>> good morning mr. president, mrs. obama, vice president biden, secretary clinton the other distinguished heads of state in distinguished visitors, ladies and gentlemen i am deeply honored to be here and to have this opportunity. i have been asked this morning to offer a prayer for world leaders. when my wife never informed me of one of the leaders of would be praying for was probably me, it was something i hadn't considered, i started taking this very seriously. [laughter] i am also mindful that there is more than one firepower in the room today. no offense mr. vice president. [laughter] now before i ask you all to join me in prayer of like to tell a little story pagoda is about an army platoon leader in the korean war. he and his men fell into an ambush one day out on patrol and found themselves surrounded by

enemy soldiers. they hunkered down in a small clearing making the best of what little cover they could find and tried desperately to hold on against what seemed to be terrible odds. every now and then the platoon sergeant notice that his young lieutenant would-behind the big rock and sit for a minute or two and then-back out and start issuing new commands. move here, move there, shift your fire. hi, ship belleau. the brush of order seemed to come almost as fast as the enemy bullets themselves. after an hour or so suffering only a few casualties, the platoon had chased off their attackers and began to safely make their way back to base. on the walk back, this arjun approach with tenet ashton exactly what were you doing behind the rock, sir? >> officer crandall little, his shoulders and again he said i needed time to think, to adjust so i kept asking myself three

questions. what am i doing, what am i not doing and how can i make up the difference?

>> "washington journal"

continues. host: this is david corn on the screen. he has been nice to the program for 20 plus years. guest: i think so. host: his current place of business as mother jones where he serves as washington bureau chief and very active in online community, especially twitter. last friday as he and many others were watching president obama with the house republicans he sent a tweet out that says we should make this permanent. you put your money where their mouth is. there is a group. guest: what i said was. what was happening while i was watching this remarkable event, present a moment take a very direct questions from republican leaders and getting into them, i said more than once, this is fantastic. you can be on the twitter severe people were rushing to their televisions to watch. that citizens and journalist should call for this to be done on a regular basis.

people started re-tweeting that they support the idea. and then the person who runs a great site techpresident.com, that follows how they interact with technologies and a twitter saying, you write a draft petition and we will get it out. so in the next couple of days i put a few paragraphs -- i cannot say paper, but i e-mails a few paragraphs and we quickly realized that this is the type of endeavor that could not fly with just one win. -- wing. he and a few others reached out to people on the right, conservative bloggers, internet technicians and consultants who work for the republican party and we quickly found there was a tremendous appetite for this that transcended ideology or a person standing.

we did this very much on an ad hoc basis, in between taking care of kids on the weekend during a big snowstorm and everything else. people were travelling. and we put together a couple dozen, one of the most politically diverse groups that i have seen. you have the person who runs move on with grover norquist, one of the key conservative public -- republican strategist. glenn reynolds, a very prominent conservative blogger. it you have a democratic consultant and mark mckinnon, adviser to george w. bush and john mccain, and the founders of the day, with tbi, craig's list. so it quickly came together. what was encouraging was, as we were pulling this together, it did not take a lot of time to agree on the four or five paragraphs calling on the president and house republican

leaders to make those sort of exchanges called question time, to make them happen on a regular basis. we set up a petition, demands questiontime.com. i sound like a pitch man on tv. we got a lot of good attention from the media and throughout the blogosphere. our site crashed immediately because there was too much traffic and it is back up again. thousands of people are signing it and we are getting responses already from the white house and republican members of congress. host: the site on the screen, you can join the petition if you are interested. what are the people asking to have happen? guest: very simple. we don't put a lot of details but we simply call on president obama and the republican leaders by name -- john boehner, house

republican leader, and mitch mcconnell, senate republican leader, to agreed to hold a question time, these exchanges, on a regular and frequent basis and have them be open to the public so that it is televised, webcasted, whenever people want to do. we don't go into the detailsç f how often or when or where or who will sponsor it because, you know what, last friday they show them they can do it pretty well on their own. there was not a lot of negotiation beard -- negotiation. it was a good model. yesterday the white house press briefing i asked bill burton, who was doing the briefing that day, whether the white house would commit to this. host: can we show the answer? here is the answer from bill burton, deputy press secretary. >> david axelrod has talked about this a little bit what he had to say was that part of the

reason why friday was so successful at the gop conference was that it was the spontaneity that occurred. it is going to be hard to sort of recreate the spontaneity that happen. the president thinks there is more open dialogue. he will look for more opportunities to do things on camera and have open discussions on important issues. but in terms of regularly scheduled event, i don't have anything further on that. host: spontaneity would be lost. guest: i would say there is so much spontaneity in the state of the union -- a lot of official traditions that have no spontaneity to any of it. it is not the spontaneity that this group is calling for. i am hesitant to speak for the group, because it is very ad hoc. we don't have meetings. but i think from the e-mail that got sent around last night in

response to this, it is quite clear about what we are asking for, what people signing the petition are asking for, is more transparency and more candor. what i liked about the event on friday was that it was competition, really. it was a competition in terms of ideas and political presentation. each side -- and if you did it regularly -- each side would really have to show up with their best stuff. their game would have to be on. if they want to come out and it can't speeches, one side, if the president just a can speeches while the republican leaders came up with good, strong questions and seemed to be on the good -- more give-and-take, you could imagine who would be perceived as winning. i don't think spontaneity has anything to do and why this should or should not happen. host: i want to hear what you think and why are why not question time would work for the public citizen's and work in

our constitutional form of government. call us with either questions and comments. of all numbers are on the screen. we will take a message by twitter, says this is where it all began. the list of the members who are signed on to the me and question time i think is on our website, certainly on bears. you can see the bipartisan nature of those who are involved in this movement and we would like to hear what you think about it. let us hear from a call from miami gardens, florida. carl, are you there? caller: yes, are you there? wonderful. the idea is very good and i think it will add a flavor to the political arena. the president having to speak in the type of dialogue between the parties and himself. i think, in all fairness, the

middle-class, basically which would be labeled conservative, i think they have more or less deported social conservatives and they regret, but the children who go off to college and really apply the academia and their parents sort of like resent the fact. and i think what is happening is, so you now have -- host: carl, i'm going to stop because i think are taking us in a little direction. you like the idea. let me give you a flavor of british house of commons question time. for those of you who have not to ended on sunday night where we have been televising it. >> he talked about the hereditary principle, only one leader in this house who inherited his title. what's a -- [jeering] what a lot of rubbish?

what a lot of rubbish. the reason he is in favor of the alternative vote is because it is election time. this is a man who got the leadership election, will block off the general election and now he is trying to fiddle with the electorial system. he must think our whole country is stupid. have another goal -- go. why are you doing this? >> this is a man -- [jeering] he promised us christmas to show the substance of the conservative party if we were in government. we had to confusion over married couples allowance, tales of a public spending, exaggerations' over crime, retreating on hereditary principle and now supporting it over the house of lords. this is a conservative party in a complete model, no manifesto, they don't have the substance to be able to govern -- governed the country. they are a shambles. host: would that ever work here?

guest: i don't think it would happen here. you have to admit there is high entertainment value to that. but the biggest difference between our system and the british system is our president, the person who runs the government is also the head of state and is not the party leader appeared in the parliamentarian system you have the person who is prime minister who gets the job really because he leads the party who gets more votes. so it is a lot less deference afford it to the prime minister. -- before did it to the prime minister. what happened on friday in baltimore is a frozen moment. here, with our cable news cycle and what happens with twitter and the internet and blogs, we go through issues very fast. we turn three stories. there is no real time. and there is no pause for reflection or for getting deep into matters. we have 20 news cycles today.

it it seemed for the least those 90 minutes things slowed down, there was a real, honest debate, and that is what gave it its value. if you started off trying to do that repeatedly or on a regular basis and it devolves into something that didn't bring that to the public any longer, then maybe it would be time to put it to pasture. but right now there is no point in saying it may go wrong so we should not do it. if you could replicate what happened on friday, i think most americans would say this is just fantastic. don't have to take the british model and follow the british model, but we could follow the model we already have. we could call it the baltimore model. host: new york, kathleen, republican line. caller: i watched the question and answer thing and i did not find that interesting. it seemed to be the same old same old, and president obama is

as disingenuous as ever. he lecture is -- lectures. the republicans, i watched all the health care debates, they were left out of it. and president obama says we would need to help, but every time they did -- whether there were doctors, senators, they were just voted down party-line vote and everything. guest: but it seems to me that if you believe the president is being disingenuous -- i will take issue with that one way or the other because that is not believe the point. but if you believe he is being disingenuous, then if the republicans have strong leadership they should be the to call them out on it, catch him, and confronted directly rather than have to appear on c-span -- not that there is anything wrong going on c-span -- and airing their complaints or doing it on conservative talk-show, radio, conservative radio talk shows. they can go up to him face-to-

face and square off and say, listen, we begin our being disingenuous. and they commit the best they can make. and then the rest of us, the citizen, can decide whether the republicans have a case or not. just as the president, who i @@@@#á'gibgá'beer'h #dbá ) ) @n

washington with an horlick experiment with openness, 1995 when newt gingrich came in as speaker, declaring a new level of transparency and he opened the cameras -- his session, to allow would to be televised. as i recall, the speaker did this for a number of weeks and shot it all down because it became too acrimonious, to hostile. are there any lessons for that -- from that? guest: things can always go poorly. we are not talking about questions time as the only form of communication between republicans -- say the opposition party, and the present. because it is not about barack obama and the republicans, it is about a president and an opposition party. there will be grandstanding when this happens. no doubt. it may get acrimonious. but it is just one form.

there still should be private meetings. i would like as much transparency as we can have, but there is obviously value with the president calling in members of congress privately, whether it is to cut good deals or just to try to be persuasive and try to work out disagreements. so this wouldn't supplant that it would add to that, and i think would be the foundation for the ongoing political debate that we have day in and day out of that we see on c-span and the cable stations and the blogs. president obama campaigned on bringing change to washington. we candidate how much change that has been in the last year. i think he himself admitted he is frustrated there has not been enough change. this is probably one of the easiest forms of big change. the republicans invited him, he came and they kept the tv cameras on.

