ready to start with testimony sir well mr chairman i answered your question i will tell you the big thing that has changed is twenty two thousand soldiers additionally being sent to iraq to afghanistan and a requirement for quite a bit of the equipment from iraq coming out of iraq and out a p s to be used to support those soldiers as they are deployed to afghanistan in the next months ahead recess but one thing i want to make sure that i clear up is that when i initially appeared before the committee i pledged to always provide you with an honest and forthright assessment and my best military advice as requested in keeping with this promise i would like to take this opportunity to correct some inaccurate information i provided at the last hearing in response to a series of questions posed by congressman bartlett and congressman abercrombie during the latter exchange i stated my belief that at the time that in f y ten is a general rule we would not be allowed to recap equipment requested in the oco budget it was my sincere belief that this policy represented a change to oco ground rules as signed out b m b in march of two thousand and nine overall that the lessor requests for f y ten is compared to f y o nine was based primarily on the limited amount of equipment expected to be redeployed from during this period this was due in part to the firm for the record as members of this committee have accurately stated that current rules do not allow the army to use oco funding or upgrade equipment returning from theater  the marine corps had fifteen thousand marines on the ground in iraq and we were just getting started with just getting started with putting some marines on the deck and in afghanistan we actually troops and units that are going to afghanistan need to be made to be ready to go one hundred percent my concern though is on these books or i'm a dollars especially humvees or down two billion dollars from the from last year corps right now we've been doing this for about two or three years really trying to trying to win on the on the bull's eye on just what that balance of ground mobility equipment should look like two years ago when i was ahead of requirements it was a different picture than it is right now there's no question that what we call the expanded capacity vehicle the up armored humvee with all the  extra equipment on it and safety features is going to be a staple item for the for the forces i can't tell you how many we are buying to replace i don't have any information i can get you that but if i just kind of back out of that just a little bit and tell you that within the marine corps and we're going to will take my job as requirements is supposed to sit down with us in the january february timeframe and try to give us the entire landscape of what the ground that's i think where we would all like to go to protect our marines and soldiers and but that's out there so we have a dilemma within the marine corps in the near term about what are we going to do you know we're going to just continue to re someday that's what we're struggling with right now and we're working through that but on a broader scale if you take a look at reset dollars and reset the definition to reset things that we can spend testified the last time i said congress had been gracious enough to give us fourteen billion dollars at that point to help the marine corps as a result of combat and i said i needed about twenty billion dollars all totaled in the marine corps so i needed about another six billion to reset the marine corps that wasn't to modernize it or recapitalize it that was to replace the stuff that's worn out blown up well i testified in billion dollars for reset and another five billion dollars to buy the equipment that we have not had to accommodate the lessons learned from this war it's about a fifteen billion  but part of this is the former supplemental now welcome as for the most part helped us recapitalize with regards to reset that is actually worked i can't tell you how this is going to work this year need to fight to make sure the funding is there the administration if they're not willing to invest more in what we need the last thing i want to have is a secretary of defense having to say to the american people we fight a war that what we have for reset they're going to get five max pros and thirty one caymans to begin with to establish that capability and we look at that being full up in m raps still flows out of the j p l the joint program office which has about one point seven billion dollars so i think we're embracing the m wrapped in doing everything we can to ensure that when those vehicles start flowing back out a the budget for this thing and there are folks working it pretty hard but it is not manifested itself yet so we find ourselves now with this will bit of a gap what do we do in the meantime do we continue to buy flat bottom or is there an redeploy with their equipment and certain items are provided equipment that has been used in iraq as long as that the a to provide equipment is not needed in afghanistan so we feel we're going to continue to be possibly longer if they're going to get more than twelve months seven eight nine ten months before they deploy again and over that time we have a minimum equipment goals we attempt to get units to coming out to reset for train ready  how is the surge of acting that when you when you have that are not going to have as much time and you're having to reset them sooner you might not have that twelve months of well time back here at home or a few months question is basically how does that affect you going to be able to are you going to have to cross level active units we are not with the surge we are not quite frankly with the drawdown in iraq and the increase in afghanistan we see about a month a month and a half where we'll have about two thousand more soldiers deployed than we have right now now some of that is dependent on the election and when general odierno begins major troop movements out of iraq and we expect that to occur sometime after the elections in order to meet the president's goal of having us down to fifty thousand soldiers by september but because of that drawdown we only see about a month to month period where we will have more soldiers deployed and we have deployed today so even with the up it almost evens out almost evens out and it will go down the more soldiers we get out of iraq with the sword when  but our very first unit infantry is look at about a forty eight