are asked to confine their remarks to four men that of course does not apply today because we're discussing a multibillion dollar proposal coming from the members of this committee in the past days felt we were not receiving forthright testimony that some of the answers were not direct answers or informative answers to the questions asked of pentagon witnesses i raise that because my recollection mr secretary on a previous occasion if my memory serves me correctly you said something to the fact that you are not here to mislead and to the point and of course there are some areas that must be answered in a closed door classified session which we all understand and appreciate so i i mention that at the there will be regular briefings hopefully on a bi weekly basis here in this committee room room under the auspices of the armed services committee for the full house on the ongoing operations in the middle east this will be on a regular basis this was done during the work up to and during we in this room so let me welcome general pace for appearing for us this is an enormous budget with four hundred eighty billion dollars in regular spending additional supplemental request for over ninety three billion to cover the cost for this fiscal year and on top of that hundred forty one billion dollar request to pay for the war in the coming fiscal year now it's time for congress to play our constitutional role as authorized that's our solemn duty to ensure that this budget is sufficient same time and must ensure our forces are properly posture to meet the complex a curate he demands of the century while protecting tax payers  resources caution that while this process is familiar we must not approach it as routine as a time of war wars test nerves wars test will and wars true the civilians who serve with them continue to do to do everything we ask of them and more it's our job to make sure they have the training and the equipment they need to be successful war piecemeal amounts which i feel obscured the total cost to rectify that last year we passed a provision to require that a funding request be delivered with the base budget for this and the following years now i still prefer the war funding to be in the base budget but this request is for the full amount and i'd say it does comply with the law and today are forced into primary conflicts i came back from a recent trip to afghanistan optimistic feeling our fight there is winnable long term security economic development depends on the government free of the taliban and its violence and we can in the scourge of the taliban with qaeda support of our commanders there have the right troops in the right numbers we are doing our part but i don't believe our nato partners are and i'm concerned about that mr secretary they must meet their troop commitment in the lift restrictions that they place on the troops that are currently in afghanistan they've committed to some three thousand more and they haven't delivered on that i welcome any comments you m i continue to believe this surge is a change in tactics that greater strategic questions remain unanswered each day we continue that fight as another day we increase the strategic risk to the united states that we may not have the right resources when our military is next called upon to deter or to respond to a conflict readiness for the future is the job of this committee and i'm concerned that a lot of our seed corn is being in that conflict in a strategic risk will not be eliminated at once but resetting our equipment a necessary start therefore to us relieve the note that thirty seven billion dollars in two thousand and eight is to reconstitute equipment lost or damaged we cannot neglect the future i'm pleased to see some recognition of this in the base budget including the funding for instance of the new ships that are needed to retain power projection capabilities and allow us to respond to a crisis anywhere in the world this budget also helps ensure that our forces dominate the domains of air bases we have a dual problem one is preparing for a force on force and deterring potential force on force conflicts and threats and the other is the counterinsurgency that we're going to be engaged with in  long time we used to know how to do that we did it well and then threw away that knowledge and now we're reestablishing the training and the education at a professional level on counterinsurgency and i'm gratified to see that the president finally agrees with my tenure request to bolster the size of ground forces funding the army increased by sixty five thousand marines by twenty seventh this increase will ease the burden of constant deployments and all this in strength and creation is a good news we must watch carefully how we achieve it over time i'm concerned that the army recruit quality continues to decline or that we have not committed enough resources to recruit and retain forces military strength is based on our want to be sure that we continue to pay them what they're worth and take care of their families in general there's much to commend the budget and look forward to working with the department as well as the full members of our committee and i commend you gentlemen not only for getting the  with more detail than that in the past but for getting your statement to this hearing as i mentioned to us in a timely manner that is unprecedented and we thank you if you has keeping  note to do your best to summarize your testimony you do not have the restriction and without objection your full testimony will be entered into the record we do understand mr secretary you have a four hour time limit and we want to save time from member questions in the last time year before some of our more junior members did not get a chance to ask their questions therefore today we will in consultation with mr hunter the ranking gentlemen we will go out of regular order and recognize those who did not get to ask questions of you first and then time for many we'll come back to the top row and i guess we'll just say good luck to the middle row as we  our focus on the immediate war fighting theaters and the requirements that are attended those theaters and what i would call the over the horizon programs that that will maintain a strong defense  for the future for this country looking at threats that aren't immediately but nonetheless will manifest themselves at some point in the future so one other point that i thought was actually with respect to this budget is that we've done on this committee modernization that's always been and has been for the last five or six years of close to one hundred billion dollars today somewhat over that in the ninety's we were at we were finding that that