it did not take a bill. there was no debate about it before hand. somewhat encouraging that, yes, they can change without a lot of fuss. host: we were originally told the q&a would be off-camera and we have plans and our coverage and we did not find out until about an hour before the coverage that it would be open. host: -- guest: i heard of the reporters were told they could walk in and they had to leave and they were surprised. that is why there was not a lot of build up. the audience was not as big because people were not prepared until later in the day. i think if you had advertised in this before hand on c-span for the cable news shows, a lot of people would have been sitting and waiting to see this. host: 1 twitter -- one of

twitter message, comparing friday to yesterday. guest: of president obama went to a democratic senate meeting and did the same thing. it was far more cans. -- canned not all of them, but the first four or five were all from loanable seeds and all basically ask questions, how can we work together to produce more jobs -- all from vulnerable seats. they obviously don't want to hurt the president. they want good sound bites in a tough reelection fights. it can only go so far. in the petition that we have, demand question time.com. we say they should consider doing this within the parties as

well, with the present taking questions from members of his own party like yesterday. but i think yesterday showed that our main threat -- the biggest value here comes when it happens between a president and the opposition party, when you really have a clear demarcation, clear line of the date, g-8 line of debate and that will augment the ongoing debate -- that will augment the debate that we are having. caller: hi, david. it is so different, the question time in at the british system and this system. last week when i heard the president was going to the republicans, i thought any

political operative of assault would force him to put it on tv and the debt at the last minute -- political operative worth his salt would force him to put it on tv and they did at the last minute. mine is more a comment than question. the parliamentary system in britain, they run on a particular manifesto. they printed this thing, this book, a manifesto and they say this is what we will do when we get and the government. the opposition is the opposition. in america, republicans act like they are in opposition but they are the majority. and the reason why is because the democratic party -- i am not a democrat, i'm a technocrat. i can go either way. i like things that both of them say. i'm pretty conservative fiscally.

host: desmond, i would jump in so we can get some of their voices in here. guest: i want to come in on the point he made about the gop not being happy of the outcome of the event on friday. i think a lot of us -- my impression was i thought and as particular session, barack obama got the better out of it. but the interesting thing is that since we came out with this bipartisan, cross-partisan not ideological call for regular q&a between president and republicans, the white house, as we saw earlier, shot down pretty quickly yesterday. the story -- i don't know if you are putting up right now. yes, the storied the politico did last night shows house republicans seem to be more supportive -- the story of the politico put up last night. john boehner's spokesman saying we will consider the proposal and other republicans saying flat out we want the rematch.

that again speaks to me about the power of the idea. i can understand why the president does not want to be committed to doing this on a regular basis because there may come a time where it does not serve your political purpose. i can understand why the republicans, after feeling like they might have been vested on friday, want a rematch to show what they can do. but the point is this is really not for the benefit of the present opposition party, but to the benefit of the american public. barack obama speaking to the senate democrats yesterday was very eloquent about how sometimes we have to get away from the politics of what is good for us and focus on the politics and the policy of what is good for the american public. this is the type of thing that, yes, you go in this knowing some days it may be good for you and some days it may not be good for you but it is setting a high

bar and a great example of how a debate in this country should happen. if you can't have our highest elected officials of our lands get together and have a civil conversation -- it can be pointed, it can be sharp. you know me, i liked good fights, the debates, but if they can't do this and show how it can be done, who can? host: the site is demandquestiontime.com. other is a position -- we are not advocating it. but if it happens, we would televise it. there -- that is our role. willie, republican line. caller: good morning. a first-time caller. host: yes, sir. what do you think of the idea? caller: i think it is a great idea. my only trepidation is that it probably will not gain momentum from either party because i

think both parties have a vested interest in keeping the electorate uninformed, unlike to o'neil who once said that -- tip o'neill who said monday that is the money milk of politics, i think an unformed electorate is the mother's milk of politics. to this idea, which i think is a great idea, would smack that right in the face and i think both parties would feel some vulnerability if we were to head down the road. i align myself with the previous caller. i think it would be great for the american public. but i think it would cause some trepidation on the part of both parties. >guest: i think is probably right. there might have been thinking after the advent -- why did we

keep the cameras on when we decided we were not going to? it we give president live time to get the better of us. judging from the political story we talked about, i am guessing there is a political discussion from the republican leadership whether they should commit to this or not. but by and large politicians are going to be cautious and prudent and do what they think is in their best interest. and unless millions of people get involved and demand something better and forced them to do the right thing, they are not going to be for change that much because all of these people who are in positions of power now got there by using the system as it is. and if they tinker with it, they understand that there are risks attached to that and there are some politicians who are bigger risk takers than others. so i think, you know, it is a compelling simple idea.

it -- if you go to the web site and look at the number of people who signed up from very different political views and some will have no identifying ideology -- the founder of ebay and we dpz it would just like the idea of new ways of communication -- wilipedia who just like the idea of new ways of communication. whether we are they are anybody can force a politician to do something that is not in the direct immediate interest is a big question. host: there are two stories and "the new york times" about transparency and the obama administration. health official cannot guarantee openness in talks. kathleen sibelius told congress wednesday she could not guarantee greater openness over legislation to limit the nation's health-care system. i am not a principal in the negotiations nor is my staff. her comments, he writes, canes -- came about five hours after

president obama affirmed the need for openness on for missing the health bill. another 1 "white house memo" from peter baker in "the new york times." fewer news conferences but still taking questions. over the last few weeks president obama has taken questions from unemployed and ohio, students, from youtube users, senate democrats and even house republicans and almost everyone it seems but the white house press corps, which you are a member. after a year and office mr. obama managed to do what every modern president may have wanted to do, effectively shut out reporters to work just a few feet from all office. he has not had a full-scale white house news conference in seven months, the longest stretch from any president in decades and a practice of not taking reporters' questions at day-to-day events as other presidents did. guest: on the first point, about not broadcasting the

health care talks -- i mean, you probably more than anyone were familiar with barack obama's campaign promise that we would put it on c-span, which i thought was a marvelous way to do it. now, i don't think anyone expected every civil conversation he had with every single member of congress to have a camera be there but there certainly were key meetings that were not on c-span and, in fact, the last week or two after months of the white house basically denying that they had broken a promise here, the president has come out and said, listen, i probably should have stated it differently, i did not realize how difficult it would be to put everything on c-span. so he is -- has kind of acknowledged he did not keep that promise. i am not sure he would say he broke it, but he did not keep it. i do think that i would like to see c-span and everybody -- that

there be even greater transparency than there has been, and there certainly are meetings and decisions that could have been for cameras. but they weren't. on the bigger question on how the president is interacting with the news media, well, the white house is both right and wrong on this at the same time. the media world is a lot different and people who work on the traditional media have to compete more with other forms of media that citizens in value just as much and maybe some cases even more. @@@@pj))t"''

people in the mainstream media will get less of that. going seven months without a press conference when you are talking about transparency and having an open administration, i think is a bit excessive. there still can be -- instead of going out for a round of golf, the president could hold a press conference. they are actively deciding not to do so because it is not in their interest and they are obviously worried that the message -- that have less control of their message to do this. the last time he had a press conference was one of the few times he made an ill advised remark about the arrest of skip gates up in cambridge, and he called the cops basically stupid for doing that. that led to a whole episode that ultimately the white house managed to deal with but

probably would have preferred not to. so i do think while you can youtube and talk to non in mainstream media, there is still plenty of opportunity to have press conferences and to be more forthcoming and more forthcoming with people who are not in the mainstream media -- from mother jones magazine. i also read for politicsdaily.com, or the national review, weekly standard, or something on the other side. this is one area where i think they have been a very conventional, in that they wanted to control their message as much as any other president ever had and they do it pretty well. host: tampa, florida, rita on the democrats' line. caller: in order to have a fair question and answer the president, republicans also have to be honest and transparent. for example, the previous guest

from the conservative heritage foundation said when bush left office the national debt was $6 trillion. the documented fact when he left off as he left the national debt of over $10 trillion, not his lowball figure of $6 trillion did the guest: the thing is, if there was a question time, i think you would have a lot of fact checking going on as well. the republican leader got up there and used a figure that was not correct. either the president could call him on it or vice versa. if the president chose not to, maybe it was not familiar with that particular fact boyd, -- factoid, i am sure some of these nonpartisan fact checking organizations -- politifact. -- there are several out there who do this. they would be on top of these right away.

this would be a high-profile event where you would not gain by relying on spin or bad facts. i think he would be called out pretty fast. host: do you mind staying for five more minutes? hawthorne, new jersey, sarah on independent line. you are on the air. caller: good morning, david, i followed your work for a very long time and always enjoyed it. i will sign on to the website today because the demand question time is just a long overdue -- probably about eight years overdue, i would think, at least. i would like to also make a suggestion that with this new supreme court decision to include corporations as being full people, i think it is only fair we also demand our politicians cover their suits with big patches from corporations that support them. guest: like a mascot drivers. but a cut exactly, --

caller: like nascar drivers, exactly. we need full disclosure. guest: i think you and i would probably agree on this issue. our coalition -- i hesitate to call it that. we are just a group of people like this one idea. i don't think we will be taking on other issues. i may be wrong. maybe something else will come along and grabbed our imagination as well. but i do hope in the days and weeks and months ahead, the ramifications of the citizens united supreme court decision is fully debated. the president seems to be interested in -- by the republicans. i still think there will be some legislative remedies introduced. it would just be another great issue for the president and the democrats to have a good argument with republicans over that if they don't support these bills. host: arkansas, you will be our

last on this. charles on the republican line. hello, charles. my fault, i have to push the button. caller: good morning, i have two statements. first of all, the question and answer that they had, the question was asked and the president answered. the questioner never had a chance to rebut what the president said because he stood up and said anything he wanted to and then they went on to the next question. the reason we are in this problem in the first place as the newspapers have not done their job in the first place. "the new york times" and "mother jones" they are extreme left. you did not know anything about acorn until after this gentleman got elected president. you did not know anything about the needs of dunn, did not know anything about non -- jones, the self-proclaimed communist he appointed, you did not know anything about these people because the newspapers never did

their job. to tell people what his background was, what his relationships were, and so the question and answer used to be on c-span -- i used to love it, you had a democrat and republican, but you don't do it anymore because they dominated. they did not say, you have two minutes to answer this question or whenever. but c-span still tries to do the best they can. host: we will go back to your comments for david corn. guest: i can't sit here and argue with you in your depiction of the media and your critique of the media and my own critique of the media which may not match your critique of the media, but putting that all a side -- that is the point of demandquestiontime.com -- putting aside the of the debates, if you really believe that the media does not do this

job in questioning democrats or republicans, presidents or leaders of congress, and there are key matters out there that need to be addressed, here is a form where if you are an opposition leader and you believed that the president has hired someone who should not have been hired or doing some that should not have been done, and if the media is not covering it, that is not stop you from asking him very directly about it. that actually would probably bring media attention to the issue. and if you don't have your facts straight it would bring negative media attention to yourself. this is just another forum in which people can look to their elected representatives. there are people who feel actually -- you may not find it hard to believe, that the media does not call out the republicans and what they believe are false statements, and if that is the case you can look at the present, if he happens to be democrat, to do that and if he does not you can

be disappointed and you can register your disappointment. it is another way to air these matters and to really look at these leaders and to judge them and their ability to talk about things that need to be talked about in a way they need to be talked about. one more plug, demandquestiontime.com. i'm a pitch man this morning, susan. host: you got the mowed down getting the name out there. suppose you get 100,000 names on the list. how easy it progressing? guest: it is not as if we will show up to the white house with a box. the idea is to get the idea out there, have other writers and bloggers and politicians to make a great time in. the petitioners -- petition is a device to show support. i think if we got 10 million in a week, it would be hard for politicians to ignore that.