percent of the soldiers who are who would be on stop what was signed up for the additional bonus and to cut complete the rotation for their unit reset personnel wise how we train how we deal with our soldiers and the sort of studies that she and others are engaged in to try to address the problem mental master resiliency trainers to the university of pennsylvania where they attend a course and go back to their unit there is no doubt in my mind and i had my first from the national institute of mental health yesterday on the fifty million dollar study that they have begun to look at behavioral health and suicide in the united states army there's no doubt in my mind that over time as comprehensive soldier fitness gets set into the force it will have a time given the program we are going to implement for one point one million soldiers and their families we will have a module available online for families after the first of the year for stars and there is great anticipation and support for the program because we all realize it's going to have a huge impact why weren't we doing something like this previously i don't think we had looked at it  hard other areas that we've got to look at harder in the briefing i received yesterday i found out that soldiers who are suffering from post traumatic stress more likely and that's the general population to commit suicide than those that are not i know for a fact that the greatest single debilitating injury of soldiers returning from iraq and afghanistan  have one injury disqualifying injury thirty percent or greater post traumatic stress and both general amos and i have been working very i don't know whether you're familiar with the work that's being done by general cornum but i've spent a little bit of time with her and i'm pretty impressed by what she has to say about possibilities here i'm just curious to know whether or not the marine corps  is a tag along or could be a tagalong or is independently pursuing something similar you know i really i'm very attracted to the idea that in some instances what could turn into post traumatic stress could in fact be post traumatic growth the person becomes stronger as a result of the experiences the bad experiences that they've had in combat rather than weaker mentally any comment from the marine co knowledge these kinds of problems the extent that we invite folks to talk about these things you worry that there will be some who will be encouraged to talk about them and sort of head in that direction none of us have th sir we plan on resetting every single combat vehicle that comes back to iraq much equipment will be reset and some will be recapped depending on the model this year or next year the majority of our humvees coming back willing fact be recapped we have very few other lines that will require recap but they will receive a full reset and we believe that we have what we need to do what timeline do you see most of those combat vehicles coming back that's difficult for me to tell you given the requirement requirement in afghanistan  the flow will in fact come out of iraq as planned honestly believe that but some of the equipment that we expected to come back to the united states for full reset will be refurbished and we plan to reset every single vehicle that comes out of iraq or afghanistan back to the united states and as we have stated i think it's been true everyone who sat in front of this committee and every other committee of the army believes that will be at a minimum a two year period after hostilities and before we get complete with that reset the one reason i asked that last question is as you know earlier this week there was an article in the washington post about leaving a lot of equipment in iraq was curious if you could talk a little about you know the thought process as to what you do leave and don't leave i understand that the mander is allowed to leave up to thirty million dollars worth of equipment from comment about temporary buildings we can't get temporary buildings out of iraq down to cooperate and into afghanistan in any shape where they would serve any interest for anyone  afghanistan but i can tell you even with the limited drawdown that has come out of iraq the last number that i saw is that twenty seven thousand pieces of equipment have moved from iraq to  every two weeks general dunwoody and myself a a video teleconference with all the players it talks about every single f m s case where equipment is going it's coming out of iraq and we're ahead of schedule right now with the drawdown of that equipment and what pieces need to go to afghanistan and what are the requirements of the iraqis in order to get their military to a minimal acceptable level so that we can turn everything over to them  into service and utilized more widely can you update us on exactly how the osprey is performing given the concerns historically with the performance that aircraft now that is being more fully deployed can you tell us how that is helping you because later in that same point nine percent for the mission capable for their deployment and that's certainly unacceptable to us but i think it's important to know because the program had been drug long we really have and would not be as you mentioned temporary temporary buildings and other things that just don't make sense to move out of theater but to shift gears a little bit generally quite a bit about what you but how much of that is analogous in terms of what we we've learned about making some of those changes as we as we transition to afghanistan is it a very analogous situation or there are a whole new set of things that we need to learn about into the other twenty percent or so was different it's a different government it's a different languages a different culture the tribes don't have the same amount of clout you know you remember that it was the tribal that started the the last several years reset has been a pretty much a wild card that shows up in the supplemental appropriation to what extent are you now trying to the number of the set up that will be the operative number for three to four years to come as opposed to leaving it to be determined year t i don't have that figure in front of me right now i can try to get you that much interest do you actually do that do you develop a number that reflects the fact that you're probably going to have more to do right now and telling you and giving you that number is understanding what the requirement is going to be in the out years the addition of