when service members are discharged under the don't ask don't tell policy with an honorable discharge, the dod policy now is that they only receive half of their separation pay, which is authorized by statute. would you take a look at that is something we can do in the interim to indicate a greater sense of fairness in this issue? you were sitting there very quietly senator. i should ask you if you have a final question. >> i thank you both. this has been a long hearing this morning. we very much appreciate you we will stand adjourned.

senator, i don't know if you were asked this first, but do you think that year-long study is too slow and not fast enough in your not doing something in the authorization this year? >> well, we can have a moratorium bill before this is resolved. there is one year and another year after that that secretary

gates said might be required after the first year, if i heard that right, so i would like to hear it happen earlier, but if there were a moratorium on it, and there would be what i consider a slow pace then i would be more practical, more fair. >> i'm from canadian tv, and have you ruled out actual appeal in the d.o.d. -- >> i have not decided. >> can you comment on american and canadian forces fighting side by side despite the "don't ask, don't tell" policy? >> well, i believe what we were told which is the canadian approach which is not to discriminate against gays and lesbians serving openly has not provided a problem for the canadian forces or problems to other coalition forces like ours who fight side by side with the canadians. that is what we heard this morning and my own belief as well. >> do you believe it is a good model for the american model? >> yes, it happens that the

canadian model for us. >> do you have any plans to repeal the defense authorization bill? >> i don't know wlae wit no't k proceed with. we will have a hearing a week from thursday, with an outside panel, and we have all of the service chiefs and secretaries coming in february. i am sure they will be asked about it. there is a number of options, including a moratorium which makes a lot of sense to em since this policy is not only under review, there is a decision made which the secretary support twis chairman of the joint chiefs personally supports to make a change in the policy, since we know there is that kind of momentum, why not have a moratorium pending the outcome? that is my strikes me at the moment. >> has president obama given -- >> is the bill the place to make that decision? >> well, it is the defense authorization act which helped to put the policy in place to begin with.

>> so it is a consideration to put it in the bill if and when -- >> yeah, it is a perfect place to put in a moratorium or repeal or some other action in relation to "don't ask, don't tell." >> has president obama said what he prefers a moratorium or repeal? >> i don't know what he believes other than the speech. >> the consideration of the family members, other than gay and lesbian part nors, is there any significance to the study? >> try me again. >> well, if you have a study like this, taking into account the service members and their families it would not then include the opinions necessarily of gay service members and the partners would it? >> well, you have to obtain the opinion of gay service members. >> how do you do that if they are not allowed to speak? >> well, that is the question

that senator mccaskill raised, so you have to either look at the ones who have separated or voluntarily resign and talk to them as former service members or i would assume and everybody would have to agree, and all of my colleagues even those who favor the "don't ask, don't tell" policy would have to agree to a request by somebody to talk to a current gay member. i mean, if that is in response to a question by somebody who is authorized to ask the question, everybody should agree that opinion should be solicited and not penalized, but she raises a significant point. it is a point which would need to be addressed in any survey that is an accurate survey. you have to be able to talk to the broad cross section of people. >> were you surprised by mullen's comments today? they seemed strong.

>> i had in the previous conversation with him an indication that that was his personal belief. very strong belief in integrity, and not allowing people to be themselves, and the integrity is the nature of the army and the armed forces and people want integrity there and respect integrity and not requiring people to pretend to be something they are not. i was not surprised by, and in general, i have come to rely on admiral mullen as somebody who will give you his personal opinion straight, and it is a very valuable -- it is not only a valuable source of information, but it is required by our constitution and by our rules when he is confirmed. we ask men and women who are confirmed before us point blank if you have been around here long enough to know, one of the 12 questions, will you tell this committee your personal opinion,

regardless of whether it is in agreement with the administration in power when asked by this committee, and they say they will do that. he did that this morning. he showed some real exemplary leadership this morning. i thought that when a colleague was critical of his testimony in suggesting that this would represent undue command influence, i thought it was really way off target. i thought that was just -- it was just i thought inconsistent with everything that ewe requir of the military. >> senator, how important is his voice in the debate do you believe as a uniform officer? >> well, his leadership is important of how this gets done. >> is the repeal of don't ask don't tell by congress out of this question for this year? >> well, what is more likely than repeal i'm guessing, but we have to await the testimony that we will have as a moratorium is, i think, probably more likely

prospect, because of the study which the secretary announced today, but i don't want to preclude anything or predict anything. i don't know. i mean, people have to be heard from. >> senator, i hope that -- >> with the authorization bill, and the vehicle -- >> well, perfectly appropriate vehicle if the congress wants to act. >> and what about -- >> well, you can do it either way. it is perfectly well either way to put it in a authorization bill to change it to "don't ask, don't tell" and if my memory is right and may not be, but that is where the policy was put into place to begin with, so it is certainly appropriate to repeal it or do a moratorium or any number of thin things. >> i hope there is no delay. i just hope to serve and i hope i don't have to be fired in the time of this. >> well, we follow your career and admire it. >> bill clinton said that when

