that one of the major troubles in kuwait when i visited, a member of your staff with " -- was with us. he said to me, i want three kinds of ice-cream yesterday. i did not care what it costs. that is problematic. we all want our soldiers to get ice cream. we want them to get a variety. we have to care what it costs. it is that culture that your leadership is going to be essential on. i want this to make sure we find out if there is any place we disagree. the other big issue is sustainability. i am very uncomfortable with the analysis going on about the sustainability. i am even more concerned the for the first time we have more serp. it was supposed to win hearts

and minds and small projects. we know have and afghanistan infrastructure fund in the defense budget. going beyondually what it was ever intended to be. we are building infrastructure in the department of defense. i am not aware we had a the policy debate. i would love to know why we think it is a good idea. is this going to be contingencies or we going to take responsibility away from the state department? i would love your thoughts on that. doctor carter, also about this infrastructure fund. it is 400 million. that is not a huge amount now but neither was served. it obviously has grown. can you illuminate why they felt they needed to create an

infrastructure fund in addition to the funds being used for road building and community redevelopment? >> i would be pleased to. i would like to get back to you on that particular issue. it is partly a policy issue. if i could comment on your general point, you are right. contingency contract in present a different set of challenges. it is war so people want to move quickly. understandably, what we need to do is not make a choice between appropriate controls and discipline and responsiveness to the war fighter. that is where the commission said we have fallen down over the last decade. we are getting better.

with respect to the commission, i will get back to you on anything we disagree with. i know we have some numbers we were trying to look out. i cannot validate those numbers. i can validate the accuracy in the sense that any level of waste is unacceptable. all of the recommendations they have made, we are working off the same list. >> we built a power plant that is not fully operational. it is too expensive for them to use. if you try to tell me there was a sustainability analysis done, i would like to know who takes ownership of that. i find it hard to believe that anybody looked at the sustainability of a high-tech power plant that is too expensive and beyond the capability of the afghan people using it in a way that was intended. that is a lot of money.

that is one example. i could list many more. i would like you to address the sustainability analysis. i would like to see that to wrap the training of our amazingly this, we begin to embrace contract in. we're never going to be able to get away from contingency contract in. the sooner they know this is important, the better. if you're going to contrast acquisition programs, we have the poster child of bad. and the poster child of a good. that is great for me. i happen to care a lot about the super hornet. some of this is parochial. there is no better example. we have never had a program more out of control then the jsf.

the super hornet has always delivered. in today's estimates the jsf is a 113 million. given the navy that super hornet can take any combat mission, is it your opinion is a viable alternative based on the tactical needs? >> you are right that the performance is commendable. ande trying to make a manage it in a direction so that it will one day replicate that kind of performance. i said in the certification this summer and that if no alternative means the joint requirement as it is now spelled out for a fifth generation fighter, finally the, we have in

the last couple of years procured additional super hornet as we have been forced to delay for the production ramp up. >> i have some more specific questions about the super hornet. i would get close to the record for you. thank you. >> i would like to associate with myself about the hornet. i think it is a viable airplane and a good price. we should make sure we have an inventory and a better situation. let's see if i can summarize your testimony. is your understanding that if the congress were to follow

through with the $400 billion cut its a matter being asked by the administration -- that are being asked by the administration, it would be devastating to the defense department. >> that is correct. >> we would take the finest military and get it. is that right? why would we do that? what were we thinking? i do not know. i am asking you. i cannot think of a good reason. is the world that safe? >> the world is not as safe. we are looking to be ready for this wide-ranging of threats and contingencies the world presents to us. we do not see that ending. we do not see anyone else been

able to assume a leadership role that united states has. we never want to have a hollow military. >> we are on the path to do all of those things. >> i think that is what the secretary means. >> i think it is brain-dead for us to consider this. we're not going to let it happen. we're going to wake up and get some good common sense here pretty soon. iraq. as a matter how it ends in terms of our national security? on a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it for iraq to and well and not a leap -- be a satellite state of iran? >> it is a tan. -- ten. the decisions have not been made -- made about resource.

about afghanistan. does it matter how that ends? >> it does. >> it matters a lot. is that correct? what would happen after all of these years and this blood and treasure and the stakes we have made it the taliban were able to come back? what would it mean to our national security interests? >> it would be serious. >> i think we have a plan to prevent it. i worry we will be a penny wise and pound foolish. i know that you and the secretary are going to give us the truth. as we transition to afghan control, realize that how it ends does matter. the strategic partnership agreement with the afghan government, are you familiar with the dexter you support the idea that passed in 2014, we

would have an enduring relationship with the afghan government? it is in our national security interest to have a political relationship with them. do agree would be in our interest to have an economic relationship? to you agree it is in our interest to have a relationship with the afghan government post 2014? do you agree that the training of the afghan army will be in the past 2014 text to agree the general was one of the unsung heroes of this war by creating a new regime? >> a double yes. >> do you agree that the counter-terrorism component will be needed passed 2014 to make sure that taliban do not regenerate? >> yes. >> and have no air force and will need air capability?

you agree the intelligence capability of the united states is second to none? and that the afghan government would benefit from that assistance? do you agree we need to and deaths -- end deaths? all of this is contingent. did you do you agree it would be in our interest to leave behind a military footprint that would have the american air power available to the afghans to suppress the taliban? >> i think that is desirable. we have not begun to address the issue. >> if the afghan people, it would be in our interest to say yes. would you agree that if we did such a enduring relationship it would be a signal to iran that needs to be sent? do you agree the iranians are trying to develop a nuclear

program? >> that is my understanding. >> you agree would change the world as we know it. >> it is very undesirable. >> do you think we're in a collision course with pakistan? >> cannot say that. we were close the with them in some areas. there is a great frustration in some other areas on both sides. >> would you agree the relationship is in a new face? >> it is problematic. >> a lot of the ids are made from products in pakistan? do you agree it is time for the pakistan government to step up and make a decision as to who they are and what you want to be? >> certainly as regards terrorism and weapons crossing the border from pakistan into afghanistan.