but that is probably not going to happen. we may have to take a few swings at this, maybe a few bites at the apple before it happens. it may not happen in the next week or the next year. but the idea is squarely out there, bipartisan not ideological cross partisan support. republicans say they are considering it, the white house is not too keen, and we will keep asking. . .

fiscal year 2011 budget request, and the associated future years defense program. excuse me.

the 2010 review and the 2010 ballistic missel defense review. gentlemen, as always, we are thankful to you, for your families for your dedicated service to our nation, to the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines at home and in harm's way around the globe and to their families. your commitment to the welfare of our troops and their family shines through all that you do. the american people are grateful for that. and we are grateful and eager to help whenever we can. the fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $549 billion for the base budget and $159 billion for the ongoing wars in iraq and afghanistan. on top of the $708 billion request for 2011, the administration is included a 2010 supplemental request of $33 billion to fund the additional 30,000 troops to support the

president's afghanistan policy announced last december. the budget request continues the defense reforms begun last year to rebalance the force toward the military capabilities necessary to prevail in today's conflicts to buy weapons that are relevant and affordable and ensure that tax dollars are used wisely. the long-anticipated 2009 defense review, the qdr report was also submitted on monday with the department's 2011 budget. this is and the report is explicit, a wartime qdr. the department's analysis and decisions place the focus and priority on policies, programs, and initiatives that support the current fight in afghanistan and iraq and against al qaeda. the qdr makes and justifies tough choices, indicates that more trade-offs will be necessary in the future.

i'll note that along with the budget request, the administration submitted the ballistic missile defense review. this review was required by@@@@ must first be tested and demonstrate they are effective and reliable. it also states that our programs must be fiscally sustainable over the long-term. and it emphasizes international cooperation with our allies and

partners and cooperation with russia. those are elements of a sound missile defense policy. consistent with the reform goals set out by secretary gates and the results of the defense review, a top priority for the department must be the the ongoing conflicts of iraq. we have to ensure their o commanders have what they need to succeed in those conflicts, including technologies to counter improvised explosive devices and alter all terrain vehicles. and this committee will continue to support the needs of our men and women who are in those conflicts. excuse me. i have long argued that the principal mission in afghanistan should be training the afghan security forces so they can take responsibility for the security of their country. but we heard during our visit -- our recent visit to afghanistan

was that president obama's speech at west point in december had a tangible positive effect on afghan security forces. lieutenant general bill caldwell, the head of nato training mission in afghanistan told us that president obama's setting of the july 2011 date for the beginning of u.s. troop reductions energized afghanistan's leadership made clear to them that president obama means business when he says our commitment is not open-ended. and got them to focus on planning for the shift in responsibility for afghan security that is highlighted by that 2011 july date. and even more than a pay raise, general caldwell told us that the july 2011 date increased recruiting of afghan soldiers. and this is caldwell speaking. afghan leaders called for and reached out for local leaders to

produce new recruits across the country. the number of afghan recruits in training has jumped from 3,000 in november to over 11,000 last month. key to success of the mission of strengthening the afghan army will be the partnering of coalition and afghan units together on a union unit to one unit basis. and for afghans to take the lead in operations. the budget the president sent over yesterday includes significant resources for the training and partnering missions, including increased funding for the afghan security forces fund in both the 2010 supplemental and the 2011 request. the fully integrated partnering of coalition and afghan units living together and integrating their lives daily is at the heart of our troop's mission. david rodriguez, the commander of the isaf in afghanistan has promised to get us data indicated on a chart i have up

behind me in a chart which is circulated on the number of afghan units with coalion forces and how many of those afghan units are in the lead in operations. this effort is key to the transition to an afghan lead in providing for the nation's security. and we will track this data very closely. while i'm pleased with the increased partnering in the field. we were disappointed with the shortfall in trainers with the initial training needed for the afghan army and police. caldwell told us he only had 37% of the required u.s. and nato trainers on hand. and nato countries were about 90% short of meeting their commitment to provide about 2,000 non-u.s. trainers. that's simply inexcusable and our nato allies must do more to close the gap in trainers. an area personnel, i'm pleased

this requires increased funding for personnel and for the defense health program. the budget request includes funding to support the care and treatment of wounded warriors including $ 1.1 billion for the treatment, care, and research of traumatic brain injuries, tbi, and psychological health. the budget would also increase funding for family support programs by $500 million over last year's levels and include the funding necessary to support the temporary increase of the army's active duty to 569,000, which will help improve dwell time and reduce stress on the force. the catastrophic january 12th earthquake that struck the nation of haiti reminded all of us just how indiscriminate natural disasters can be. the department has -- the department of defense has mobilized resources and manpower to aid in the relief effort in

support of the department of state and u.s. agency for international development. just last week, the committee approved a $400 million reprogramming to ensure the department was adequately resourced for that important support mission. we are prepared to continue to work with the secretary and admiral mullen to ensure the department of defense is able to continue to provide support to this critical humanitarian disaster response effort in the weeks and months ahead. and we all greatly appreciate the skill shown by u.s. service personnel in response to the haiti disaster. now, following this hearing is previously announced that around noon we're going to turn to the issue of don't ask, don't tell. i would appreciate questions on that subject being asked after secreta secretary gates' statement on that subject at that time. secretary gates, admiral mullen, we look forward to your testimony. and now i turn to senator mccain

for any opening remarks he may have. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and i join you in welcoming the witnesses to discuss the president's budget request for fiscal year 2011 and the 2010 defense review and the impact on future reviews for the department of defense. secretary gates, i greatly appreciate that you continue to place the highest priority of the department on supporting the men and women of the armed forces. i'm consistently amazed and heartened by the commitment and dedication of the brave men and women who choose to answer the call to defend the nation. we all know they endure long, hard work under very demanding conditions and in some cases making the ultimate sacrifice. they in turn ask their families to endure unwelcome separations and the murder of managing the home front. our country's volunteer force and their families are a national asset. and they deserve our steadfast united support.

informed by the 2010 defense review, your request of $549 billion builds upon the substantial changes you outlined in last year's budget by establishing strategic priorities and identifying where the department needs to spend scarce resources. secretary gates, last year i supported your review that winning the wars of today while deterring and preparing for the conflicts of tomorrow required a balancing of risk. i looked forward to your assessment of cwhich this year' budget between our present and future priorities. with 2011, overseas request of $159 billion, and 2010 supplemental request of $33 billion supports our men and women in iraq and afghanistan, and i fully support your efforts to use oco and supplemental

funding to address many operational shortfalls in afghanistan to increase funding for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets. electronic war fair capabilities, and increasing the end strength of our special operations forces. your request includes significant funding for building the afghan security forces. i remain very concerned that we're not on pace to achieve the in strength of 400,000 by 2013 as recommended by general mcchrystal. i'm eager to hear if you think your funding request will enable us to achieve that goal. on the issue of a 2011 withdrawal from speaking to -- from the president of pakistan to the tribal leader in kandahar who fought against the russians, there's great uncertainty out there because of the president's

statement. there's great uncertainty whether we're going to stay. and it was raised to me by every leader that i met with. including the province, the tribal chief who had fought against the russians, who looked at me and said, are you going to stay, or are you going to leave like you did last time? our allies need to be -- and friends in the region -- need to be reassured that 2011 is not a date for withdrawal. and although your words and that out of the secretary of state have been excellent, the president has not made that statement in a way that would be reassuring to our allies as well as to our enemies. because we ask our men and women in uniform and their families to sacrifice so much, both the congress and the administration must be ready to make some tough funding decisions. something we failed miserably at in previous years. despite numerous calls last year for earmark reform, the fiscal

year 2010 defense appropriations bill signed into law, a bill that contained over $4 billion in earmarks, and $3 billion in unrequested and unwanted funding for c-17s and the alternative engine for the joint strike fighter. that's $7 billion that the department had to eat in programs that it didn't request or need. this business as usual spending that we've come to accept is unnecessary, wasteful, and it diverts precious funding from other more pressing military priorities. secretary gates, i was encouraged in your rollout of the budget yesterday that you laid an early marker with congress by indicating that if we added funds to continue the c-17 and alternate engine for the joint strike fighter in 2011, you would recommend that the president veto the bill. i strongly support such a recommendation, but feel it may fall on deaf ears unless that comes early, consistently, and

directly from the president. we cannot continue to condone spending billions of dollars on programs that the department doesn't want or need. and if the president is really serious, he's really serious about not wasting billions of dollars more of the taxpayers' money, he should also say that he will veto any appropriations bill that comes across his desk with earmarks and pork barrel spending on it. it's got to stop. on the f-35 joint strike fighter program, i appreciate the management decisions you announced yesterday. to replace the program executive officer and withhold more than $600 million where accountability required that those changes be made. as you appropriately stated yesterday during your press conference, "when things go wrong, people will be held accountable." i'd like to see that happen in some other areas of government. i'm nonetheless concerned about