he tried to implement "don't ask, don't tell" last time, the mid level officers refused to implement it as it was promised to him. colin powell told him that gays would be allowed to go to gay bars and march in gay parades as long as they did not come out on base in their professional capacity they would be prosecuted, but bill clinton said that evangelical officers would not promote gays? >> well, i won't comment on it. it is too third hand to me. i would have to see what he actually said. >> senator, one more question. >> try it again, but slower. >> tell me about the schedule of how you see that the senate armed services committee will continue? >> well we will have a hearing of outside panels a week from thursday. we will hear from the service secretaries and service chiefs during the month of february on their budgets. so, during those budget

hearings, i am sure there is an opportunity for colleagues to ask them, and they will expect to be asked their position on the president's approach and what secretary gates announced here today and there is a lot of activity on the subject today. >> and the hearing a week from thursday do, you foe who are the witnesses there? >> we don't know, but we will try to get a cross section. >> thanks. >> sure. >> senator levin --

>> we will hear more from defense secretary gates and chairman mullen next on c-span. they will testify about the budget for the defense department. later, we will hear from a nasa administrator. on tomorrow morning's "washington journal," we will look at the 2011 budget requests. john spratt joins us. after that, american federation

of teachers president joins us. then stephen moore of "the wall street journal." >> in-depth look comes paul johnson, author of over 40 books. his latest is on winston churchill. join our three-hour conversation. it will be live from london on sunday at noon eastern. >> defense secretary robert gates and joint chiefs chairman robert mullen testified on the budget request for the pentagon. it is just over $700 billion. carl levin of michigan chairs the armed services committee. here is part of the hearing.

the department of defense fiscal year 2011 budget request, and the the 2010 quadrennial defense review end of the 2010 ballistic missile defense review 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 the national defense authorize act for fiscal year 2009. this is the first comprehensive policy and strategy framework for missile defense and it is long overdue. secretary gates' cover memo notes that "i have made the near term regional threats a top priority of our plans, programs,

and capabilities." and that has been consistent with what congress has been urging for many years. before new missile defense programs will be deployed, they 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@@@r

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 coalition 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@@@@@@@@ our national asset, and they deserve our united support. informed by the 2010 quadrennial review, your budget request of $549 billion build upon a substantial change outlined in last year's budget by establishing strategic priorities and identifying whether the department needs to spend scarce resources. secretary gates, last year, i supported your review that their needs a balancing

of risk. europe 2011 overseas contingency operations request and your 2010 supplemental request supports our men and women and men in iraq. 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 o 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 on the f-35 striker program, i

appreciate the decision to announced yesterday. as you appropriately stated yesterday during a press conference, "when things go wrong, people will be held accountable." i would like to see that happen in some other areas of government. i am nonetheless concerned about your comment during the press conference that it was clear that there were more problems with the f-35 than you were aware of when you visited the fort worth plant last august. you recently announced a management decisions. i hope you getñi reliable and u- to-date information about important aspects of the program when you need it. ñii am still concerned as to whether the services will be sufficiently capable when you need them. the director of operational test and evaluation found in the continued production concurrent

with the slow increase in flight testing over the next two years will commend the department in services, testing, and deployment plans with substantial risk. the marine corps and the navy's version of the joint strike fighter may end up being too expensive to operate. each flight our costs about $31,000, compared with around $19,000 for one flight hour for the service's current fa-18 hornet. of like you to comment on these and other issues facing this program. . her 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 >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, thank 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 i know are of interest to the committee. >> mr. secretary, i'm going to interrupt you at this time and do something which i know you'd love us to do which is to approve a number of nominations. we have a quorum here.

there is a quorum present, so i'll ask the committee now to consider five civilian nominations and 1,802 pending military nominations first douglas wilson for public affairs, malcolm ross o'neill 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@@@@@@8 to ensure that they have steady, long-term funding, and institutional support. the base budget request was accompanied by the 2010 quadrennial defense review. 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.@@@@@@ these programs would cost the american taxpayer about $330 billion. and closing, i thank you and members of this committee again for all you have done to support our troops and their families. and light of the unprecedented demands that have been placed upon them. i think the choices made and the priorities set make sure they have the tools that they need in the wars that we need while making the investment needed to

prepare for threats beyond the horizon. 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 right now the taliban believe that they are winning. they will know that they cannot.

getting there will demand discipline and hard work and more cooperation with pakistan. it will most assuredly the man more sacrifice and more bloodshed. but the stakes are far too high for failure. that is why we're asking you to fully fund the supplemental and the overseas contingency operations request. that is why we won an increase for special operations and why we need your support to develop the next generation of ground combat vehicles, two more army combat brigades, and to continue production including $3 million for programs. in keeping with the secretary's strong emphasis, long justified by experience in iraq and afghanistan, we ask for more capability in army and aircraft, including nearly $3 billion for

the reaper. our future security is greatly in peril if we do not win the war with iran. we will shake as global security environment for decades to come. i'm very confident that we can and will fight well in iraq. we will drawdown american forces to roughly 50,000, ending our combat mission there and transitioning to and advise and assist role. 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 capabilities. these cannot be ignored. the freedom to conduct operations in support of joint, allied, and coalition efforts, ensuring access and projecting combat power can only be preserved through enduring war-fighting competencies.