the twenty two thousand additional soldiers to afghanistan is change the amount of equipment that as we drawdown in iraq that we're going to be able to bring back to the united states for full reset and we will reset every single piece of equipment we bring back to the state except for that it or washouts that are not economically able to reset but that is reset to us and that's bringing that equipment back to its original condition towards the end of your testimony your prepared testimony indicates that the request for the twenty ten supplemental was about eleven billion dollars which about thirty percent is procurement and seventy percent is is of combat losses and any kind of recap which is reset plus bringing that vehicle up to the higher standard because that vehicle was built at a time when we had not added certain things that make it more modern more survivable more able to fight in the environments that we're in if you would both present or leave prepared for the record or together and graphs and all of this is also a little new to me but what i'm seeing here for instance in the army reset over time graph that i had has been provided for me one of the things i'm noticing first of all is  changed all that much i guess my concern is if this is all supplemental type of dollars what happens if the supplemental bill doesn't go through this year and we end up with another continuing resolution and to what degree are we just postponing this reset over time well we are in fact providing you with the numbers that we need to reset united states army equipment that comes back to the states and that number has gone down as indicated a one of the reasons is we have less procurement money in there that as we have recap fewer and fewer vehicles not had a requirement to do that and we've seen that number go down but we feel because you're using terms that i'm not sure i understand are you saying that your your what your actually feel that you need is less than what you had before therefore the numbers go down because you don't have as much equipment as you had previously is that what you're saying we have not brought as much equipment back that needed required reset ok so in other words we have less equipment in the states than we had before and therefore the reset has gone down you have a increase  in afghanistan as well as a relatively small crease in iraq iraq and in addition to that there's been a requirement to replenish our army prepositioned stocks so in other words it's not that we have like less pieces of mobile equipment in the army it's just that we have less of that back in the country less of it has come back and to the depos we will be into the next fiscal year and i would expect to see that number increase if those larger numbers of pieces of equipment come back home ok so this number is not the overall measure them of of how we're doing in keeping up or keeping our equipment based work should be this is more numbers as to how that base is only with equipment in the united states and it keeps it keeps that number is used in the army to refurbish equipment equipment it comes out of iraq that has to go into afghanistan when we bring it down to call wait we make sure we look over that equipment so we're not sending a whole bunch of problems to the folks in use that number is also included in there but that is not the same as reset it's not the same level of the maintenance you're going to get if you fully reset a piece of equipment which we do in our depth right in the depos are more in this country when you do that total rebuild kind of thing now when you do that there are two categories within that i gather one is to reset to what the quote was like when it left another is to add that if there's been some modifications or changes to the design you bring it up to the higher level and you make a distinction between those two but they're still all coming out of supplemental money in the past a majority of that is the majority of that is that recap is coming out we have a certain amount of procurement money in there now there  that it may not be in a supplemental that will look to our base to get it needs to be done so just last if we do not get the supplemental through we do a continuing resolution will we then have to go back to the drawing board as to how we're going to fund this we mr chairman i want to good morning aloha to both of you thank you for your attendance here today i need to make a little bit of a bit of preamble  page six of your testimony you've referred about resetting in multi year requirements unprecedented stress placed in our quitman as a result of the war reset funding is required underlined in your testimony for a period of two to three years beyond the sensation cessation of the current conflict which may be quite extensive any reset requirement to go on funded in one year will roll over and increase the following years future of reset based on what we now know we estimate the near term we have the six billion referred to that and then you revised that in your in your commentary to ten plus five  place in the context of what you mentioned on page one of secretary gates in a commentary in foreign affairs where there was a speech or an article i don't remember but it was it was believe the subtitle of  balanced strategy for a new age so i bring all of that up and saying with all of this forward looking and then a final statement from you general amos we are mindful of course cannot realize supplemental appropriations for baseline operations we have talked on the committee and the secretary is talk to you folks have talked now about not wanting to rely on supplemental budgets on the other hand supplemental budgets are not going to disappear because we have  contingencies we can't anticipate that's what a supplemental is all about but given the fact that both of you stated you know pretty clearly what your requirements are going to be in terms of resetting with all of the definitions and and that you just outlined with mr spratt what i recommend here for your consideration is you're going to have to take something up in terms of capital budgeting you've got to separate operational requirements from capital asset acquisition and reset here seems to me an ideal way to get to the question of of capital budgeting of looking ahead of getting a budget  proposal on the on the table that that is multi year that you know has to be done multi year you know that that you're going to have to make these purchases and to