your comment that it was clear there were more problems of the f-35 than you were aware of when you visited the ft. worth plant last august. with your recently announced management decisions, i hope the process by which you get reliable up to date information about important aspects of the program when you need it has improved. however, i'm still concerned about whether the services would get sufficiently capable joint strike fighters when they need them. just a few weeks ago, the director of operational tests and evaluation found that continued production concurrent with the slow increase in flight testing over the next two years will commit the department and services to test, training, and deployment plans with substantial risk. and that very recently determined that the marine corps and the navy's version of the joint strike fighter may end up being too expensive to operate. with each flight hour flown costing about $31,000 compared with around $19,000 for a flight

hour for the services current, f-18 hornets. i'd appreciate if you could comment on these and potentially other issues you see facing this program. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator mccain. and i will put the balance of my statement in the record -- and there's part i don't have your statement, that will be made part of the record if you wish. secretary gates, we welcome you. admiral mullen, please proceed. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to request the budget request for fiscal year 2011. i first want to thank you for your support of the men and women of the united states military these many years. these troops are part of an extraordinary generation of americans who have answered their country's call. they have fought our wars, protected our interests and allies around the globe, and as we have seen recently in haiti,

they have also demonstrated compassion and decency in the face of incomprehensible loss. i have a brief opening statement to provide an overview of the budget request. my submitted statement includes many more details that@@@@@@ @ for acquisition, lo kwgistics a technology, the financial management and controller, paul to be general counsel to the

department of navy, and jacqueline steele for installations and environment. is there a motion to promote these nominations? all in favor say aye. they've been before the committee that require a length of time. is there a motion? >> so moved. >> second, all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> oppose e ed nee, the motion carries forward. >> the budget request being presented today includes $589 billion, a 3.4 increase over last year, or 1.8% real increase after adjusting for inflation. reflecting the administration's commitment to modest, steady, and sustainable real growth in defense spending. we're also requesting $159 billion in fy 2011 to support overseas contingency operations,

plus $33 billion for the remainder of this fiscal year to support the added financial costs of the president's new approach in afghanistan. the base budget request reflects these major institutional priorities. first reaffirming and strengthening the nation's commitment to the all volunteer force. second, rebalancing america's defense posture by emphasizing capabilities needed to prevail in current conflicts while enhancing capabilities that may be needed in the future. and third, continuing the department's commitment to reform how d.o.d. does business, especially in the area of acquisitions. finally, the commitments made in the programs funded in the supplemental requests demonstrate the administration's determination to support our troops and commanders in combat so they can accomplish their critical missions and come home safely. the budget continues the department's policy of shifting money to the base budget for enduring programs that directly

support war fighters and their families. whether on the battlefield, recovering from wounds, or on the home front. to ensure that they have steady, long-term funding and institutional support. the base budget request was accompanied and informed by the 2010 defense review, which establishes strategic priorities and identifies key areas for needed investment. the 2010 qdr and fy 2011 budget build upon the substantial chances that the president made in the fy 2010 budget request to allocate defense dollars more wisely and reform the department's processes. the fy 10 budget proposals cut, curtailed, or ended a number of programs that were either performing poorly or in excess of real world needs. conversely, future oriented programs for the u.s. was relatively underinvested were

accelerated, or received more funding. qdr the first is continued reform, fundamentally changing the way this department does business. priorities we set, the programs we fund, the weapons we buy and how we buy them. building on the reforms of last year's budget, the fy '11 request took additional steps aimed at programs that were excess or performing poorly. they include terminating the navy epx intelligence aircraft, ending the third generation infrared surveillance program, canceling the next generation cgx cruiser, terminating the net enabled control program, ending the defense and integrated military human resources system due to cost overruns and performance concerns. completing the c-17 program and closing the production line. as multiple studies in recent years show the air force already has more of these aircraft than

it needs. and ending the alternate engine for the f-35 joint strike fighter has whatever benefits might accrue are more than offset by excess costs, complexity, and associated risks. i am fully aware of the political pressure to continue building the c-17 and proceed with an alternate engine for the f-35. so let me be very clear. i will strongly recommend that the president veto any legislation that sustains the unnecessary continuation of these two programs. the budget and reviews are also shaped by a bracing dose of realism. realism with regard to risk, realism with regard to resources. we have in a sober and clear-eyed way assessed risk, set priorities, made trade-offs, and identified requirements based on plausible real world threats, scenarios, and potential adversaries. just one example. for years u.s. defense planning and requirements were based on preparing to fight two major

conventional wars at the same time. a construct that persisted long after taking over events. the department's leadership now recognizes we must prepare for a much broader range for security challenges on the horizon. they range from the use of sophisticated new technologies to deny our forces access to the global commons of sea, air, space, and cyber space to the threat posed by non-state groups delivering more cunning and destructive means to attack and terrorize. scenarios that transcend the familiar contingencies that dominated u.s. planning after the cold war. we have learned through painful experience that the wars we fight are seldom the wars that we planned. as a result, the united states needs a broad portfolio of military capabilities with maximum versatility across the widest possible spectrum of conflict. this strategic reality shaped the qdr's analysis and

subsequent conclusions which directly informed the program decisions contained in the budget. before closing, i would like to offer two thoughts to consider when assessing the u.s. investment in national defense. first, the request submitted this week totalled more than $700 billion. a massive number to be sure. but at 4.7% gross national product, it represents a significantly smaller portion of national wealth going to defense and was spent during most of america's previous major wars. and the base budget represents 3.5% of gdp. second, as you know, the president recently exempted the defense budget from spending freezes being applied to other parts of the government. it is important to remember, however, that as i mentioned earlier, this department undertook a pain staking review of our priorities last year. and as a result, cut or curtailed a number of major programs. these programs had they been

pursued to completion would've cost the american taxpayer about $330 billion. in closing, mr. chairman, my thanks to you and members of this committee again for all you have done to support our troops and their families in light of the unprecedented demands that have been placed upon them. i believe the choices made and the priorities set in these budget requests reflect america's commitment to see that our forces have the tools they need to prevail in the wars that we are while making the investments necessary to prepare for threats on or beyond the horizon. thank you very much, secretary. admiral mullen. >> distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the chance to appear before you and discuss the state of our military as well as the president's fiscal year '11 budget. i thank you all for your extraordinary support you provide each and every day to our men and women in uniform as

well as their families. that they are well equipped, well-trained, well-paid, and enjoy the finest medical care anywhere in the world is testament in no small part to your dedication and stewardship. i've seen many of you in the war zone in hospitals and at bases all over this country. so have our troops. they know you care just as critically, they know their fellow citizens care. all i want right now is guidance on the mission before them and the tools to accomplish it. that's why i'm here today to speak on their behalf about the guidance they are getting from this department and to secure your continued support for the tools we want to give them. secretary gates has already walked you through the major components of the defense review and the president's fiscal year '11 defense spending mission. both of them when combined with the defense review and our contingency operation fund request builds upon the reform effort of last year and

represent as comprehensive a look at the state of our military as i've seen in my experience. i will not endeavor to repeat his excellent summation and i will ask you to accept without further comment my endorsement of the findings contained in each of these documents. let me leave you, rather, with three overarching things to consider as you prepare to discuss these issues today. and as you prepare this budget request in the future. first, there's a real sense of urgency here. we have well over 200,000 troops in harm's way right now and included in operations iraqi freedom and enduring freedom. others are elsewhere around the globe, and many of those missions are no less dangerous, certainly no less significant. i'm sure you've stayed abreast of our relief efforts where more than 20,000 of your soldiers, airmen, and coast guardsmen are

pitching in to help alleviate the suffering of the haitian people. it is an international mission. and these troops are blending in beautifully, doing what is required where and when it is required to support the government of haiti, usaid and the you know mission there. we also continue to do what is required to win the wars we fight. and the one that needs fighting the most right now is in afghanistan. you've seen the reports and you know the situation. the taliban have a growing influence in most of afghanistan's provinces. and the border area between that country and pakistan remains the epicenter of global terrorism. you no doubt filed with great interest the development of the strategy to deal with this strategy. the strategy in my view that makes the afghan people a center of gravity and the defeat of al qaeda a primary goal. we've already moved 4,500 troops to afghanistan and expect about 18,000 of the president's december 1st commitment will be

there by late spring. the remainder of the 30,000 will arrive as rapidly as possible over the summer and early fall. making a major contribution to reversing the taliban momentum in 2010. indeed, by the middle of this year, afghanistan will surpass iraq for the first time since 2003 as a location with the most deployed american forces. right now the taliban believe they're winning. 18 months from now, if we've executed our strategy, we'll know they aren't. and they'll know that they can't. getting there will demand discipline and hard work. it'll require ever more cooperation with pakistan. and it will most assuredly demand more sacrifice and more bloodshed. but the stakes are far too high for failure. that's why we're asking you to fully fund our fiscal year '10 supplemental and the fiscal year '11 overseas contingency operations request. it's why we wanted 6% increase

for special operations command. and it's why we need your support to develop and field the next generation round combat vehicle to allow us to grow two more aviation brigades and continue production, including nearly $3 billion for the v-22 program. in keeping with the secretary's strong emphasis on isr and emphasis more than justified by our long experience in iraq and afghanistan, we are asking for more capability and unmanned aircraft and ground base collection system, including nearly $3 billion to double the procurement rate of the mq9 reaper. our future security is greatly imperilled if we do not win the wars we are in. as the qdr makes clear, the outcome of today's conflicts will shape the global security environment for decades to come. i'm very comfortable that we can and will finish well in iraq, remaining on pace, to draw down american forces to roughly

50,000, ending our combat mission there and transitioning to an advise and assist role. without your continued support, we will not able to show the meaningful progress in afghanistan the commander in chief has orders, the american people expect and the afghan people need. this is no mission of mercy. this is a place from which we were attacked in 2001. the place from which al qaeda still plots and plans. the security of a great nation, ours and theirs rests not on the sentiment and good intention, but what ought to be a cold and unfeeling appraisal of self-interest and an equally cold and unfeeling pursuit of the tools to protect that interest, ours and theirs. that leads me to the second thing i'd like to consider, proper balance. winning our current wars means investment in our war fair expertise. a core competency that should be

supported in recent years. but we should also maintain conventional advantages. we still face traditional threats from regional powers that possess robust, regular, and in some cases nuclear @@@@@r of our combat brigades and regimens. never having to fight a fair fight. thus the president's budget, the request will buy us another 42 f-35s. it'll fund development of a

prompt global strike system as well as efforts to upgrade our b-2s and b-52s. the spending plan, some plan totals some $16 billion for securing 10 new ships in 2011, including two destroyers, two virginia class submarines, two little combat ships and a brand new amphibious assault ship. it puts the navy on track to maintain. our budget request also seeks $10 billion for ballistic missile defense programs, including 8.4 billion for the missile defense agency, and it develops ample resources for improving our cyber defense capabilities. again, it's about balance -- about deterring and winning the big and small wars, the conventional and the unconventional. two challenges, one military.