this means capable of ensuring air superiority, at sea, meaning having enough ships and sailors to stay engaged globally and keep the sea lanes open. on the ground, means accelerating the monitorization 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 @@@@@@@ rr many are worried about their future in their children. you see a budget for family and advocacy programs, youth programs increased, and a boost and family services to include counseling to the tune of $37 million. military spouse deployment will get a bomb and we will increase the budget for wounded, killed, and injured members. health care funding for fiscal year 2011 is projected to provide high-quality care for 9.5 million eligible benefit

carriers. 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. åapitals and meet.

will we be deploying ground- based interceptors that have not been tested in demonstrated? 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 >> i do not know the answer to that. >> media reports state that you thought so. is it your view that absent

interrogation techniques that the intelligence community provides no value in the interrogation of terrorist? >> no, i do not believe that. >> well, i thank you. on the issue of the f-35, to what do you attribute the fact that you are not informed of the facts when you needed to be? >> we have not yet undertaken at that time, senator mccain, an independent cost analysis that is now one of the requirements under the acquisition reform act that you all passed last year. our undersecretary for acquisition launched such an exercise. he himself spent about two weeks

full-time looking at the f-35 program, and as a result of the independent cost estimate and his own investigation, came to the conclusion that the program required restructuring. >> and can you give us either verbally or in writing that delays and cost overruns we now expect? . 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 navy in 2014. the fourth quarter of 2014. ere 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 guantanamo. we look forward to your views on that, because i view that clearly in your area of responsibility. not the attorney general, who is obviously botched this one very, very badly. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator mccain.

senator akaka? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to add my welcome to secretary gates and admiral mullen to the committee and for peeg here to discuss the 2011 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 as i said, i do not think we will have a problem. >> army modernization -- i have been concerned about that. when you look at our capabilities, we went through

that thing. first we were going to have a crusader, and that was by president bush. they were putting together a program, so i am concerned about that. now we do have a program, but i got to tell you, that is the same technology they had when i was in the united states army, so i am concerned about that, and i am concerned general casey has stated we are burning up the equipment, yet the army procurement funding decrease in this budget by $31 billion from 2008 until 2010. 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 the program, and i

think you will see a significant increase when the army moved into production with that vehicle. >> i hope that is the case. >> 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 continue to do so objectively. so we can gauge our efforts in both afghanistan and pakistan. and i know this administration as well as our nato allies are committed to objective benchmarks for measurement, and we've done so with past

strategies and all talked about this many time. most recently in december about both afghanistan and pakistan. during that hearing in december it was noted that measures are progress were being used and evaluated, and i thought at that time that those benchmarks would 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. yshould that be applied to a

procurement project, should that be accounted for? >> i have long been concerned about life cycle costs. you know that long before now, and the secretary pointed out in his opening statement that the program he cut last year had some life cycle value focused on about $330 billion. as far as what it is going to be focused on, that is something i cannot comment on. >> i do not know. we have a combat ship i am told does not have any factor for fuel costs. >> you know more about it then i do. >> if that is so, would you be willing to look at it and ask questions? is that a wise decision?

>> as i said, all longtime i have been concerned about life cycle costs. one of the weaknesses of the acquisition system -- typically, the uniform side 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 in the world doesn't change, and the world is becoming more complex, and i would say more dangerous rather than less so. and i think that as people think about where we are, there are

many reasons for the deficit, and the defense department certainly spends a lot of money. but if you look at the, where the defense department is today, it's very much with historical 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 the marine corps is become very heavy, and now it is in its 6 4/7 year of fighting a land war,

which is not what -- six or seven years of fighting a land war, which is not what it wants to do. i think this discussion will continue, but as far as my view of the future, i think we have got it about right as we said. >> i know we have already discussed i.e. teas, but in afghanistan with the mountainous terrain -- ied's, but in afghanistan with the mountainous terrain, it poses an additional threat, and we need the appropriate technical equipment in areas such as afghanistan, where insurgents use i primitiveed's -- peried --u primitive ied's.

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 mcchrystal and general petraeus that we are pouring every -- every bit of

counter-ied capability into afghanistan as we can. >> thank you. my time is up. >> thank you, senator haggan. senator -- >> we do have a lot to talk about, and i share senator sessions view that it would be nice to have you back. i hope the chairman will be able to arrange that. my first question is about 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 they went too far.

i resigned because they cut into structure too far, but it does not hurt to really get into deficiencies in an area where we are not getting inappropriate bottom line. let me give you three data points. i would ask you to make a commitment to really examine these types of programs. you and i are familiar with the black water program, and in 2007, we came to some resolution. in san diego, they were going to spend $60 million for private contractor that would teach sailors how to do their job, to defend themselves on board a ship. the first problem is these are things they should have been doing. the major concern is this had never been authorized. it had never been appropriated as a program.