ninety plus billion dollar requirement about forty five billion and up to about fifty five sixty billion round the year two thousand we've taken that up now to about seventy five billion in years past an eighty billion was a top and i noted that in this in this budget i believe in ms jonas you may want to refer to it and describe it a little bit in your test of tony where over for the first time the hundred billion that is we're meeting the mark of  comments you have a substantial increase with respect to the army and the marine corps and and i think that's an excellent an excellent move by the administration we have on this committee increased in fact the marine corps in the army over the past five years to them arranged two hundred eighty thousand the army two to five hundred twelve thousand in strength you have a substantial increases beyond that and last year we did what we called a committee defense review that was intended to be a counterpart to the q t r the problem we saw with the q t r at that time was that the q t r had become a budget driven document that is it appeared to be a document in which the service s try to figure out how much money they were going to get and then instead of giving us what they thought was the requirement for the defense of this country and terms of force structure and modernization requirements they tried to fit in what they thought was going to be the budget box their priority programs so they had no increase in army and marine corps we came up in our c d r which was a  threat driven document based on the real world and what we thought we needed to defend the country substantial increases that are fairly close in total numbers to the to the numbers that you came up with for y n and how well we meet and how we match our recruiting tools and our retention tools with these in strength goals and it may in fact be somewhat of a challenge but i think that that that resolution last week mr secretary that cut some three point one billion dollars from what we call the bracket accounts now we got a letter from the army that stated that these weren't just wasn't  this money was not padlocking the gates money it was money that was intended to bed down units that are coming back to this to this country from other areas intended to to advance quality of life for the men and women  who serve this country and for their families and that this money needed to be restored history point one billion i know we've got to work on that and i hope that we i know that these funds were fully authorized by the by the committee last year by what i recall was a sixty to one vote so i know that that's something that we must restore and i would ask that you give of talk a little bit about that in your in your comments let me go to the to the issue today mr secretary in that the war in iraq and the prospects for four resolutions coming out of this body in the other body that will that will reflect congress' position on this plan this plan is already being carried out and and and the my understanding is that elements most of the elements of the eighty second airborne of already going over the line from kuwait they're in country the plan is being move forward general petraeus is working the plan right now and mr secretary i think it's time for this country to get behind a military plan that is already in the process of being executed and i think it would be a major mistake for us to send a fractured message to the world to our allies and our adversaries that the united states is heavily divided over the support of this mission i don't think you can you can  send a message it is going to raise the morale of the troops while at the same time sending a message that we don't support the mission so i will personally oppose any any resolution in this body it through and through amendments to the to the o and m budget or supplemental appropriations and let me just say mr secretary that this plan i looked at this this plan which provides for the nine sectors in recommendation is i'm going to be submitting to you and to the president of a planet that could be a pattern for standing up and giving a battlefield rotation a combat rotation of three to four months for every one of the hundred  twenty nine iraqi battalions that we have trained and equipped to date and as you know about half the provinces in iraq are but nine provinces where there's very little contact very little combat go and on my recommendation is that we get all of the iraqi battalions combat experience that mature is a military unit better than a than a year of drill and ceremony on some remote tarmac or other training devices getting them end of the operation getting them to work with their with the other battalions reinforcing the chain of command and also strengthening that link between the ministry of defense and the and the combat leadership in the battalions of the iraqi forces we need to make sure that these guys are going to come when called when ordered and i think it's absolutely appropriate for this for this country having trained and equipped one hundred twenty nine battalions to demand of the iraqi leadership that they have a schedule for the iraqi battalions all getting a stand of combat time and a ten year on the front lines in the contentious zones to acquire that battle hardening that's going to be national sherry if they're going to provide the security and safety for the country and for this free government so i'll be getting that to you here shortly and i look forward to discussing that with you you've got a tough job the big chairman and and i look forward to the questions say my friend from california i want to compliment members of the committee by doing a good job with the five minute rule that is in effect when the gavel goes down please observe it we will go back to the previously announced order of questioning mister i'm sorry  t when the when the time goes we will start with mr marshall surgery gates and general  very quickly address the two issues that the chairman and mr hunter have raised and then be ready for your questions first of all i want to thank the committee for all you've done over the years to support our military and i appreciate the opportunity to provide an overview of the way ahead at the department of defense or the budgets we are proposing this week first the president's fiscal year two thousand and eight defense budget which includes the base budget request in the f y two thousand and eight global war on terror request and second the f y two thousand and seven emergency supplemental appropriation request to fund war related costs for the remainder of this fiscal year joining me today is general pete pace the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and