. General Battaglini. General Battaglini. I would like to get into the negative impacts of the training and how it has affected the Marines at I Expeditionary Force. Our Marines are either forward deployed or they are training to deploy and because of that, we see it is imperative that we are prepared and we train the way we fight. In addition to my duties as the Deputy Commanding Officer of the 40,000-plus Marines, I am also the Commanding General of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade. The Brigade is our mid- level size air-ground task force that is our premiere force for response to small scale contingencies, short of when we would commit the MEF itself. I thought it would be beneficial if I could provide you my own experience recently regarding the cumulative effects of encroachment on our training. During the later part of March and into April we conducted a I Marine Expeditionary Brigade level size exercise called Kernal Blitz, conducted off the coast of southern California and on the beach at Camp Pendleton to the training areas at the base. The exercise included about 20 Navy ships, 50 Marine Corps aircraft we had operating off those ships and over 10,000 Marines and sailors participating. I would like to begin with our landing on the landing beaches. Our movement from ship to shore during our amphibious assault as we call it, our tactical movement was restricted as we landed across the primary beach because of riparian habitat that supports several endangered species. I will try to draw a picture of what this does to us. We land across the beach and have to take into consideration the habitat. Interstate 5 runs parallel to the beach about 1,000 meters inland, so between the beach and the highway we were limited to two single lane roads because of the habitat and archaeological site located in the area. Once we get to the interstate, we take these two single lane roads, converge and we have one single lane road that goes under the interstate to the training area. We are moving across there, 2,500 Marines and 500 vehicles in the course of landing so it is very slow and very restricted. Once in the training area, we also are restricted by the habitats and planning we have to do to get around the restrictions there. That was our primary beach. We used a second beach where we landed light armored reconnaissance company, strictly administrative rather than a tactical movement due to the presence of the endangered species the snowy plover, the Tidewater Goby and the California least tern. There were some people watching where we landed and directing us so we can move up and get into the training areas. There are two other beaches we are allowed to use at Camp Pendleton to make it four but we are restricted to these two. The other two because of the season of the year, we couldn't land across those, so it restricted our tactical ability to employ any kind of options. We land across the beach and a second beach and move up to prosecute the rest of the exercise. Once we land with our forces, our lead infantry units are moving inland, going after the enemy and the enemy is someone you are trying to have a mental game with, trying to outsmart him, trying to tactically out move him but he knows too that you are restricted here. Our artillery lands behind our infantry and the intent is as the infantry moves forward, the artillery will provide support. The artillery commander and the tank commander wanted to set up firing positions in established areas to actually fire but were restricted from firing because of air space restrictions. We were restricted to 2,000 feet overhead. We couldn't fire our guns, our forward observers in the impact area adjusting would get the training there and weren't able to and then the battalion staff and fire support coordinators were not able to get that training. Our tank company commander comes ashore, he wanted to employ his tanks in a blocking position. Once he lands, he follows the road he has to follow to get to the training area and is going down to a flank of an infantry unit he is providing support but he has to move down a road which is not tactical and he gets to the position to set up the flank security, he can't get off road and he can't entrench himself so this prohibits him from doing the training he would be required to in combat. Finally, so we can move through testimony, our infantry company commanders could not have the Marines set in a hasty defense using fighting holes because digging on Camp Pendleton must be preapproved after environmental analysis. That gets into a company commander being able to make a tactical decision where he wants to send in his people. Those are but a few examples of the impact of encroachment on training and hopefully it provides some indication of what we face. For Marines to succeed, we must train as we fight. Our training must be realistic and allow us to exercise our mission essential tasks. The key note of the effects of encroachment significantly reduce our training options, result in unrealistic training, create bad habits and severely limit the opportunity for junior leaders to develop their initiative and tactical judgment which is essential in combat. We work hard to find ways to satisfy both our training requirements and the issues raised by encroachment. However, the problem we face, sir, is that every year additional encroachment issues and additional restrictions on our training. New restrictions are piled upon existing restrictions with the result that our ability to realistically train our Marines continues to significantly diminish. On behalf of all Marines, we appreciate your willingness to hear our concerns today. We would ask that you clarify environmental legislation when it conflicts with our Title 10 responsibility to train our Marines for combat. Thank you, sir. [The prepared statement of General Battaglini follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.166 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.171 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.173 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.174 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.175 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.176 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.177 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.178 Mr. Burton. Let me ask, you were describing a combat operation and training exercise and if you have that in writing, is there any way I can get that in writing so we can incorporate that into our correspondence with the President and the Secretary of Defense? We would like to have that. Captain McRaven. Captain McRaven. I also appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today on how encroachment is affecting the readiness of the Navy Seals. In 1987, Congress established into law the Special Operations Command and as a result of that legislation, the Navy Seals and Special Operations Forces at large are better manned, trained and equipped than at any time in our history. Our ability to conduct combat missions wherever our Nation