it was just approved by a lower level officials, and we found out the secretary of the navy did not have to review the program unless it was a $78 million program. . 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 it's part of creating a think tank. 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 general officers and admirals making well in excess of $100,000 a year in their retirement. 80% working with defense contractors and then going in and making up to $2600 a day to give their advice. in other words, a retired admiral or general can make more in a day than a corporal in afghanistan will make in a month to do what he's supposed to do

anyway. fulfill his stuartship and having spent a career in the military. i don't know the full cost of that, but according to "usa today," these people are being paid between 200 and $340 an hour plus expenses. they are hired as independent contractors and not subject to government ethics rules. they operate outside public scrutiny and many work for weapons makers and in effect are able to either gain information for companies or exchange data. that's not the military i grew up in. that's not the military you and i served in. that's not the pentagon i served in in the 1980s. these are the kind of things i think we can do and not affect the structure. >> we certainly will continue to look at these things. i will tell you on the mentoring program deputy secretary has

been reviewing this and you will see great value in the program, but dramatic changes in the way it's administered. >> i would hope so. >> thank you, gentlemen for your service and for being here to answer our questions. secretary gates, when we captainure an enemy combatant, do we read them miranda rights? >> no. >> why should we do so if we capture one in this country? >> that's a question better addressed to the attorney general, senator. >> you were the director of the central intelligence before you were secretary of the defense. >> yes, sir. >> i assume you have an opinion on this. >> my view is that the issue of whether someone is put into the american judicial system or into

the military commissions is a judgment best made by the chief law enforcement officer of the united states. >> before they get to commission, there is a question of beinga able to ask questions and we know there is a chilling effect when we give someone miranda rights. if we are not doing it overseas, i'm not sure why we would be doing it in this country. >> we have been placed protocols now that and there is authority under the law that if a person is deemed to be a threat to the national security as a self-confessed terrorist would be, there can be delayed in mirandizing to allow time for questioning. we have the authority to do that even in the article three system. >> my colleague was talking about making it work and he has a different view to mitigate the risk of a terrorist attack,

accident or natural disaster. in mayport, i know you support that and i appreciate that, but there is no money in the budget for the nuclearization projects or other projects that need to be completed. >> there is $239 million for the mayport military construction for mayport. >> thank you. >> mullen, will you designate a ship to mayport in the coming months? >> actually, it's something that it's not mine. that in the end would be a decision that the navy would recommend and it would come up to the secretary. >> are you bringing one up soon? >> we can talk about that later. we have given information about the fact that it's 35% over

budget which i think is about $18 billion if my numbers are correct. this program started in the mid 90s and we went to the moon quicker than we produced this plane. i appreciate your efforts to try to get this under control. i saw there was a suspension of the performance benefits. my question is in terms of acquisition reform, it seems to me there needs to be reform across the department of defense, probably across the government. not just performance bonuses, but penallies under the vendors. is there a person you charged as responsible to lead the effort and are you looking at the contracts to make sure they bear the cost if programs were delayed? >> under secretary carter e, he is responsible for that and taking a look at a large number of contracts. >> i had an opportunity to be

there yesterday to speak with general petreus and in follow-up to my trip to afghanistan at the end of october which i went with senator burns in the white house, we noted that our information out to the afghan people. maybe not doing as good as it could be. the general talked about the fact that we were successful in the surge in iraq because of the power of ideas and not the power of the forces. this is the need to commit more focused energy and potentially more fun to providing information to the afghan people to counteract what the taliban does. >> it's misinformation. there good efforts being done with the colonel craft. he was doing good work with trying to get radios out there to folks to working with governors to get information out quickly to counteract propaganda

from the taliban. is that something that has risen to your level and do you understand the need to improve our efforts? >> absolutely. we have spent a good bit of time in the situation room with our agency partners. strategic communications in afghanistan a high priority. >> i'm out of time, but i would like to ask one more question. on the 313-ship navy, the plan is currently to have 10 carriers. is that sufficient where refitting the enterprise, do we need to keep the enterprise in operation until it comes on line? what's your thoughts? >> the current requirement is for 11 and i support that. the 10 carrier issue is to be decided literally down the road. obviously how we build them generates how many they are and when we retire them. i don't think we should keep the

enterprise. it's unique and incredibly costly and the decision to decommission it after the next appointment and take the risk in that gap i think is a decision that i support, recognizing there is risk associated with that. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much, senator. senator burris. >> thank you and i would like add my thanks to your wonderful service you do for our country and for those in our military personnel for haiti, i want to extend my thanks to them and also remind our government that we are there as assistants and not to take over or occupy a country as people are concerned about. make sure we keep that message going forward. the defense integrated military human resource systems. the largest program ever implemented for the human

resource which will replace over some 90 legacy systems, intended to bring all payroll and funks into one integrated web-based system. in august of 1996, the department of the task force concluded that the multiple service personnel and pace system caused a significant short coming, particularly in the joint arena and excessive development and maintenance cost. the recommendation was that dod should move to a single all service, all component, fully integrated personnel and paced system with common core software. this program for the defense department said it was necessary. why is it a poorly performing

program today and why is it not necessary and what has changed? >> this is one where i think both admiral mullen and i have something to say. first of all, after 10 years of effort, poor performance and difficulties with the program, i would say that what we have gotten for a half billion dollars is an unpronounceable acro him in. many of the programs i made decisions to cut have been controversial within the department of defense. >> in my prior life as head of the navy and as a budget officer, this has been a disaster. the characteristics you