where the balance is probably most needed is in the programs and policies concerning our most important resource, our people. and that's my final point. this qdr and this budget builds upon superb support. you in this department have provided our troops and their families for much of the last eight years. stretched and strained by nearly constant combat, many of them on their fifth, sixth, and seventh deployments. our men and women are without question and almost inexplicably the most resilient and battle ready force. so attractive our career opportunities. on the other hand, we keep seeing an alarming rise in suicides, marital problems, prescription drug addictions, and mental health problems. deborah and i meet regularly with young troops and their spouses. and though proud of the difference they know they are making, they are tired. many of them are worried about their future, their children. and so you will see in this budget nearly $9 billion for

family support and advocacy programs, you will see child care and youth programs increase by $87 million over last year, and including counseling to the tune of $37 million. military spouse unemployment will get $1 million plus, and increase the budget to $2.2 billion for wounded, ill, and injured members. the health care funding level for fiscal year '11 is projected to provide high-quality care for 9.5 million eligible beneficiaries. lastly, we are pushing to dramatically increase the number of mental health professionals on staff and advance our research and traumatic brain injuries and post traumatic stress. we know the strain of frequent deployments causes many problems, but we won't yet fully understand how we -- we don't yet fully understand how or to what extent. even as we work hard to increase dwell time, aided in part by

what was approved last year for the army, we will work equally as hard to decrease the stress of modern military service. indeed, i believe over time when these wars are behind us, we will need to look closely at the competing fiscal pressures that will dominate discussions of proper strength. the long-term challenges and not married to any construct will be vital to our national security. mr. chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for your time for the long standing support of this committee to the men and women of the united states armed forces. they and their families are the best i have ever seen. on their behalf, i stand ready to answer your question. >> thank you so much, admiral. we'll try a five-minute first round here. secretary, the change in our afghanistan policy is what drove the requirement. apparently for a supplemental

funding request this year. is it your goal to avoid a supplemental funding request for fy 2011? >> yes, sir, it is. our hope would be that the overseas contingency operations approach is a preferred way to do this. as we saw this time, unforeseen circumstances brought us up here to defend another supplemental. i think i'm on the record last year as expressing the hope we wouldn't be doing another one of those. but here i am. but it is our intent that for fy '11 the oco fund would be sufficient. >> secretary, the president, you, admiral, and others have pointed out that a principal mission for our forces in afghanistan is the training up of the afghanistan security forces to take over

responsibility for the security of their country. and yet, our nato allies are 90% short of meeting their commitment for trainers for the afghan troops. these are the ones who are in that early basic training eight-week period, not out in the field where i think we're doing very well. and we are meeting what the goals are in terms of kind of on the job training, partnering with the unit. but back to that basic training. nato non-u.s. countries committed 2,000 trainers. they've produced 200. now, what are we going to do to get general caldwell those additional trainers which are so essential? >> my understanding is that general caldwell's short about 1,700 trainers.

our hope is that with the additional commitments of somewhere between 7,000 and 10,000 additional forces by our nato and other partners that out of that number we can more than fill the requirement for trainers. certainly admiral stavitas and general petraeus and mcchrystal have been talking to them about this. but admiral mullen just met with the heads of the militaries last week, i might ask him for a comment. >> if you could just briefly say, are you confident that that need is going to be filled? it's just totally unacceptable that commitment is made. it's so essential and then not kept. >> we all agree it's unacceptable, it's the top priority there and a top priority from this meeting with some 20 plus to go back to their capitals and meet. and there's a conference later

this month to focus specifically on that. >> all right. and the chod. what does that mean? >> the chiefs of defense for these countries. >> thank you. secretary gates, the missile defense review report says in contrast to the practice over the last decade of fielding missile defense capabilities that were still being developed at the administration "will take a different approach" best described as fly before you which will result in a posture base on proven technology in order to improve reliability, confidence, and control. and that's a welcome change. will we be deploying ground-based intercepters that have been not been tested and demonstrated? >> we have deployed ground-based intercepters at ft. greeley. we have a very aggressive test program that has been successful. we believe that those interceptors give us the capability to deal with launches

from either iran or north korea. small scale threat. the fact is, we are continuing in addition to robustly funding increases in theater level missile defense. we will also continue to spend, we have in this budget $1.35 billion to continue the development and test program for the ground-based intercepters. both the three states that are now deployed, and the two-stage that we were going to deploy in poland. and so i think we both for homeland security and for our alloys and our troops in the field, we have very strong programs going forward. >> thank you, senator mccain. >> secretary gates, do you believe that the christmas bomber should be tried in civilian court or by military commission?

>> senator, i would defer to the attorney general on the proper jurisdiction for such people. when you fill out your form when we confirm you for the united states senate, you sign that you would give your honest and candid opinion in response to questions. you want to give me an opinion? >> my honest opinion is that i think that the attorney general is in the best position to judge where these people get tried. after all, we have -- >> thank you very much. it was reported in the media that -- and i quote, "when president obama convened his national security team on january 5th to discuss christmas incident, the decision to charge the suspect in federal court was specifically discussed. and again." nobody present raised objection. and secretary gates made the point that even if abdulmutallab had been transferred to military custody, it's unlikely anymore information could have been

gleamed from him since "enhanced interrogation techniques" have been banned by the administration. is this reported of your view? >> what i actually said was i believed that a team of highly experienced fbi and other interrogators could be as effective in interrogating the prisoner as anyone operating under the military field manual. >> so the -- that's a direct contradiction to the piece in "newsweek" magazine. and so you agree with the director of national intelligence blair when he said "we did not invoke the hig, that's the trained interrogators in this case we should've. do you agree with admiral blair? >> i think that -- i think we did not have the high level interrogators there that we now have protocols in place to

ensure would be -- would be present in such a situation. >> do you agree that they should have been there? >> yes, sir. >> and do you believe it was possible in 50 minutes to exhaust the possibilities for getting -- and getting all of the information that was needed from the christmas bomber? >> i'm just not in a position to know the answer to that, senator. >> i see. again, media reports state that you thought so. it is your view that absence ab enhanced interrogation techniques that the intelligence community provides no value in the interrogation of a terrorist? >> no, i don't believe that. >> well, i thank you. on the issue of the f-35, to what do you attribute the fact that you were not appraised of all the major problems

associated with the program last summer when it seems to me you needed to be? >> we had not yet undertaken at that time, senator mccain, an independent cost analysis that is now one of the requirements under the acquisition and reform that can't you all passed last year. our under secretary for acquisition launched such an exercise. he himself spent about two weeks full time looking into the f-35 program, and as a result of the independent cost estimate and his own investigation, came to the conclusions that the program required restructuring. >> and can you give us either verbally or in writing the delays and cost overruns that we

now expect? >> yes, sir. i would say that in terms of -- of delivery, even with the restructure program, we still expect the training squadron to be at eglin in 2011 and we expect ioc for the marine corps in 2012. for the air force in 2013 and the navy in 2014. the fourth quarter of 2014. there will be fewer delivered aircraft at ioc. that's the purpose of reducing, that's the result of reducing the production ramp as has been recommended to deal with some of the issues associated with that. >> well, in conclusion, given your responsibilities to the men and women serving in the military and the defense of this nation i hope will you come to a conclusion as to how enemy combatants should be treated as far as their trials are

concerned and our ability to ensure the american people, assure the american people, that they will not be returning to the battlefield and whether they should be tried and incarcerated in the united states rather than na@ @ @ @ @ rr℠ defense budget, and to thank you for your service and service of all the men and women in our armed forces. and also welcome mr. haile.

secretary gates, you have mentioned that beyond winning the wars themselves, the treatment of our wounded and ill are your highest priority. as a result of today's continuing conflicts, the psychological effects of those conflicts with the ranks of the u.s. military have never been more profound. secretary gates, what do we need to improve our treatment of mental illness, and how does this budget address that? >> as admiral mullen mentioned in his opening statement, there is over $1 billion in this budget for the treatment of pts and traumatic brain injury. all of the services have very extensive programs for dealing

with psychological problems. all of the leadership, i think, have weighed in on this very heavily. i would say that there are two problems that we still are wrestling with. one is the shortage of mental health care providers. we are, and frankly, we've discovered it's a national shortage. it's not just the shortage in the military, because we're, all over the country, trying to hire these people, and we've hired a lot. i think something on the order of 1,000 or 1,400 over the last 18 months or so, but we still need more, and the second is still overcoming the stigma of seeking help, of getting our soldiers, but i would say both our men and women in uniform and their families to seek the psychological help that is available to them, but let me ask admiral mullen if he'd like to add a word.