needs us has never been greater. However, as a result of environmental restrictions and urbanization, the costs in manpower, money and operational tempo to maintain that high degree of readiness have risen dramatically. As an operational commander, these costs have a direct impact on our command's ability to prepare for combat. There are four thoughts I would like to leave you with today. First, in order to be ready for combat, we have very specific training requirements that must be met. The majority of that training takes place on ranges. Second, owing to encroachment, quality and availability of our training ranges has diminished dramatically. Third, in order to maintain my high state of readiness I have developed workarounds but unfortunately these workarounds are expensive and require my personnel to be away from their home station. Finally, when you combine these factors with the new law that limits a servicemember's time away from home, you will find that our ability to maintain our combat edge is in serious jeopardy. The Navy Seals have two primary missions: reconnaissance and what we call direct action, raids, ambushes, sneak attacks and obstacle clearance for amphibious landings. Most of these missions originate from the water and require us to work in small units, behind enemy lines at night with little or no outside support. In each of these missions, our readiness is directly related to the quality of our training ranges, in particular, those ranges situated near the water which allow the Seal platoon to come across the beach and engage targets with live fire and explosives. Seals average 103 days per year on a range. Learning these skills is not just a matter of proving one's professional knowledge in combat, these skills are a matter of life and death. Unfortunately, the Seals' ability to train on these ranges is becoming increasingly difficult. Environmental regulations enforced by Federal, State and local agencies have placed a significant financial and manpower burden on our staff, but more importantly, these restrictions limit training and force my Seals to seek ranges outside of California. This subsequently decreases the quality of training and increases the Seals already excessive time away from home. Let me give you a couple of examples of how encroachment is impacting the quality of my training of my Seals. On San Clemente Island, we have a range called Eagle Point. It was an over the beach, live fire range used during the 1960's, 1970's and the early 1980's. Unfortunately, in early 1990, Eagle Point was placed off limits owing to the nesting Sage Sparrow and Island Night Lizard. The Westside Range, typically used for 50 caliber and life explosives, has also been shut down to accommodate the expansion of these nesting areas. In 1997, one- third of San Clemente Island was designed an Island Night Lizard nesting area. Subsequently, no live fire, no demolitions, and no ground disturbing activity is permitted in that area. Camp Billy Machen located near the Sultan Sea in Imperial Valley was established in 1966 at the south end of the vast expanse that makes up the Chocolate Mountain Bombing Range. Seals preparing for deployment to Vietnam would spend months living at Camp Billy Machen training on the range. Here they exercised long foot patrols from the camp site, across the desert to the Chocolate Mountains. Through the desert and mountain passes, they were able to conduct 360 live fire operations simulating engaging enemy targets from any threat sector. This ability to quickly respond to an unanticipated threat from any direction provided unparalleled combat training. After Desert Storm, the demand for training at Niland increased and in 1994 Naval Warfare constructed a new $10 million facility at Camp Billy Machen. Unfortunately, in 1996, a large portion of the Chocolate Mountain Bombing Range was set aside as a critical habitat for the Desert Tortoise thereby limiting ground activity. In order to preserve this vital range, the Navy and the Marine Corps were forced to restrict the usage of the Chocolate Mountain Bombing Range to air access only and while Camp Billy Machen still has some superb static ranges, no where is there the ability for Seals to foot patrol and conduct 360 degree live fire. Since 1980, the Naval Amphibious Base Coronado has become increasingly restrictive due to the nesting by the Western Snowy Plover and the Least Tern. Seals no longer conduct significant maneuver or dive training around the base. As the quality of the ranges in southern California diminish, Seals are exploring other options to maintain their combat edge. With the current limitations on live fire on maneuver ranges, Seals have resorted to using blanks, paint ball, laser tag, and simulated ammunition. While each of these methods has some training value, none of them, absolutely none of them, has the stress effect of live fire. While there are some quality live fire ranges in the United States, the Seals have to travel out of the area to reach those ranges. Complicating our readiness is an issue with the 2000 National Defense Authorization Act which limits the number of days a servicemember can be away from home. It requires a four star, flag or general officer waiver for any member that is away from home for more than 220 days in a rolling 365 day period. While I strongly support this law, when one considers that a normal Navy overseas deployment is 182 days that leaves only 30 or 40 days available for training away from your home station. Consequently, the availability of quality ranges in the vicinity of one's home station is absolutely essential to maintaining readiness. While I have focused almost exclusively on Navy Seals, this encroachment issue affects every Special Operations Force assigned to the U.S. Special Operations Command from our Army Green Berets and Rangers to the Air Force and Army aviators who fly our rotary and fixed wing aircraft, restrictions on land, air and water ranges extol large costs in money, manpower and operational tempo. If this encroachment continues, the cost of doing business will severely impact the combat readiness of these soldiers, sailors and airmen. The reduction in our combat capability will not be immediately apparent. Command leadership will identify reasonable workarounds that simulate combat conditions as best as possible but make no mistake about it, over time the combat edge will become dull. Special Operations personnel have one goal in mind to win in combat and bring their men home alive. There are countless ways to go through the motions but to build a war-fighting capability that will succeed on the battlefield and keep America's young men and women safe, we need ranges that provide the whole spectrum of combat skills training. While combat readiness is our No. 1 priority, it has always been our intent to be good stewards of the environment. I look forward to working with those local, State and Federal agencies responsible for the oversight to develop a reasonable, balanced approach. I thank you for your time and interest on this very important issue and