described are good characteristics to have. i talked about making a program too perfect and you can't get there. it was proven that they couldn't get there time and time again. i applaud the termination of the program. that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to create the enterprise efforts that you just described. we have to do it in a way where we are not spending the kind of money we are spending going nowhere. >> we will run into the military and people don't want to give up more. if we can pay the personnel management, all civilian. ies under the one-payment system. why can't the military exercise one payment system? it would be my assessment that you run into turf problems that the military is not willing to say that a person had a great fix in the navy to be paid in the army. it's the same system. you cut a paycheck and you don't have all these, but you have five or six different systems in

the military. we can save millions of millions of taxpayer dollars by combining the systems. >> i don't disagree that we could get there and we should have that. it was costing us a tremendous amount of money to go nowhere in this and even in the private sector when yo it is always a challenge. it is a good goal but we were not getting their and we're wasting our money. >> are you going to take it up in the future? >> yes, sir, i am sure that we will. >> why is the funding for all right security forces -- it is my understanding that they were standing down.

now there's training for the security forces. >> well, sir, the money is for things like $300 million to set the conditions for the transfer of state department responsibilities for training the police. >> what does that mean? >> the overseas contingency operation, the new supplemental. and so there are a number of categories like that. and a lot of it -- there is only $158 million for equipment. the rest of it is all connected

to our transfer of responsibility from the costs associated either from ourselves to the iraqis or a from the department of defense to the department of state after our troops come out. troops come out. most of those costs are associated in that area along with sustainment of and training for the iraqis who are going to be taking our places. >> my time expired, but gentlemen, i hope the civilians can do it and get one pay scale system. the civilians and the military can do it without five or six different system. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. a couple of quick items i think, feel free to submit that unpronounceable acro him in for

the record.nym for the record. you referred to the civilian court system. one house keeping announcement before i call on the senator, when we begin our hearing of don't ask don't tell, we are on schedule to begin before noon. we are going to follow the same early bird order as the current theory when we reached the don't ask don't tell hearing. senator? >> thank you. the last will be first for that hearing? >> i didn't say reverse order. i said the same order. i wish i could say otherwise.

we were struggling with the best way to do it and we decide side to put everyone on notice. >> don't tell them we are starting early. >> you got a deal. >> thanks, mr. chairman. secretary gates, according to the qdr, on any given day, there more than seven million dod computers that are being used to support our war fighters and for other dod operations. acronym we also know every single day there attempts to hack into those computers. acronym some of these are from nation states like china. what is your assessment of the effectiveness of dod's current cyber security effort? >> i think we actually are particularly with our classified

systems are in good shape. most of the attacks that we have in the classified to unclassified systems, we are not happy with where we are. that's why we have an initiative to skreat cyber commands and also have money in the budget and made a priority in the qdr and the budget for cyber in terms of training individuals to be expert in this area. we made it a top priority for the services to fill all the slots in the education programs for cyber. i would say we are in good shape now, but we look with concern to the future.

we think a lot more needs to be done. >> thank you. admiral, last year the president announced a major policy change on how our country would extend protection against ballistics missiles to nato allies. i joined senator levin on a trip to talk to the czech republic, pola poland, and russia about this issue in march. i support the change and part of the change in direction is that the agents surface combat ands would become a primary means of accomplishing that important mission. they are dedicated to perform the mission will likely be tied to specific areas of operation. that means that they are not going to be fully available to

perform many of the more traditional missions that we typically assigned our major surface combatants. a number of analysts suggested that means we will need a larger number of major service combatants if all of these missions and roles are to be executed successfully. how does the decision to assign major service combatants with the new dedicated defense mission affect your assessment of the size of the overall fleet? >> we will start in an earlier discussion on the need to get to that and one of the things i worried about for years is that we would have enough in

particular surface combatant to be able to meet the needs that are out there. although i do not subscribe to the theory that these ships would become the ships like strategic ballistic missile submarines. it's the only thing we do. we invested too much and i think in the broad capability, wide ranging capability of surface ships to dedicate them to one mission. as this program has both been adjusted, it focuses on regional theater evolving threats. i think that's the right answer. we would have certainly some indications and warning and have the ships to flood to a certain area. understanding what the threat is. i'm between and i think we need to look carefully at how many we need. we need to upgrade the ones we have.

while we are upgrading some, we need to look seriously in modernization. do we have upgrades for the ship we built to meet the threat in the longer term as well as looking to see if we need more. i am more focused on the upgrade than we have additional. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator collins. senator bill nelson? >> i want to compliment you on the relief efforts in haiti. you make it happen. acronym he's answer we will have to do something different. i was just told a very troubling story of a relief effort by a group of floridians, doctors,

prominent people that took a private plane load of medical splice down to a number of our doctors who have been on the ground just doing heroic stuff. just before they got there, the customs had been turned back over to the haitian government. as they are unloading the plane of all the medical supplies to get it to our, in this case, university of miami doctors who were there the day after the earthquake. the customs officials wanted bribes to release the medical supplies. and we can't allow this kind of thing. you all have done tremendous things in getting us to where we are, the humanitarian mission, but for the long-term, we will

have to have an international trusteeship i'm not expecting a response, but i want to compliment you for what you have done. i have the privilege of sharing his emerging threats in the subcommittee. acronym as we withdraw forces in iraq, the requirement for the special operations forces they rely on the counterparts for

many support functions. what do we do to ensure the operations forces are being one of the things we are doing is moving the funding of the special operations command and in terms of their development, we are plussing up the development that they are supplied with and much of which is unique to them. we are increasing the number of slots that they have and this budget for fy 11 increases by