simply come in every year with each defense bill and each defense appropriations bill hoping you're going to be able to get the money for reset in competition with all of the other capital asset acquisitions you do year by year puts us in the position we're in right now every single service is now having to scramble internally to to to have one one kind of equipment one kind of a capital asset a carrier joint strike fighter of combat a new combat vehicle and they're in competition with with all of rest of it we don't want reset in this category i'm just saying to you by way of conclusion my remarks that this is something i put forward for your consideration and secretary gates is consideration that a capital budget or its equivalent be established where reset is concerned so that you don't become dependent on the on a supplemental budget which may or may not come in in an appropriate timeframe to meet your needs taken we're kind of stuck because and you know that that's why i brought it up i believe you are stuck with i believe you're not having to to set a competition between the reset necessities and other capital acquisitions and i'll stop with that exactly then mr taylor thank you mr chairman and general thank you for being here this morning i think most of my questions have been asked already but i think it might be useful  if we have for the record an understanding percentage wise of how it impacts our training capability because obviously our number one priority is making sure that our troops in combat have the afghanistan theater how are we affected percentage wise in our capability to train are we at fifty percent capability in in training  available during the training for about twenty four to thirty six months is what we're looking at but we believe we can train our soldiers up you thank both you gentlemen for being here in general really in particular for the work you're doing on m wraps to get them to stateside stations for training i wish i had more time to brag on what you're doing right  but i really want to spend the time i have asking you some questions hopefully preventing some problems that may occur as we leave iraq i was curious you know what the nation is twelve trillion dollars in debt can't afford to waste and i know that as war fighters you're both of you gentlemen first priority is to get the best stuff in the hands of the war but i was wondering to what extent as we are leaving these things about iraq are you trying to get maybe some folks from the national guard or the state emergency management agencies to let them have a look at what we're leaving behind they have any use and obviously a guy who is a small town all day and is going to look at something differently than you of the war and things that you may think are not worth bringing home they may look at his go guy way patrolmen back home hospital administrator back home he's a look at some of these things differently and i'm just questioning how how are you getting different sense of us on the same piece of equipment so that some of the mistakes that we know we made in panama in the you bring up an excellent point about asking some of our national guard formations and the soldiers that are inside those national guard formations to look at some of the things we may be leaving behind to get their take on whether they would be of value requirements back home because you know at the beginning of the war this is one of the huge broad of that we were having that some of the recruits were not getting proper training because they didn't have the equipment is this going to present a huge problem  we believe we can we can work around it is thirty two percent of the vehicle requirements with the increase in afghanistan or meet being met by vehicles that are currently in theater that that's what that says and they have been in theater we expect it only to be five to ten percent but we believe given the fact that our units come back and go into the six months of reset that we will be able to meter and move that equipment around to ensure that they are properly trained up on post camps and stations and one of the great improvements we've made i believe is getting em raps out to the individual post camps at stations so we can train our soldiers on driving them raps we don't have nearly enough to outfit a combat formation but we can at least give them driver's training and we've done that with the amref a t v two we asked early on to take some of those early vehicles licensing requirement for units deploying over here so when units arrived in afghanistan they could more quickly  issued that equipment with less training time required and in addition to that we have an unbelievable common trainer that we're using that is done just wonderful things for em rap training so i think in many ways we might be in a little bit better situation today than we were in before but there is going to be about a five to ten percent decrease the amount of equipment we've got back home for about a twenty four thirty six month period that period is as long as it is because when equipment comes back before we can reissue it to units it will have to go through a reset program because one of  be able to do the restocking area to be filled up for them to have the right equipment and this is the thing that worries me i will tell you some of that thirty two percent is coming out of army prepositioned equipment so we're going into the stocks which in reality are stocks but that is part of that thirty two percent that's why it's a five to ten percent decrease back in the united states but we really believe we'll be able to to work this through smart management of our assets and i just have one last question when did the placement of equipment given to coalition partners and foreign military sales become part of because that system could be very very slow and we know that the iraqi army must be equipped in order for us to leave we are following every single one of those we are not in fact providing the iraqis any  equipment that would in fact impact army readiness the only equipment would be excess equipment and then we have certain requirements come to congress and in those cases to make sure that we report to you before any of those transfers are made sure that this committee provides what you need to have some good questions asked by the members and they have some good responses now i would like to allow for those members who would be here with us today for them to be able to you know question for