I standby to answer any questions you might have. [The prepared statement of Captain McRaven follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.180 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.181 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.182 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.183 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.184 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.185 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.186 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.187 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.188 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.189 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.190 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.191 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.192 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.193 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.194 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.195 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.196 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.197 Mr. Burton. Thank you, Captain. Colonel Carlisle. Colonel Carlisle. I also would like to thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today. I would just like to make a brief statement from an Operational Commander's perspective. The single greatest advantage we have over our potential adversaries is the way we train. Not too long ago, we enjoyed a significant technological advantage over our adversaries. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case not with the current systems we fly and employ today. In many cases, adversaries are at parity with us and in some cases, they are actually better than us. So the importance of how we train and the importance of these discussions cannot be overstated. I have submitted my written testimony, so I am ready to answer any questions you might have. [The prepared statement of Colonel Carlisle follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.198 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.199 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.200 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.201 Mr. Burton. Thank you very much. Let me start with you, General LaPorte. You said 84 percent of Ft. Hood is restricted at some time for some purposes? General LaPorte. Yes, sir. I have some exhibits that could show you the cumulative effect of that encroachment. Mr. Burton. I would like to see those. General LaPorte. Would you put up exhibit No. 1, please? This is an outline of Ft. Hood. It is nearly 200,000 acres and does not include the contonement area, it is all contiguous. The next exhibit is an example of the encroachment from Killeen. The northern part of Ft. Hood is north of that yellow line. You can see to the south right around one of our major air fields, the city of Killeen is built right up to the fence line. That is a significant challenge to us to conduct training and night aviation operations. The next exhibit shows the no dig areas on Ft. Hood, 64 percent of the area on Ft. Hood is listed as no dig. Mr. Burton. Explain to me, when you say no dig, you mean you can't even dig a foxhole? General LaPorte. No, you can't dig a foxhole, can't dig fighting positions. Mr. Burton. What percent, 64 percent? General LaPorte. 64 percent. Mr. Burton. Why is that? General LaPorte. It is a combination of protected Corps and non-Corps habitat for endangered species. Mr. Burton. What endangered species would cover 64 percent of the land mass from digging a foxhole? General LaPorte. We have two endangered species at Ft. Hood, the Black-capped Verio and the Golden-cheeked Warbler. Mr. Burton. What are those? The warbler is a bird, isn't it? General LaPorte. Two birds. Mr. Burton. How is digging a foxhole going to hurt the bird? General LaPorte. You can't disturb their core or non-core habitat. There is no digging allowed. The opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service creates that sanctuary for the birds and during the nesting season, which is March to September. You can't go through there at all, so there is no training allowed whatsoever in that training area. Mr. Burton. Are we videotaping this? I want to send a copy of the videotape, along with our stuff. This is ridiculous. I am a little upset as well because I had to dig and I hate it that these guys don't have to dig anymore. The ground was hard and it was cold. [Laughter.] General LaPorte. We teach soldiers that dirt is a combat multiplier and if you dig holes you can survive on a battlefield. This is why we suboptimize training. Mr. Burton. I know. General LaPorte. This an example of the non-core habitat. I will tell you that the Fish and Wildlife Service has worked with us in reclassifying what was core to non-core habitat which gives us a little more flexibility but in non-core habitat, you can see year around, no digging, no open fires, no tree or brush cutting, no destruction of the habitat, which for a mechanized force becomes challenging. That is 10 percent of the training area. Go to the core habitat. The core habitat year around has the same restrictions as non-core habitat but during the March through August period, there are no vehicle or dismounted maneuver, no movement whatsoever, you have a 2-hour limit to transit the area, you can't use any smoke, artillery, any type of bivouac or camouflage nets. Mr. Burton. You can't bivouac in that area? General LaPorte. No, sir, not during the mating season. Mr. Burton. I wouldn't have minded that because I didn't like bivouac anyhow. It was five above zero the last bivouac we had and it was cold. I had an air mattress that had a hole in it. Back in those days, you had an air mattress and you put your sleeping bag on top of the air mattress and every time I got the thing blown up, which we had to do manually, the air would start leaking out of it. Just about the time I would get to sleep, I would hit the ground again and wake up. [Laughter.] General LaPorte. These are cultural sites that are safeguarded under various National Historic Preservation Acts. At Ft. Hood, we have nearly 1,200 sites protected, nearly 2,200 sites identified. What that means is you can't dig within 50 meters, no construction or destruction and no traffic moving through any of those sites. So you see how it starts adding to it. Next slide. We have restrictions on the use of smoke and a mechanized force, obscuration of the battlefield is a critical combat multiplier that we want to train on at every level. Because of encroachment, primarily urban encroachment, we are no longer allowed to use smoke in the areas covered in that purple color. Next slide. Finally, Ft. Hood has a great relationship with the surrounding community and noise encroachment is a very manageable problem. We still have problems with the northwest side of our reservation in terms of artillery fire but you can see the cumulative effect of all that is 84 percent of the training area has some form of restriction for a mechanized force. The last slide, to