>> i think the secretary's captured the two big issues we dramatically increase the mental health providers in recent years but are still short. we're just beginning to understand the real impacts of tpi and then at the other piece i think that, and i would ask for your help on this is how do we work with other committees here, secretary gates, secretary shinseki have certainly set the standard shoulder-to-shoulder that both defense and va need to work this together, because many of these people transition certainly from the defense department to va, and i really believe it's got to be a three-part team including communities throughout the country. how do we ensure those who sacrifice so much receive the care across this entire continuum, and we understand their need, which changes over time and it's those who suffered greatly in uniform but also family whose also have been under great stress as well. so that would be the third piece that i would add to the

secretary's answer. >> ieds remain the number one cause of casualties in afghanistan, mr. secretary. the administration recently announced the deployment of 30,000 additional u.s. troops to afghanistan. as a result, more of our men and women will be exposed and vulnerable to this deadly form of attack. the joint ied defeat organization was created to lead and coordinate duty actions that support combatant commanders efforts to defeat ieds as weapons of strategic influence. mr. secretary, what is your assessment of the department's efforts in protecting our troops against ieds and if improvement

is needed, what can be done to improve those results? >> senator, i think that we have a number of very forward leaning efforts to try and deal with the challenge of ieds. my concern a few months ago was that these efforts were not adequately integrated, and -- and put together in a way that we derive maximum benefit from the efforts that we had under way. i asked the under secretary of defense for acquisition technology and logistics as well as general j. paxton to co-chair a short-term effort to see what more we could do, both in terms of better structure for how we deal with this problem, but also if there were some specific areas where additional attention was needed. they've brought to the me some

recommendations in terms of significant enhancements for long-term, full motion video so we can watch roads, we can watch the areas around our encampments. aerostats of a variety of other technical solutions. the commanders have increased the requirement for the mine resistant ambush protective vehicles, particularly the all-terrain vehicles so there is an additional requirement that actually has already funded or is taken care of in this budget for about 10,000 more m-wraps. 6,400s all-terrain version designed especially for afghanistan to protect our troops. so we have a number of efforts. there were identified problems, such as the labs. we had a lot of labs working the ied problem in iraq. we hadn't put as many labs into

afghanistan yet. so this is a dynamic process, and i would say to you we have a number of initiatives under way to tim prove the strong work that was already being done, because this absolutely the worst killer and maimer of our troops, and we are, with your support, sparing no expense and no effort to try and reduce those casualties. the m-wraps have made a huge difference, but the enemy is -- is a thinking enemy, and they change their tactics and their structures. another thing we're doing is a very high percentage in afghanistan of these ieds are made from fertilizer ammonium nitrite, which is illegal in afghanistan. now we're establishing an effort to try and hit the smuggling networks that bring this ammonium nitrate into be used

for these ieds, but we have a lot of different efforts going on, and if the committee is interested, i'd be happy top have secretary carter and general paxton come up and brief on their entvers. >> thank you. >> thank you senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me start by saying i disagree with senator mccain on his statements on the c-17 and disagree on his statements in this, past statements on the f-22. you know, it concerns me that we keep hearing, well, this is something that the military doesn't want, they didn't ask for and all that. then i go over there, and that's not their attitude at all. they have needs over there. our lift capacity is in dire straits. we're still using those old beat up c-130 e models that we keep losing engines on. actually lost two engines on one not too long ago when i was over there, and the state-of-the-art

is still there in the c-17s and i think we have to do surgery on that and some of the other thing on this budget when the senate armed services committee gets together. now, on the f-22, just yesterday we read about the t-50, that they're coming out with. a fifth generation that the russians have. you know, i'm not at all as confident as everyone else is that our f-35s are going to be online when we say. as senator mccain just said. that we have cost overruns, problems and just recently have surfaced. i'm concerned about this. and i guess, you know, if we're down 187 f-22s, and i think out of that, what, only 120 are actually combat ready and used for combat, and yet as i read this article in the t-50, they're starting to crank these things out, and india, i understand, talking about buying 200 of them. who knows who else is going to

be buying them. so i am concerned about it, and i guess it goes beyond just that. i look at our committee, the senate arms services committee. now, on these two vehicles i mentioned, the f-22 and c-17, i don't have a dog in that fight. no prock allinterest there's, but it's the capability we're going to need and i look and see and remember so well testimony that our defense for 100 years averages 5.7% of gdp, it's now down to 3.7 and as you projected by those figures that i'm getting, it will go down to 3% by 2019. this is what really concerns me, is we're just not going the job that we need to be doing to defend america. if you consider that the number one function of government which i happen to. i do agree with senator mccain and his concern over pulling the rug out from under eastern europe on the third site, and

i've read something yesterday that russia doesn't want us to have any ground base capability. i don't know. the first thing i'd ask, mr. secretary, and i should know this but i don't. if we're talking about having the capability of the sm-3 and getting that working, where would it be used? i mean, is this egypt, or where would we have this capability? >> well, in the nirnl phase it would be based on ships, but we have money in the budget for a land-based standard missile, and so it would be deployed in europe, and perhaps elsewhere, depending on the agreements that we reached with other countries. >> you don't think you'll have the, a little bit of a problem in that we negotiated and we went over there and, with the czech republic for its radar and poland for the site of the ground base interceptor? and then changed our minds? is that going to create a little problem in getting -- or have

you already initiated a discussion with any of the european countries to have that capability there? >> yes and reached agreements with pols already to move advanced patriots into poland. >> that's a different capability than getting up to what we were talking about before. >> as i say, i don't think we'll have a problem. >> well, okay. all right. well, army modernization, i've been concerned about that. when you look at the, our capability on enlos cannon. first a crusader. then that was axed by the republicans, by president bush. right when we were in negotiations i might add in the senate armed services committee putting together a program. so i'm concerned about that. now we do have the pen program, good on the pallet end. i got to tell you, the same technology that they had when i was in the united states army. i mean, getting out and so i am

concerned about that. and i'm concerned that general casey and general corelli both stated many times we're burning up equipment as soon as they can be procured, yet the army procurement funding decreased in this budget by $31 billion from fy 08 to fy 10. is that a good idea? >> i think a good part of that was for the army's future combat vehicle, and as you know, we're restructuring that program, and i think that you'll see significant increase when the army moves into production of that vehicle. >> well, i hope that's the case, and i hope that we're here to be able to see that as a reality. my time expired, but one last thing. i've just, one last question, if i could, mr. chairman. on the 1206, 1207, 1208 and so

forth, this 1206 is fine. i appreciate the fact we've enhanced that program and some of the other. the 1207, that's the civilian to civilian. that now is going to go back to the state department, and one of the original reasons that we wanted to have this in the d.o.d. was the timing. so that when a decision is made we'll be able to get it done. do you think that's a good move? or do you think we should try to reverse that on terms of the 1207 and the trainer equip program to bring it back the way it is today? >> well, first of all, senator, i want to thank you for your support and help on 120 of, 1207, 1208, but i think you know, when i testified here last year, the plan was to begin transferring the 1207 money to the state department. i think the plan you have in front of you essentially simply accelerates that process. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator inhofe. senator ben nelson. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and

let me add my appreciation to you and your families for your distinguished service. i've long been an advocate for benchmarks or measures of progress, and i think we need to progress, and i think we need to continue to@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ b be forthcoming to our committee, but at least i have yet to see them, and it seems to me one of the most important times to inform the process is at the very onset of any change.

and as this mission changes course, so obviously must the way in which we measure efforts, that will change as well. have comprehensive and final benchmarks or measures of progress been developed to reflect this new strategy? and if so, when will these be made to the committees? to the committee? secretary gates? >> i think they have, and i frankly thought that they had already been provide to the committee and i'll check on it after the hearing. >> okay. thank you. could you talk a little bit about some of the areas of measurement that would be in these measures of progress? >> well, i think a couple that are pretty obvious are the afghans meeting their recruitment goals for the afghan national security forces. are they meeting their goals in terms of limiting fruition?

how many are they meeting the number of units being fielded that are in the plan? are they benchmarks -- there are benchmarks associated with their training. so i think those are the kinds of things, at least with respect to the security forces that we're talking about. >> do we have anything that we might relate to our measures of progress with respect to our particular efforts? >> well, i think in some respects the president's made some, made his expectations pretty clear. he has some clear expectations and is benchmarking us on how fast we can get 30,000 troops into afghanistan. and watching that carefully. i think he has clearly set a marker in terms of beginning to transfer security authority to the afghans beginning in july

'11. that's a clear benchmark that must be met. so i think we do have some. another for us is the number of civilians we're getting into afghanistan from the state department, aid and other agencies. >> are you working with the state department on, jointly in that effort? i know they've set measures of progress of their own. >> absolutely. this is as integrated and effort as i've ever seen the u.s. government undertake. >> thank you. i'd like to talk to you just a secretary about our contractor conversion efforts. you announced in the spring of '09 that the department would scale back the role of contractors and for my sense, too many years we were outforcing too much with perhaps too little emphasis on why and whether it was justify, but regardless of the makeup, outsourcing or insourcing has to

make sense and the best utilization of resources both money and people. is there in place a strategic plan for the right mix of contractor government civilian and military personnel, and what are we doing to execute such a plan? >> well, first of all, our goal is to take the number of contractors in the department of defense as a percentage of the work force back to where it was prior to 9/11, which would mean taking it from 39% to 26%. the plan -- first of all, i think one of the effects of what we have seen in iraq in particular has been the revival of acquisition in a couple of the services where that is a career field had withered, and i think this is particularly true in the army, where a number of measures including the allocation of general officer

positions and so on to revive that career field is an attractive career field. some other services have done better. i think that undersecretary carter has a clear idea of the right mix between contractors and civilians, but i think that the first place we need to look is that we probably shouldn't have contractors evaluating contractors. and so i think that's the first area as we make these conversions, which i might add are on track one year in. >> my time's expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> just to implement that point, of senator nelson. i believe in this year's budget proposal you are requesting proposing maybe 10,000 contractor jobs be eliminated and changed over to employees of

the defense department. i don't have the exact number. but is that not true? it's in the budget? >> our goal is 20,000. to increase the number of acquisition professionals from 127,000 to 147,000. 10,000 of those will be the conversion of contractor jobs to civil service jobs. another 10,000 will be new hires. >> and that's in this year's budget. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> i just want to implement -- just to clarify that point. >> 0,000 total is over 10 to 14, senator levin. >> over four years. >> right. >> how many in this year's budget? >> for the total is about 6,000 including acquisition and everything else. i'll have to get you the numbers specifically. >> and clarify the benchmark of senator nelson, very persistent on for the benefit of everybody in the nation, the only thing that we've received from the defense department is a draft set of benchmarks, and they were classified.