we need their help. i mentioned that earlier. the ammonium nitrate. they need to step up. >> should we open up transportation routes in the north to get supplies into afghanistan without having to send everything to pakistan? >> it is. we are. >> the pakistan government is willing to expand the relationship. is that in our interest to do so? >> it is. they have been a part of the northern resupply system. >> it is my understanding they have been negotiating to expand that capability. we would need some waivers from this committee to support and the security forces. there is a letter supporting that. >> if the secretary supports it, i would.

we understand it is important. >> this is a critical area regarding afghanistan. i want to let the committee know that we are on the verge of a major breakthrough in terms of northern supply. the committee will need to come up with a consensus about how we can help the government. some waivers would be necessary. i think you are an ideal candidate for this job. most of the personnel -- when you want to reform retirement, count me in. i want to do it in a humane, and generous way. count me in. even though you serve and sacrifice, you have the ability to serve in retirement. we're not going to ask more they can give. change has to come. i think you're an ideal choice.

i look forward to supporting you. >> thank you. mr. chairman? may i make a brief request? >> you surely can. >> i am grateful. >> with his retirement announcement, this precludes the possibility of you being promoted to a general. [laughter] >> i wanted to say to doctor carter how much i appreciate him visiting with me. i support his nomination. i would like to request that two letters i've written to him relating to the joint strike a been a part of the record. i'm grateful to you. i have a conflicting appointment. i will not be able to stay. >> senator hagen. >> thank you. thanks for visiting with sinise.

in that discussion, you know i am a strong supporter. refuel and operating sites. as a commandant has said, if we lose the f035b, there is no plan b. this would drastically cut the capability to cut power in the remote environment. recently when the f-15 airplane crashed in libya, the fighter jets conducted a tactical recovery of aircraft and personnel in libya. the rescue forces took off from assault ships in the mediterranean. when the aircraft went down, there were no aircraft carriers

in the area. i want to work with you to get the f-35b off probation. they determine probation has a negative connotation. what is a kind of a fact does it being on probation have on the ability to transition to a fighter? does it affect the base by putting suppliers on the notice and increasing protection costs a? >> it is everything you said. there is a firm requirement for it. the attractiveness of the variant is the ability to take off from the smaller deck. amos has indicated that is a capability he wants to have.

that is why secretary gates who originated the term of probation, the instructions he gave us were to be success- oriented. we are. work through the engineering issues from which the concept of a probationer rose. it is a complicated varient because of its short takeoff and vertical landing. it presents some engineering issues the other variants to not. los surfaced in flight tests. we know what they are. we are working through the engineering fixes to them. we cannot rule out additional ones will arise. you can never say that. we know what they are and we have a schedule for resolving them. when secretary gates said was a

to resolve those issues and then we will look at the cost impact associated with the engineering sixes and decide where we go from that point. my focus has been on resolving those issues. we are a success-oriented. we will work through those issues and get to that point. >> it has performed very well in operational testing this year. i think there is a few numbers of tests taking place next month. if it performs well, would you consider lifting the probation? >> we talk about this all the time. probation -- are will borrow a phrase from elsewhere, it is

conditions-based. in other words, we told the secretary gates it would take as around two years to work through the engineering issues. we are on schedule to do that. if we resolve them, we have done what he said probation was supposed to do. there's nothing magic about two years. it is about resolving the issues. >> if they get resolved, i think it would be important to the industrial base to be sure at that probation would be removed as the issues are taking care of. i wanted to talk about the science and technical talent. the department of defense and the defense industry are facing challenges seeking new graduates

in the scientific fields to help develop complex military systems. some of these challenges include federal hiring and pay freezes, budgetary pressures leading to declining numbers of defense programs, recruiting issues stemming from graduates being more interested in the commercial sector related to information technology and energy purses the defense sector such as aerospace. what is the department doing to ensure that this is able to have access to the future technical talent? what is the department doing to retain the best and brightest scientists? how'd you measure the effectiveness of these efforts? i think is important that we focus on this at the department of defense as well as in our education system with a science and technology as the curriculum

that is so important in our country today. >> it is critically important. next to and after the super bit nature of the men and women we have in uniform, the thing that makes our military the greatest is the technology within it. there is a challenge associated with the globalization of the technology base. it is no longer the case that all new technologies emerge in this country. we need to reach out and gather those ideas and those people who might otherwise end up not in defense. strengthsg a lot to in the science and technology work force. another point is that as we go into the budget situation we are

facing, we talk about difficult choices. one of those choices between the present and the future. how much to invest. one of the things that we will need to do is make sure that wheat protect those investments in science and technology that will allow us to have the skill base and the new ideas that will constitute the military of the future. that is the kind of balancing we're trying to do with the comprehensive review as we're trying to balance different kinds of threats. it is a very big effort within the acquisition technology and logistics' department. >> you said you're doing quite a bit in this area from recruiting.

can you give me any concrete examples? >> yes. the um, i can take darpa for example. we have made a lot of progress there in the last few years. a credit to the current structure for doing that -- i credit the current director for doing that. to come in, make their contributions, the appeal of the excitement and the commitment of the national defence as a place to apply their of scientific talent. all the technical managers are doing that. >> thank you. i think she is doing a very good job