2800 people to continue that capability. >> part of moving to the future is investing in the wars we are in and there is no more critical capability in my view that we are investing in these wars. that will serve us well for the future. acronym we have the military members now and these were growing 2800 and this is at least in my interaction with the admiral about as fast as we can grow and find the people the

quitance in 2010. for years i believe the whole military has to be looking at the characteristics and they look for the forces. the tension you describe between the special forces and the services that provide the people and the early training and recruit them is a good tension and we will have to continue to deal with that. acronym and keeping that by reengining the old platforms.

what's the roll n afghanistan? >> it is principal ly tracking targets from on the ground. as you ask that question, i think j star is being the revolutionary aircraft that it was for desert storm. even in the early to mid 90s in the balkans where we deployed them prior to the time we actually finished successfully testing them. they have provided an extraordinary capability. the adaptation to this persistence requirement which we approved more >> thank you, senator nelson. senator mack haskell. >> first, i want to thank you,

secretary gates. i hope you can -- you have cooperated and a number of different topics. one of the things we are trying to get to the bottom of is whether or not some of the contracts were earmarks have been competitive. it has been said that -- [inaudible] i think the chairman accidently called on me before senator bayh. >> that is a mistake that i make here and i appreciate that. >> i want to thank you for the cooperation in this. some of these earmarks are being competitively given out,

but we're trying to get to the bottom of it to make sure as much as possible. i have read everything i can add -- i can get my hands on about when we get the planes. and i am confused about the date. use the fighters. acronym i am confused about the date. depending on whether you are talking about the team that went out or whether i see quotes from schwartz, let's get on the record and when do you think the joint strike fighter will be operational for the military? >> even with the restructuring of the program, the training squadron is still scheduled to deploy to the air fore base in 2011. mat rene corps will have operating capability in 2012.

the air force in the 2nd quarter of 2013 and the navy the 4th quarter of 2014. those are the latest estimates i have been given. >> okay. i heard you say those earlier. i wanted to make sure that it's clarified and i want to tell you how much i respect the fact that you fired somebody. you have done this several times. i washed you do this and it is unusual. i don't think people realize how unusual it is for a secretary of defense to fire people when these things happen. traditionally there thz not been people who have been fired. i want you to know that i noticed and it's hard to do and it's important that you send that signal of accountability. let me ask you about the c 5. i will try to go at the c 17 differently. i want to ask this question. if your hands were not tied by congress in terms of the modernization of the c 5, would

you continue to modernize or would you retire? >> we would condition to modernize a portion of the c 5s, but there would be some of the older c 5 a's we would retire. >> are you advocating we repeal the tying of your hands while you advocate for the closing of your line and that they retire the c 5? >> any greater flexibility i can have i would welcome. >> i want to make sure that i get your endorsement for us retiring our hand tying of you as it relates to the modernization they had huge problems. it turned out to be much more expensive than it was intended to be. it's my understanding and we are not using the c 5s in haiti.

>> i don't think so. >> we are using as we always do, the reliable easy to hand on short runways, load them up and get them out, cheaper to fly c 17 in haiti is correct. correct? >> yes,ma'am. >> i would say for the record out of 204,000 landings or strategic lifts since 1997, 4% could not access and half of those were in iraq. >> i understand that and i know it's important to remember that the capability was pretty darn important over the last 6 to eight years in terms of military operations. i think we will have the same situation in afghanistan. aren't there airstrips in

afghanistan that are not and they are more friendly than a c 5? i would like to briefly get into prescription drugs in the military. acronym i think we are painfully aware of the suicide problem we have and aware that there has been a modernization of prescription drug availability in the military as it relates to ptsd and mental health issues. i know we have a task force looking at the issues and i wanted to bring to the attention of the committee that and to you as this task forces looking at prescription drug use, not only should we look at the anti-depressants that have become ubiquitous as it relates to treating our deployed forces when they are having stress

issues, but also the prescription drug for pain. i particularly mentioned to general casey oxy contin. and the fact that we know that oxycontin has a higher street value than heroin because of the addictive nature of the drug. i will be sending you a letter that the prescription drug task force will take a look at how widely available oxycontin is in the military and whether or not its overall effect has been harmful or positive. i wanted to ditto senator web on the mentoring program. pretty ugly. the revolving doors deserves as much attention as the revolving door in congress. thank you, secretary gates.