so he is right. we have not received benchmarks, although we were promised them and we need both the benchmarks also in an unclassified way. >> the benchmarks i was talking about where inner agency benchmarks ay greed and those were the ones i thought had been delivered and i'll pursue that. after the hearing. >> thank you. senator sessions? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and for your good leadership, your excellent chairman. we do have a lot on the agenda today. talking about the defense budget. the quad drinial defense review, two wars, the missile defense report, don't ask, don't tell. terrorist trials and i guess i would just say, i don't think we can do it all justice today. i hope we'll have more hearings as we go forward, and some of them we need at secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs. just briefly, mr. secretary, on the christmas day bomber, i saw

your former clear, the general on the television pointing out, yes, they tried moussaoui in a federal court. he tried the case as a federal judge at the time, but he pled guilty, and the sentencing phase took a year. he said it was made into a circus, and he pointed out that guantanamo was created for the purpose of these kind of trials, and when a person like the christmas day bomber leaves yemen armed with a bomb from al qaeda on directions of al qaeda and flies into the united states, i suggest he's an unlawful enemy combatant and perfectly suited for detention and trial, if need be a trial, in military custody, and i think the defense department at least

should know about those thing because the intelligence that could be gathered from a prolonged interrogation by people knowledgeable in yemen could have added greatly to this. now he's been advised he has a right to a lawyer. he's no longer going to cooperate or talk. he's going to be entitled to a speedy trial and i have a lot of problems with that. i just hope you will be alert to that as goes by, and i think the military has a real responsibility. you know, i just would briefly say that i've come to understand and feel more strongly about the concerns senator mccain has about setting an absolute date for leaving and beginning to leave in 2011. i mean, we'll hardly have our troops in place by then. the insurgent placed by then, and we see things like the, president karzai beginning to talk to the taliban. makes you wonder if he's looking

beyond our departure today. i worry about that. mr. secretary, you talk about the supplemental. i've been baffled a bit by that. it seems to me that when you're in a war, a supplemental is an appropriate way to handle funding for that, and to try to force into the baseline budget funding specifically for these two operations with a couple hundred thousand troops deployed is not a good policy. why do you feel like we should do this only with the baseline budget? >> well, i absolutely do not believe we should do it with the baseline budget. i think that the purpose of providing the overseas contingency operation funding budget is, i think that it is actually in response to considerable pressure from the congress for greater --

>> i know you have gotten pressure from the congress on that. >> greater predictability -- >> but not me. >> greater predictable about how much is going to be spent in these wars, and so that the, those budgets can be considered with the framework of the normal consideration of the budget. so i think that it's -- it's certainly not a part of the base budget, but it is provided in advance in a way that gives the congress the opportunity to restru in the same way or it reviews the rest of the budget. >> well, i'm not sure. it seems we should be able to review the supplemental as well, but i guess in a way you're creating a discreet funding program that we could review and maybe that's, that would be acceptable. with regard to our procurement of major weapons systems, know that the department of defense, admiral mullen harks focused on

life cycle cost, and i guess you would agree that things such as fuel and maintenance are on part of fact to evaluate, if we're going to evaluate the cost of a weapon system over a period of years? >> yes, sir. >> i know we did that on the tanker aircraft and in fact on fuel and that sort of thing are counted as evaluating that aircraft. are you -- should that be applied to a procurement program like the combat ship that the cost of fuel, should that be accounted for? >> i've long been concerned about life cycle costs. i think senator sessions you know that, long before now, and the secretary pointed out, and i think very importantly in his opening statement, that the programs that he cut last year actually had some life cycle

value focused on about $330 billion. as far as what's in an rfp and what it's going to be focused on, that's something i really can't comment on -- >> well, i don't know. we've got an rfn la toral combatship that i'm told does not have any factor for fuel cost. >> but you know more about it than i do. i haven't seen it. >> well, if that's so, would you be willing to look at it and ask questions if that's a wise decision? >> this -- again, as i said, i've been long time i've been concerned about life cycle costs. actually one of the, i think, weaknesses of the acquisition system is typically the line is not involved in that. the uniformed side is not involved in that. so i'm not involved from that point in view and would under actually no circumstances see an rfp or look at its evaluation criteria in what i'm doing right

now. >> well i would think you would be, your ultimate responsibility as part of procurement of the department to see at least basic requirements are being met, and i think i hear you say that life cycle costs, which certainly would include fuel, should be a factor in evaluation of the bids or the proposals? wouldn't it? >> i've said life cycle costs are an important factor and have been for a long time. >> we'll have to follow-up on that. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you much. senator udall is next. >> thank you for being with us today. secretary gates, we have a proposal from the president when i fully support to freeze non-discretionary spending, excuse me, for non-defense programs in fiscal year 2011. i think we're going face tighter budgets in future years and may have the potential need to trim pentagon budgets as well.

could you talk about how you're postures the d.o.d. to be able to react to that potential? >> well, first of all, i think that situation out there@z&z&x norms in terms of both gep and a percentage of the budget in terms of what we're spending. that said, i would tell thaw if the department of defense received significant reductions in its budget, that we would

have to sacrifice force structure. we cannot do it any other way, and so the result of that would be a reduction in military capability and a reduction in our flexibility. f. i might, let me thank you for your focus on acquisition reform. i want to associate myself with senator mccain's remarks and i hope this committee will continue to support you as you make some tough decisions so that we extract every penny of value from every dollar that we spend, and, again, i just want to acknowledge the important work you've done there. let me turn to afghanistan. senator sessions expressed some concern, but i would like to comment that you make peace with your enemy, not with your friends, and i've been interested, admiral mullen, in the reintegration at the low-level taliban proposals forthcoming. a recent conference i believe in the uk, some significant monies pledged. could you comment on those plans

to the extent that your comfortable? >> the reintegration piece is clearly an important piece of this and every commander feels that way, and very specific the reintegration is really bringing those who are literally the fighters who are against us right now bringing them into the fold, and, in fact, general mcchrystal is very focused on that. we are in the execution of this strategy, which includes that, and so getting everybody on the same page for exactly what it means and how rapidly it happens or doesn't happen is where we are very much at the beginning, but we think it is an important part, and there is no -- there is no view at this point that it is a panacea, and we just -- because we just don't see that many at this point. the other term that is used that i think is very important to understand is the reconciliation piece, which is a term that is focused on, i would call, the

senior leadership of the taliban, or the senior leadership of the enemy. much more complex and, again, president karzai made it clear that e wants to get on this path, but, again, it's at the beginning, we're at the beginning of that process. i think we have to be clear about the terms and what they mean and also look at a realistic pace in terms of both expectations and actually what's happening. in that regard, we're just at the beginning. >> let me turn to iraq. we have elections looming. there's some increase violence. do you still believe we're on schedule to redeploy as general odierno put in place? >> i do. focused on elections in early march. it's the elections after which we start coming down fairly dramatically. 100,000, 104,000 today is what we have on the ground and we will come down to approximately 50,000 by august.

in that time frame, another big issue is, they will be standing up a. >> guest: and it will take them several months to do that. sort of the summertime to stand up this newly elected government. so it's a great time of transition. and general odierno as is ambassador hill on the civilian side very focused on all aspects of that, but right now overall the indicators are positive. >> i see that my time's expired. i want to thank you again for your lead eship and for this comprehensive set of statements and for a budget secretary gates, that clearly leads us in the right direction. thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and mr. secretary, admiral, thank you for your outstanding service, and for appearing today and responding to some of our questions. secretary gates, what i wanted to take up with you with regard to the recommendations in the budget and the qdr is the going

back to 2006 qdr a recommendation in there as you know to develop a follow-on bomber. you've made it clear you support the development of a new bomber. last april opted not pursue a program until you had a better understanding of the need and requirement of technology as part of effort to better understand the requirement for a new bomber i also understand that you stood up a tiger team to do an in-depth study of long range strike in the new qdr, and in reading the new qdr on page 33, it looks, however, like you still have not made a decision to move forward with the new bomber program but instead commissioned another study. my question, what conclusions were drawn by the tiger team regarding the development of a new bomber? and are those conclusions that would be available to us, at least in writing for the record? >> i will get you an answer for the record on that, senator, but there is, i think, $1.7 billion

in the budget for next generation bomber, and long range strike. i think one of the issues we're still wrestling with is, what kind of a bomber would we be looking for? do we want a stand-off bomber? an attack bomber? do we want a manned balmer or unmanned bomber or variations, where you could have a platform that could serve both purposes? and i think we're still -- we've still got a lot of life left in the b-52s, as old as they r, and in is modernization money for both of those in the budget, and we're talking about a bomber that would probably not appear into the force until the late '20s, and so we're just trying to figure out, looking ahead, a generation, what the right

configuration for that would be. >> the 2006 qdr suggested i think fielding a new bomber by the year 2018, and i understand the concerns you raised about what type of bomber that might be, but i guess -- by the way, i think the $1.7 billion is a multiyear, like a four-year number, but why is it necessary to have another study? the thing has been studied and study and studied and on whether or not we want to move forward on developing follow-on bomber. when would you expect that study to be completesed? >> i have to get an answer for the record. what the stud hey been up to now is weather. and now the study is what? >> the -- secretary gates, with regard to the defense program structure set out a new qdr for the air force, the qdr proposes five long range strike wings with up to 96 primary mission aircraft. according to the latest air force almanac, they have 153

bomber aircraft and i understand some of these aircraft are dedicated to testing. over 50 for testing seems like a lot. do you plan on retiring any bomber aircraft in the near future? and i guess a follow-on question what are the assumptions underlying what appears to be a substantial reduction in the number of bombers? >> certainly i'm not aware that we are, although i certainly would want to check with the record to make sure that i've got that right. there certainly hasn't been any big discussion about the retirement of bombers. and if i could speak briefly to the other issue you raise. one of the things that's happened in the last two budgets, in my view, it's put us on a pace with a view that evolves. some of the previous laydowns. 2006 qdr from incredibly aggressive, from my perspective. part of my answer to the question of why we're still doing this is because this is a very difficult problem. we want to get it right.

and it has a huge impact, quite frankly, on the future of the air force, because of the capability requirement, and i think what you're seeing is a process that is led by secretary gates to move us through a dliv, deliver a process that really focuses on getting it right for the future. and as he indicated the previous study as whether or not and now we look to the future what it should be. i'm supportive of has. these are tough decisions we absolutely want to get right. >> could you, for the record, get to that question, though, of the number of the 96 bombers that are assumed in the five wings, with 153 air force bombers, a certain number of them allocated to testing, but that does seem like a significant number. whether or not there is any plan to retire and any assumptions underlying that what would appear to be a substantial

reduction number of bombers? >> for the record, i'll supply it. a lot would be training. talking primary aircraft, coded aircraft. a number of designated testing as you say but we'll supply the details for the record that would be great. mr. chairman, in i could, i'd like to get a response to a question dealing with the stark treaty. sort of the same thing. >> you will expect that answer for the record then relative to senator thune's question. senator haggan? >> what was the question on stark? >> he's going to submit that to you for the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both, secretary gates and admiral mullen for your testimony today and your dedication to our men and women in the military. secretary gates, i applaud you for the tremendous job the department of defense in carrying out and the relief efforts underway in haiti.