keep this in perspective, a brigade in World War II used a terrain about 8 kilometers by 12 kilometers. That is what they fought in. The brigade we just trained at the National Training Center, the digitized brigade of the Fourth Infantry Division, trains and is expected to operate over a 50 x 50 kilometer space. You can see the significant requirements that we now have and we have shrinking insulation to execute this mission essential training. Mr. Burton. General Battaglini, it is my understanding that the First Marine Division practiced at Camp Pendleton beaches for 6 months before they assaulted the island of Iwo Jima in World War II. Are you allowed to train the same way today and if not, can you tell us why? General Battaglini. The base was established back at that time, I believe around 1940 or 1941 around the time of the Second World War obviously for the use of the beaches in preparation for Marines to go overseas. Restrictions as we know them today were not existent. I would make the point that weaponry since that time have changed throughout the years. The restrictions we find ourselves in now that they did not have then, a lot of the ranges were set up for the capabilities of that time and now we find we need to maximize every available bit of space for our training. Mr. Burton. You have weapons that are much more far reaching than what you had in World War II when you used the Browning automatic rifle and the M-1 and you don't have any space for it? General Battaglini. We need to maximize the space that we have to accommodate the weapons that we have, sir. As we look to the future in all of our ranges, we need to be able to accommodate by adjusting the space that we have to the enhancements in technology that will affect our weaponry and our tactics. Mr. Burton. Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis. Thank you. Colonel Carlisle, you are here as a representative of all Air Force combat pilots? Colonel Carlisle. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Davis. If we were to have a commander come from each base, do you think they would say the same things you have, that encroachment is a critical problem for them? Colonel Carlisle. Yes, ma'am. Actually, I don't think you would have to restrict it to Air Force. I think you could restrict it to every service because every service has some form of air power that participates in the overall game plan for a joint force that we put forth in any contingency. Clearly, even the Navy's impact of the AK's and we add the honor of hosting them at Eglin because they had to go somewhere, but that all puts training on everybody's range as we get more and more restrictions. Even Ft. Hood when we do close air support with those guys and take up our A-10's, those air space restrictions can cause havoc with our aviators and their aviators. So it wouldn't be just the Air Force; I believe it would be all the services, range encroachment has a significant impact. Ms. Davis. Do you think it affects morale and that question would be for all of you? Colonel Carlisle. I definitely think it affects morale. Clearly, we have been fortunate to be on a winning team, we love to win, everybody wants to win and we have been very fortunate to do that. Part of winning is training the way you are going to fight like everyone said before me. Clearly when we go to a combat region, we were employed to win, so we have to train that way. If we are air space restrictions were kept and altitudes we can't go above, that is not realistic or we can't go supersonic because of noise complaints, that is not realistic. All those make you less capable of doing the mission the way you will do it to go out and win. That clearly has an impact on morale. Ms. Davis. Do you think this is affecting retention in any of the services? Colonel Carlisle. I do personally. I would say there are a bunch of factors that affect retention as everyone knows. There is a push-pull, there is being pushed out of the military and there is the pull of the economy which everyone talks about. The push part of the military, one of them is the way we train, there are a bunch of components. Clearly the ability to train the way we are going to fight and the ability to employ our airplanes the way they are designed to be employed is a factor. Ms. Davis. I think we all know F-15 pilots sort of have an ego anyway, so if they can't train, then they probably aren't too happy. As a Wing Commander, do you or any of your staff meet with the FAA? Colonel Carlisle. Yes, ma'am. At Eglin, it is a very, very big process. We have three different flying wings, four different total wings. We have what we consider a national treasure in the range space. The Eglin air space is truly a national treasure and an asset that every service uses and participates with. We all participate in that. We all meet with the FAA on a normal basis. We have representatives from all the different wings and we have a fairly large agency on Eglin that deals with them a lot and we all have members of that board. Ms. Davis. Do any of the others of you want to comment on anything? General LaPorte. Your question on retention, I don't know if there is a direct correlation but our young officers and NCOs understand task conditions and standards, that is the way we train. They are executing a task, not to standard because the conditions under which we conduct that training do not allow them to do that. That is frustrating to them. Ms. Davis. I will yield the balance of my time. Mr. Burton. Mr. Schrock. Mr. Schrock. I would like to ask you a question, Mr. Chairman. In Captain McRaven's testimony, he said he has to deal with environmental laws and regulations enforced by Federal, State and local agencies. I thought if it was on a Federal reservation--maybe I am wrong--local and State regulations had no bearing. Is that right or not? Mr. Burton. I think we had better ask the panel. I am not familiar. Since it is a military base controlled by the Federal Government, don't they have control and don't they supersede the State and local requirements? Captain McRaven. Yes, sir. I am not so much sure it is the law itself but the interpretation of the law at the local level that is presenting some problems for us. As an Operational Commander, I deal through my chain of command and Naval Base Coronado has an environmentalist in the Natural Resources Branch that works with all of the local agencies to ensure we are in compliance with the law. Again, a lot of that comes down to the regulators and how they interpret the Federal, State and local laws and how that impacts us at that level. Colonel Carlisle. I also believe the EPA delegates a lot of their authority to the local and State level, so they actually have Federal authority at the local and State level. We may own the base but if we have to fly over or traverse part of the local area to get to a training range, that also becomes a factor. Mr. Schrock. Then you have three masters to deal with? Colonel Carlisle. Yes, sir. General LaPorte. We deal with them equally, State, local and Federal because of the way the law is written. Mr. Schrock. This is the most educational day I have had since I have been here. Like the chairman, I can't believe some of this stuff exists. We have to do something about this and quick. Mr. Burton. We will summarize the points raised by both panels and ask members of the committee to co-sign a letter authored by me to both the President and the Secretary of Defense. Also, we will look at legislative proposals to correct that. We have asked the first panel and we will also ask this panel for any recommendations or insights you might have on legislative reform that would correct the situation. We hope you will give us that information so we can try to deal with this problem. Mr. Schrock. I would like to be at the front of the line with any legislation to help you. Mr. Burton. Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis. That brought up a point. I am assuming sometimes you are forced to build in areas where you train and where you just conduct mitigation. What agency do you work with if you have to conduct mitigation and where do you get the money for the mitigation? Colonel Carlisle. In my case, we work with all three: local, State and Federal. Clearly the Federal level delegates a lot of that down to the State, so we have to deal with all the different levels of the Government. The money is out of pocket to a large extent. Eglin in particular spends about $20 million a year on environmental issues. That includes compliance and endangered species, a variety of things and it is basically O&M, operations and management money that you don't fix the infrastructure, you spend it on environmental compliance instead. Ms. Davis. You mean the money that you won't have to pay your electric bill this August 1? Colonel Carlisle. That would be the same money, yes. Captain McRaven. That is actually the money that goes toward readiness and sustainability of the force as well. One of our biggest problems at my level, I am only an O6 Commander but when you take $1.6 million over 3 years in order to conduct environmental assessments and impacts statements out of my budget, that budget takes care of one SEAL team for an entire year, just to give you an idea how much of an impact it has had on us. Colonel Carlisle. There was one case where we had grates at Langley that because of the age of the base, they were decaying. We put a left main landing gear of an F-15 through a grate, the airplane fell on its side, bent the nose gear, popped the tank, it was a bad day. We spent money to buy a Fish and Wildlife assessment person to make sure we didn't kill any Canadian geese instead of spending money to fix grates on the runway. Ms. Davis. That wouldn't have been the same Canadian geese that were on the golf course? Colonel Carlisle. Those would be the very same. Mr. Burton. And they all ought to be shot. If you have ever played on a golf course with a lot of those geese, you can't hit a shot. Ms. Davis. I am more concerned about them going into the plane's engines and losing a pilot. Mr. Burton. I am concerned about that too. One question we didn't get to ask of the first panel was in the last quarterly readiness report to Congress in 2000, the Air National Guard received a C4 rating in operations and training. Can you tell us what that means? We are relying more and more on the Air National Guard and the National Guard, is this affecting our capability and readiness? Colonel Carlisle. Yes, there is a portion of that coming from the range encroachment. The Air National Guard, obviously are in every State and very prolific with different ranges and different air fields and are not as centrally located in a lot of cases as the active because they will basically have one squad with airplanes at different bases. The ability to get to a range they can actually use and if you use the restrictions they have to fly under with respect to altitude, subsonic flight, that poses a significant effect on their abilities. Mr. Burton. Just like it does the active military? Colonel Carlisle. Yes, sir, but they have to deal with a lot more than we do. They have less time to go to Nellis, less time to UTTR and less time to come down to Eglin to fly with us. Mr. Burton. So if they are called up on active duty and have to go into a combat situation, even as a backup, and get into combat, they have some severe problems? Colonel Carlisle. Potentially, some of the units could have problems, yes, sir, because of their ability to spin up and spin time. With the AEF, we are trying to make it predictable and schedule their training in those good ranges like Nellis and UTTR and down at Eglin right before they go on an AEF cycle. In the past, that was not that way. Mr. Burton. All of you served in Desert Shield and Desert Storm with great distinction and we appreciate that. 293 American men and women were killed in these operations and another 467 were injured. All of you can answer but General LaPorte, do you believe your units are able to train today like they did for Desert Storm and if not, I would like you to explain briefly what this means in terms of loss of life in the event we have to go into a combat situation as we did with Desert Storm and Desert Shield. I know it is tough to do because it is hard to compare what you think is going to happen with what did happen but it sounds to me like if we went into a combat operation like that today, we would probably lose considerably more personnel and have more injured. Am I correct or not? General LaPorte. I was the Chief of Staff of the First Calvary Division and we left Ft. Hood and went into Saudi Arabia with 2\1/2\ months of unrestricted training we were able to conduct as a division before we went north. I don't believe any adversary is going to give us 2\1/2\ months to conduct unrestricted training in the future. That is why it is so important, very similar to the Seals that we are able to train at home station so we deploy right from Ft. Hood. We get on boats and planes and land someplace that we are able to fight without a major opportunity for training. Colonel Carlisle. The only comment I would make is in the 1980's, our pilots flew more sorties than they did in the 1990's. Mr. Burton. Training sorties? Colonel Carlisle. Yes, sir, and there are a variety of reasons for that. We are flying 10 year older airplanes, aging airplanes is a factor, some issues with MC rates and declining MC rates. When we went into Desert Storm, the average pilot got more sorties in the 1980's than he has in the 1990's. That would have an impact. Mr. Burton. Was the maintenance better on the equipment then? Colonel Carlisle. There are a variety of reasons why the MC rates have gone down, the age of the aircraft, some parts shortages, and also manpower and retention. Our maintenance manpower is significantly different. We also train to a different concept. We train to fill the gap, the host squadron deploys and fights a war in Central Europe and we are all there at one time. Now, I send six airplanes to Northern Watch, six airplanes to Iceland and six airplanes to Keyflavic or to Southern Watch. Now, I am