>> huge. thanks. >> first, let me compliment senator mchaskell for her line of questioning. harry truman would be proud. you are focused on saving the taxpayer money and it reminds me of the incarnation. i used to scrub the budget so carefully i had a nickname of ebeneiser. i like to begin by complimenting you and associating myself with what he was saying. it was a breath of fresh air that you are bringing increased accountability to the programs. some of the practices that have been allowed to exist for too long in defense department contracting and weapons system would never survive in the private sector. the fact that people are being held accountable and being asked to to share the burden and the over run is the right thing to do. i want to comment you for that and hope we will see more of the

same. we are gathered here in a time of great distress for the american people and for our government. people are being asked to make sacrifices. the the president called for a freeze on spending and we are being asked for 3.4% increase in defense spending? is that correct? >> 1.8% in real growth. >> real growth. my point is i support that because of the challenges we face. i wanted to put it in context of people asked to make real sacrifices and it makes more important to those who want to save tax dollars wherever possible. looking at the big items for meaningful savings have to do with commitments in iraq and afghanistan and the prospect that they will head in a better direction, allowing us to save money there. acronym i know you have given

likely case estimates. if huh to say it was something other than the most likely case, let's start with iraq. the way things are trending there. would it be more or less likely we would be able to withdraw more aggressively there than you are currently planning on? in so doing, do the money we are being asked to commit to? >> i think the view would be it would be risk to try to accelerate the withdrawals beyond the time table he has. >> no real prospects for savings beyond what has been estimated there? >> i think not. >> in afghanistan, my view and skeptics who look at that and say we are going to do our part and we are making a commitment to keeping the taliban and the al qaeda surrounding a platform to attack us? we will do what is necessary.

the question is whether the afghans are capable and willing to do their part. you look at the history of that country and the complexity, even with our best efforts, skeptics wonder if we can get the job done. there is not much prospect for -- if events are going to deviate, it's likely on the downside and no the upside. no prospect for additional savings there. >> i suspect not. i would tell you that as the president announced, there will be a review of our strategy in afghanistan at the end of this year. i think both the admiral and i are committed that if we determine that our strategy is not working, we will not recommend just plunging ahead blindly without a change of

course. >> i think a healthy skepticism is good. i think a terminal skepticism at this point is far too soon. we see signs and many places now of uplifted spirits with the afghan people with securities turned around. i'm not under estimating the significance of the challenge, but from a resourcing and leadership standpoint and a commitment on the part of the afghans that we can see as a result, it's better than it's ever been and we are a few months into it. we are all hopeful. i think we realize we have to be realistic as well. mr. secretary, that's what you outlined. reviewing progress and assessing the partners in pakistan and afghanistan and making the hard decisions at the appropriate time. let me ask a couple of other questions. have you requested all the predators and reapers you can use and you need?

>> yes, sir. we have pretty much maxed out the lines. those capabilities, in more than a few instances, the challenge is not just the air frame or the platform, it's the ground station and the crews. it's the linguists that enable us to use the information. it's the whole package that we have to put together. >> for a long time, it was a shortage of pilots. >> it was both air frames and platforms. i would say the air force over the last year to 15 months, the air force leaned into this problem. general schwartz told me they are training more uav pilots than they are fighter bomber pilots. >> that's quite a change. that's a system that has been delivering for us. i'm delighted. my time expired along with five

colleagues. we were in kabul earlier this month or last month on this february. i want to convey we met with many of the members of the armed forces and in particular the special operations down there. they are doing an outstanding job. i want you to if you can relay our o appreciation for the service they are rendering to our country. >> senator reed? >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, gentlemen for your testimony. some points with respect to the trial and i think the secretary, you sort of indicated that that decision was the province of the attorney general. just as a matter of fact, had he turned over to military custody, he would have been provided a lawyer, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> given the fact that we have

harmonized the rules between the fbi and other agencies in the government including the military that the tools available for interrogation would have been very much the same? >> yes, sir. >> i think something else too. again, this is not a question of venues. it's a question more of how we combat these terrorists. a lot of them describe themselves as holy warriors. if we reinforce their self-described holy warrior description as trying them as essentially in a military trial and not a civilian trial, doesn't that reinforce what they think they are which is basically that they are not terrorist criminals? they are some type of holy

warrior? >> i suppose that that's the case. i think that we are in a good to make decisions on how to prosecute an individual based on the case by case basis, depending on the specific circumstances. the attorney general consulted with me on the christmas day bomber and i told him i would defer to him on that. i think we eat -- we need to use both of those avenues, but it will depend upon the circumstances in each case. >> thank you. admiral mullen, in afghanistan there has been an increase in afghani forces. increase in the afghani forces

which are absolutely essential to long-term strategy. there is a pay increase that helped, but what others have helped? >> what an intangible was was the fact that the commitment on the part of the united states and nato nations specifically and the totality of it. not just the military side. the leadership of the afghanistan, visibly more committed. acronym the general was out with the period who connected with his people in ways that have been important as well. acronym it's a combination in which their leaders feel strong in addition to the incentivized

pay increases specifically. acronym it's the institutional capacity both from a training infrastructure standpoint as well as trainers to absorb that many. we are trying to get right, right now. acronym. >> the attorney general consulted on the five 9/11 terrorists and not the christmas day bombers. acronym. >> mr. secretary, you have once again proposed robust funding for the department of defense in this budget. i think that's critical and

where you are proposing to spend this money. acronym. >> let me do that for the record. >> you are quite welcome to. admiral, in the qdr, there is a discussion of dealing with access environments and utilizing the subsurface operations which i presume is not just submarines and unmanned vehicles. can you amplify what your plans are to. >> and i have to get back to what the specifics of that would be. i would only say from every capability that we have, theability to sustain and create and sustain access globally often times is very important. often times it's focused in the

western pacific. it's broader and the capabilities are broader for the future. acrony acronym. >> i'm the last one standing on this round of activity. let me try to be quick. i have last issues, but first more global. again, thank you for all the work you are doing and the impact. you can tell me just so i have the number correct, what's the total capacity in regards to troop we have there? >> we actually had over 20,000 with the release of the aircraft carrier vincent who actually left the helicopter capability ashore in haiti. with the release was down to under 17,000 today. >> do we have an idea of what the resource cost has been so far? the dod? >> about $150 million so far.

