mr. bartlett and mr. chairman and mr. ranking member. good to see you. general ham, great to see you. general mcnabb, strategic maneuver ability has always been the great thing about our forests and our country and we need to look ahead five years and when you look at the effect we are moving more from a deployed type of military force morceau a power projection and retype of force where do you see the challenges five years and beyond for the transportation command? one that i am concerned about is the c-17 fleet. >> thanks for said. i couldn't agree more with the value of the strategic mobility capability and i would say we are being pushed especially as you think about global operations and how we are headed as a department. first and foremost that new tanker was my number one acquisition priority and the fact the tanker allows us to put global mobility reach and power is one that is all about and the new tanker will allow us to make sure we can extend out and really change the way we do our concept of operations and be more efficient in that. the faster we get the tanker on board t

mr. bartlett's. we know it has been difficult to continue to operate with the budget process tied up in a continuing resolution. one of the concerns is that we probably are going to be a request for supplemental. that will include libya. if so, will that also include afghanistan and iraq? the second question, there is a lot of concern that with the action now against libya that somehow we're going to have to readjust the commitment we are making, particularly in afghanistan. i represent fort bliss. the number of people have expressed concerns that we're going to somehow shift our assets into libya. can you address the supplemental and any potential for having to shift resources from afghanistan? >> we will not be shifting resources from afghanistan. thanks to the cooperation of the congress, we are in the process of sending about $600 million worth of additional isr to afghanistan. yesterday in a meeting, i approved an effort to reprogram another $400 million worth of isr afghanistan. we will be addi

mr. bartlett's. we know it's been difficult to continue to operate with the budget process tied up in the continued resolution. so one of the concerns -- well, two questions. one concern is we probably are going to get a request for supplemental which will include bya and, if so, will that also include afghanistan and iraq for that? and the second question, there's a lot of concern that with the action now against libya that somehow we're going to have to readjust the commitment that we're making particularly in afghanistan. as you knw, i represt ft. bliss and there are a number of people that have expressed concerns that we're going to somehow shift some of our assets can you address both supplemental and any potential for having to shift resources from particularly afghanistan? >> we will not be shifting resources from afghanistan. in fact, thanks to the cooperation of the congress, we are just in the process of sending about $600 million worth of additional isr to afghanistan and yesterday in a me

mr. bartlett and also mr. sharon and mr.anking member and general, it's good to see you and general ham always great to see. general mcnabb, the maneuverability has always been the great thing about the force and the country. what i would like to do is look out ahead about maybe five years, and when you look at the fact we are moving more so from a forward deployed type of military force more so to a power projection of the forcible entry type of force where do you see the challenges five years and beyond for the transportation command? one of the things i'm very concerned about is the c-17 fleet. >> , grossman, thanks for that. i couldn't agree more with the value of the strategic mobility qaeda devotee, and i would say that we are being pushed especially as you think of the global operations and we think about how we are headed as a department. i would tell you first and foremost the new tanker was my number one acquisition priority, and the fact that it allows us to put global on the global mobility reach and power is wha

mr. bartlett's view that it would be very difficult for the department to eat this cost out of the base budget. there is an overseas contingency operations bill here before the congress and my personal view -- i haven't coordinated this with the white house or omb but i think we ought to be able to find a way to deal with this in the framework of that bill without adding to the top line number of that bill. i would add, though, just in terms of my interests as secretary of defense and keeping this operation limited is, is the strain we have on our mi military and one of the things people haven't talked much about, we have 19 ships and about 18,000 men and women in uniform helping on the japanese relief. there are going to be some costs associated with that, also, that are going to have to be taken care of. between these two operations, i would just make a final pitch for those who are contemplating deep cuts in the defense budget looking around the world at the commitments and the challenges we have. i think it bears a very careful consideration. >> thank you, mr. secretary. thank you, mr. cha

mr. bartlett's. we know it's been difficult to continue to operate with the budget process tied up in the continued resolution. so one of the concerns -- well, two questions. one concern is we probably are going to get a request for supplemental which will include libya and, if so, will that also include afghanistan and iraq for that? and the second