the ability for our maritime forces to operate from a sea base while rapidly transitioning personnel from sea and ashore is an excellent demonstration what our military is capable of doing and especially useful in the situation in haiti where there's limited capacity for air transport. i believe it's important that we maintain our advantage in projecting sea power across the range of military operations from humanitarian relief to combat, and my question, secretary gates, and admiral mullen is, do the military departments and combatant commanders have sufficient amphibious operational capabilities to address the full spectrum of requirements both military and human tear anticipated with the qdr? >> ma'am, as i go back over the last 10 to 15 years and then look at the future, my overall answer to that would be yes. we certainly have, with the department over the years

debated and there's been a tension, a tension, i think it's a good tension to get this right and it focuses specifically on the amount of amphibious lift capability that we have. actually, one of my concerns specifically -- right now, yes. one of my concerns about the future, and i'm certain that the common marine corps shares this, the marine corps has been very heavy and fifth or sixth year fighting a land war. not what it wants to do. a lot of adjusts have to be made. marine corps has to get lighter than it's been in the past. this discussion will continue, but as far as my view of the future, i think we've got it about right as we sit. >> thank you. i know that we've already discussed what the ieds somewhat. i know in afghanistan the mountainous terrain and the

limited communication infrastructure certainly poses a distinctly different ied threat as oppose to what we have seen in iraq. and we need additional personnelality the battalion and company levels with the appropriate expertise and technical equipment to detect the icht eds in areas such as afghanistans where the insurgents utilize the primitive forms with very little metallic content buried into the ground. what type of feedback are you receiving from see centcom with personnel requirements encountering the ieds and wrap do you expect to the do to address shortages that exist? >> a substantial number of the 30,000 troops that will be going are in the category of what we call enablers. and that includes engineers, route clearance specialists.

count countercounter-ied specialists, all of whom are people associated with intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, all part of a counter-ied effort. one of the initiatives that this temporary task force that i've set up under general paxton and dr. carter is looking at is establishing at the battalion level what we would call a warehouse approach for counter-ieds, which would basically, instead of giving every battalion the same set of equipment, rather rather have an array of equipment available to that battalion so each of the teams going out can select the equipment that seems most appropriate to that mission that day. we have a wide range of these detectors and intelligence capabilities and so on, and the idea is, some of these units are

better, frankly, with certain kinds of equipment than other. there's a certain -- there's more than a little art in this. and so what we're trying to do is figure out how at the battalion level we, in essence, could have an array of equipment that a team going out could take advantage of. so i think that there is an understanding on the part of general@@á," j"@ the 313 ship navy, admiral mullen. the cbo recently testified the current ship building bchs are

not enough to fund the navy's plan to increase the fleet to 313, and i think we all know that. i assume you agree with that? at 283, the service has the smallest fleet since 1916. pre-world war i. we need to build more than 12 ships per year for the next 18 years to arrive at 313. is 313 still the requirement, admiral mullen? and how does this budget, how does this qdr support the goal of a 313-ship navy? t. is still a goal. it is -- it was when i'd led that analysis and generated that requirement as cno and remains the floor. it was a number that was achieved with, you know, an understanding of what the risks would be. we, the total we, that's the services, the department, those that build ships certainly

congressional support, had been working for years to get more money into the ship-building account. and i think as we laid out there, some $15 billion this year. it's ten ship, one of had is an army ship. we are, one of the things we're not going toble able to do build to that number of ships, they keep costing a lot more than they expect they will. that's the acquisition reform is really a critical part of that, and i'll use lcs as an example. that has cost, has been -- while i had expectations the costs would go up, certainly not to the degree that it has. and so that has to be contained. we don't need the perfect ship or the perfect airplane. as we look to the future. so there's -- i argued for years there's got to be a strategic partnership across all three entities in order to get ship building and major procurement right. i think this budget takes steps in that direction, but you don't have to do the -- you can just do the math and see we're not

going to get to 313, and i would not want to be satisfied with 283. which is sort of what the projection is right now. given the demands that we have. for our navy, our military and our navy. >> it's going to take acquisition reform to get us to that floor number, 313. when do you think we might be able to actually make some progress in that regard? >> i think the secretary and many others, myself included, have taken steps to really put our, get our arms around requirements growth. having expertise there. holding people accountable. those are some of the things that are certainly in great focus right now, and there's more to do, but it's going to take -- it will be -- it will about few years, i think, before that really take as grip and starts to have the kind of impact to be able to generate that, the kind of capability you need with cost. i'm encourage by this

ship-building program. it's got two submarines in it. the first year it's got. i can tell you, it took almost ten years to make that happen. so we will continue to -- i think it continues to need to be an area of focus. it's a vital capability for our country. and as you indicated, it's the smallest navy we've had for many, many decades and for a country that is a -- a, know, that has big bodies of water on both coasts, it's a maritime country, that's a great concern. >> would it be fair to say we are short-changing part of the mission? could you -- enlighten us as to -- what aspects of our mission are we shortchanging? because of the lack of these 313 ships? >> the navy is very pressed operating at a very high tempo and i think admiral will have an opportunity to speak for himself would say he sort of is at the edge of being able to meet the commitments in terms of global

commitments. heavily focused, our navy is heavily focused in the gulf as well. the sea base just created quickly in haiti is certainly well with what we expect and can do, but given the up tempo that our navy and air force, quite frankly, sundis under, which sometimes gets lost. it's increased as we. the admiral's concern, we are wearing capability out and not replacing it at a rate that goats ta kind of number that you're talking about. >> i. s see -- i see. let me move back to a point senator mccain was making. i just returned also from afghanistan and pakistan and i agree with senator mccain that this july 2011 date is mentioned when you talk to leaders over there. there was a term that we came back with from our -- with leader mcconnell. a deficit of trust. it's not just a date for the

beginning of the drawdown, but also specifically with regard to pakistan, it's the decade of really very ill will between the united states and the government of pakistan. do you agree, secretary gates, that there is a deficit of trust about the united states ' intention to be a long-term strategic partner with afghanistan and pakistan? and what are we doing to address that deficit trust? >> i think there are definitely, there is definitely a deficit of trust with pakistan and i think it's historical. the pakistanis will speak of three or four american betrayals. only the most recent of which are turning our backs on afghanistan and them after the

soviets withdrew, and the other, the implementation of the pressler amendment and cut off of military to military relationships. i think, frankly, the way that trust is rebuilt is with time, effort and actions. i think that the -- i think admiral mullen at this point has in his 2 1/2 years as chairman been to pakistan probably 15 or 16 times. he has an extraordinary relationship with general kiani. i think there is a good personal trust there. but i think where pakistanis as a whole, it is our sticking with them. it is -- it is our attention to their problems, including their economic problems and so we commend the kerry lugar berman bill, which is very important, but i think being steadfast is important. i was in pakistan just a couple of weeks ago, and spoke directly

to this, and i would say that in some areas that's more than a deficit of trust. there are conspiracy theories over there about our wanting to take their nuclear weapons. about our wanting to divide them up. all kinds of things. and i spoke to that directly, and so i think honesty in dealing with them, but a long-term effort is what's going to be required. in afghanistan, my personal sense is that we have in the various visits that i have made and admiral mullen and others, they understand that july 2011 is the beginning of a process, and that there is no deadline on that process. but there also is an acknowledgement by some of the afghans that in effect they needed that kind of wake-up call in order to begin to realize they were going to have to take responsibility themselves for defeating the taliban.

that this wasn't something that everybody else could do for them. and so i think that what we need to continue to communicate to the afghans is that even as our security forces draw down over the next several years, that our presence there, our willingness to partner with them, our willingness to be a part of their economic and political life going forward is a long-term decades long commitment by the united states to that country. not to have a huge military force there, but helping them get control of sththeir securit situation and then them being in charge of their country. but i think the july 2011, i know it's controversial. my own view is that it provided exactly the right incentive for them to begin to accept responsibility, but by having no terminal date on it, it allows us to do a conditions-based withdrawal that i think makes sense. >> thank you very much, senator

wicker. senator webb? >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, we have the recommendations in the qdr. we have your budget proposal. this is not the moment to comment from our side of the table on the details in there. i would like that to thank senator wicker for his comments about the size of the navy and the challenges in the navy, and obviously as you know, i do not think it is an appropriate budget item for the navy to think they can spend $1 billion in upgrading a nice to have facility in mayport at the same time when we're looking to try to build a fleet up to 313 ships. admiral mullen, you'll recall when you and i were commissioned in 1968, we had 930 ships in the united states navy. went down to 479 when i was secretary of the navy, went up to 568.

but i want to set that aside, make sure you know we're going to continue that discussion. i want to set that aside, and my five minutes, talk about something else. that is, that i don't believe, quite frankly, that the d.o.d. budget should be sacrosanct when it comes to looking at the constraints and examinations that we ought to be putting on different programs. and secretary gates, i take your point about not wanting to go into force structure reductions, but at the same time i believe you can meet the challenges and adapt for the future and still clean up a lot of unnecessary programs that exist in the pentagon by taking a hard look at programs that don't produce a clear bottom line, and are not simply hardware systems or forestructure issues.

i very much appreciate the progress you've made, which you mentioned in your opening states, but i think there comes a time every now and then to th shake things down. when i was secretary of the navy, we had to implement it in 1988. it mandated a 10% across the board reduction in defense programs. it was a 5% government-wide mandate and half of the programs at that time were fenced. they went too far. i resigned. it doesn't hurt to really get into efficiencies in an area where we are not getting an appropriate bottom line. let me give you three data points. i would ask today for you to make a commitment to really examine these types of programs. you and i are familiar with the blackwater program that i wrote you about in '07 when we came to

resolution where out in san diego, they were going to spend more than $60 million for a private contractor to train sailors how to do your job and how to defend yourself on board a ship. the first question i had was the fact that this was something active duty should have been doing and not a contractor. the major concern was this program came from 0 and m block funding. it was never authorized or appropriated as a program. it was approved by a lower level official at the differently neve based on the needs of the fleet. we found out that the secretary of the neve didn't have to review that program unless it was a $78 billion program. there is a program existing right now where we are sending basically military officers over

to think tanks. your own secretary of defense. it's part of creating a think tank. cnaf. my understanding of these programs is they get military fellows. these are active duty and they go over and get the full pay and allowances and get tuition. the numbers that i saw were $17,000 a semester for whatever a semester is to pay the rent and the computers and all the rest of that. essentially what that means is the american taxpayer is funding think tanks to keep them in business. they don't produce added value in the department of defense in terms of a direct contribution. another example that just came up over the past couple of months was this mentor program. according to news reports you can have retired high ranking