>> do you have an estimation of what you think in this budget process that you are planning to expend for the next year? >> i am not sure of the duration and length. we estimated $300 million to $400 million and we will have to revise depenning on how long we are there and the degree of commitment. >> do you have within the budget that the president presented the resources to meet that goal? >> no. >> that's good. >> we can cash flow it so we need to be repaid. >> we have the money thanks to the money to cash flow it. >> do you think and believe you have a clear mission of what you should be doing there yet to find? >> it's very clear and the

haitian government and the un mission were in support who has been magnificent in the effort. it is a supporting effort pacifically. >> very good. >> i can go quickly on the subject that they brought up on oxycontin. not only what the drugs and activity in the sense of distribution, but the efforts for individuals trying to get off of it. i have talked to several soldier who is had it as pain management and they have limited resources. if you could for the record give me how that works and what you do for the soldiers and what you do to get them out that was situation. if you can do that for the record. >> and then give me the iraq status again. we had a year ago how many troops there were there roughly? about a year ago. acronym how many troops did we

have about a year ago? what was our peak level? >> 140? 150. 104,000 today. and the marines are out. >> by the end of august we will be down to -- >> about 50. >> 50,000 remaining? >> right. >> and then the other date of next august where will it be? >> the following year, end of 2011 we will be out. >> and again to echo what i think you said, we are on track? >> we are. >> very good. i am trying to rapid fire these. i know my time is limited. do you still in the presentation of the budget have a robust and other issue and separate program? i know that has been a big plus with the military. you have been leaders in the area. are you still fairly in your mind aggressive in this arena? >> yes. >> let me be parochial as you had anticipated.

with regards to the gmd, i appreciate the missile ground defense system and the work you have been doing in alaska and the efforts you have over the years with the transition of what's going on overall with missile defense. the way i understand this is you will finish off and do you have the resources in this budget or do you allocate utilizing other resources to get the final completion of the 12 and the decommission of the six? >> that's budgeted for. >> in this cycle? >> yes. >> is there anything beyond even the six decommissioned? do you have to budget or do you have that in the cycle? acron acronym. >> i know you mentioned it and i think it's important, maybe again at a later time as you

know, we have three in the european and the pacific comm d command, is there a process to bring the joint commander and how we deal with that? are you going through a process now? >> they would use the normal process. we do that routine and there is no view that i have heard of that don't see us from an intention to create another command to handle this. acronym and brought to to our attention and we have a long way to go. >> my time is up, but the coast guards really have been

hollering at all of us. i would love to be engaged in that and have a huge opportunity and also a huge potential conflict. your work would be greatly appreciated. my time is up and i tried to give you a variety pack. acronym acronym we will see if anyone has one question. i will have 1 and see if others do okay. i will call on you too. my question is the following. there was a study that the institute for defense analysis did on that f136. the question is it's about three years old and we looked at how much would need to be invested and the possible benefits and

the cost. my question sell you ask the institute for the defense analysis to update that study since we had a couple of years of additional investment. you can do that? >> i don't know why not, but let me get back to you. acronym. >> is there anyone here? let's try a question for anyone. acronym acronym my questions go to the ability and the small contractors to have the opportunity to do business with the defense department where they may need some type of assistance with their development project. you understand there major dollars to think to get a piece

of equipment that the military may need. we have a specific company in mind where it's cleared through generals and you can't get the decision to make those. you talk about saving the technical equipment for your space stations and the drones and other military aircraft. it seems like the bureaucracy with the bigger company seem to charge much more money. stiles they try to subcontract or sub-subbut this can be sold directly with the military. there seems to be a bureaucracy that they run into. is there a system or device that a small business can get the opportunity to sell that product to the defense department which ask a better product and a

cheaper product to save taxpayer dollars? >> let me give you an answer for how we deal with small business and if you will provide us with the specifics of the case you have in mind, we will look into it. >> secretary, i can certainly do that. >> my experience is exactly what you said, senator. it's very difficult to get small, innovative, creative companies into the business. my experience is too often competing against the bureaucracy. they can't afford it and can't afford the overhead and don't have the people. it puts them out of business. they go too often in the private sector. there great ideas out there. i have seen small companies go other places and put out a business or be consumed by the larger contractors. acronym over the years it has been to try to get them to

support these smaller companies. some of them have. it's a real challenge. it's a shortfall to what we do overall in the overall contracting business, if you will as we try to look to the future. >> we are talking about saving. if the numbers are correct, hundreds of mil >> we need to take a five minute break here. >> mine is very quick. sometime they are not engaged in that -- are you making an effort to change that, because i agree with you wonder%. a good example might have been the payroll issue. but i will not go into that.