taking that maintenance unit and splitting it into thirds. All those things are different than they were in the 1980's which has a big impact. Mr. Burton. Captain McRaven. Captain McRaven. About the mid-1990's, we have flat lost a lot of our tactical training range, particularly at San Clemente Island owing to a lot of encroachment issues there. Some of those ranges were absolutely key in our ability to come over the beach, engage a target with live fire and retract back over the beach. Certainly by virtue of the fact we have lost some ranges, a lot of that capability has diminished. We have developed some pretty good workarounds but part of my biggest concern when we look at encroachment, I view it not only as the environmental and urbanization and accessibility, but the National Defense Authorization Act talks about the amount of time my Seals can be away from home, when you take a hard look at that, that is absolutely going to encroach on my ability to train. We talked earlier about is there a wall out there? In all honesty, I can tell you that wall is a lot closer than a lot of people think when you start laying what we call eye tempo act over the ranges where we have to conduct our workaround are outside the southern California area. We will not be able to stay within the law and still conduct the level of training we have historically conducted. Mr. Burton. General. General Battaglini. I would merely say that I agree with General LaPorte, I think we need to caution ourselves if people refer to the Gulf war as any sort of measure of readiness for the reasons the General said. We all went there and were able to train. Our mission is to be prepared and we need to be prepared now to go and to engage, to be committed to combat and if we are not prepared, we are doing a great disservice to those young men and women that all of us are responsible for. Mr. Burton. Let me conclude by saying to you, the first panel and everybody in the military, we really appreciate your dedication and your service and everything you do for this country. I am appalled as my colleagues are. I am sorry we didn't have more on the other side of the aisle to hear this because I think it is a bipartisan issue or nonpartisan and everyone ought to understand the problems you are facing. We are going to try to make sure we raise hell until people start listening and I promise we will do that. I am known to do that around here, so we will make sure some fences are rattled. Perhaps we will get something accomplished for you. We want to make sure you are ready to go into combat, God forbid you ever have to do that again. I hope you will submit your views in writing so we can incorporate that in the correspondence we are going to give to the relevant people. With that, thank you very much for being here. I ask unanimous consent that Representative Janice Schakowsky of Illinois be appointed to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources and without objection, so ordered. Thank you for being here. We stand adjourned. [Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.] [Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.379 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.380 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.381 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.382 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.383 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.384 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.385 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.386 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.387 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.388 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.389 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.390 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.391 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.392 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.393 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.394 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.202 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.203 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.204 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.205 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.206 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.207 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.208 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.209 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.210 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.211 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.212 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.213 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.214 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.215 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.216 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.217 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.218 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.219 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.220 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.221 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.222 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.223 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.224 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.225 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.226 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.227 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.228 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.229 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.230 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.231 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.232 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.233 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.234 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.235 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.236 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.237 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.238 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.239 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.240 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.241 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.242 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.243 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.244 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.245 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.246 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.247 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.248 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.249 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.250 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.251 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.252 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.253 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.254 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.255 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.256 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.257 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.258 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.259 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.260 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.261 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.262 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.263 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.264 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.265 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.266 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.267 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.268 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.269 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.270 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.271 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.272 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.273 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.274 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.275 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.276 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.277 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.278 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.279 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.280 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.281 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.282 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.283 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.284 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.285 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.286 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.287 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.288 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.289 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.290 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.291 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.292 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.293 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.294 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.295 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.296 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.297 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.298 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.299 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.300 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.301 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.302 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.303 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.304 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.305 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.306 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.307 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.308 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.309 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.310 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.311 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.312 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.313 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.314 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.315 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.316 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.317 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.318 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.319 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.320 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.321 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.322 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.323 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.324 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.325 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.326 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.327 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.328 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.329 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.330 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.331 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.332 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.333 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.334 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.335 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.336 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.337 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.338 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.339 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.340 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.341 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.342 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.343 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.344 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.345 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.346 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.347 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.348 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.349 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.350 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.351 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.352 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.353 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.354 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.355 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.356 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.357 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.358 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.359 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.360 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.361 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.362 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.363 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.364 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.365 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.366 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.367 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.368 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.369 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.370 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.371 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.372 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.373 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.374 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.375 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.376 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.377 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5041.378