tina jonas the controller of the department of defense and summary the budget is being requested by the president will make the strategic investments necessary to modernize and recapitalise key capabilities of the armed forces and sustain the all volunteer military by reducing stress on the force and improving the quality of life for our troops and their families improve readiness through additional training and maintenance and by resetting forces following their overseas deployment and fund u s military operations in iraq afghanistan and elsewhere in the ongoing campaign against violent jihad us networks around the globe and i believe it is important to consider these budget requests and some historic context as there has been understandably some sticker shock at their combined price tags more than seven hundred billion dollars but consider that about four percent of america's gross domestic product the amount of money the united states is projected to spend on defense this year is actually a smaller percentage of g d p than when i left government fourteen years ago following the end of the cold war and a significantly smaller percentage th during previous times of conflicts such as vietnam and korea since one thousand nine hundred three with a defense budget that is a smaller relative share of in our national wealth the world has gotten more complicated and arguably more dangerous in addition to fighting the global war on terror we also face the danger posed by iran and north korea's nuclear ambitions and the threat they pose not only to their neighbors but globally because of their record of for liberation the and certain paths of china and russia which are both pursuing sophisticated military modernization programs and a range of other flashpoints and challenges in this strategic environment the resources we devote to defense should be at the level to adequately meet those challenges someone once said that experience is that marvelous thing that enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again five times over the past ninety years the united states has either slash defense spending or disarmed right in the mistaken belief that the nature of man or behavior of nations has changed or that we would no longer need capable well funded military forces on hand to confront threats to our nation's interests and security each time we  a price the cost of defending the nation are high the only thing costly are ultimately would be to fail to commit the resources necessary to defend our interests around the world and to fail to prepare for the inevitable threats of the future before closing mr chairman i would like to bring to your attention something that is not in my submitted statement but that was announced yesterday the president has decided to stand up a new unified combatant command africa command to oversee security cooperation building partnership capability defense support to nonmilitary missions and if directed military operations on the african continent this command will enable us to have a more effective and integrated approach than the current arrangement of dividing africa between the european command and central command an outdated arrangement left over from the cold war this department will consult closely with the congress and work with our european and african allies to implement this effort let me comment briefly on the questions posed to comments posed by the chairman and and mr hunter taking mr hunter's comments on the brac first we ha submitted a request for five point eight billion dollars for brac three point one billion of that has been cut this will make it impossible for us to meet the statutory requirement to complete brac on time a mr hunter indicated most of this is for construction at the receiving end of forces that are being consolidated or moved includes housing as well as office space and so on it also includes three hundred million dollars in housing allowances for our troops so that so that they don't have to pay for their for their housing so addressing this concern addressing this this cut is really not optional we really need to work with you in figuring out a way to address this three point one billion dollars cut and whether that's through adding it to the f y o seven emergency supplemental or some other mechanism we are happy to work with you but it is a big problem for us with respect to your comments on testimony mr chairman i would i would just tell you that i have always felt very strongly about candid forthright testimony to committees of the congress i believe that we established that kind of a relationship in dealing with both the house and senate intelligence committees and appropriations committees when i was in government before it is my expectation that this committee and any other committee before which members of the department of defense appear will receive forthright honest candid and complete testimony and where people don't know the full answer that they provided for the record  in a timely way and further that if they're asked a question that deals with classified matters that instead of trying to waffle around the issue they simply say it's a classified matter and offered to deal with it in a closed session or in  writing and finally i would just say that if at any time members of this committee are not satisfied with the forthrightness and candor of the answers that are being given i hope you will let us know let me they very much and job mr chairman members of the committee it's a privilege to represent your armed forces in front of you today and i appreciate the opportunity to continue our dialogue i would like to also thank you in the congress for providing to your armed forces the resources we need to do the missions that you've given to us also want to publicly thank our troops who are just simply magnificent in everything that they do in the way they do it and their families who sacrifice and service country as well as anyone who's ever worn the uniform also to the employers of our guard and reserve we know that we cannot do our jobs without the guard reserve and therefore we appreciate the quality individuals and recognize that that quality individual who is working with us has left a gap in some business some place in united states or our employers are to be thanked publicly for their support of the guard and reserve if you look around the globe it's hard to see where in the near term our commitments will diminish you take a lap around the globe starting place afghanistan iran iraq syria lebanon yemen somalia sudan venezuela colombia philippines malaysia indonesia north korea background of pakistan and i probably missed a few there is no dearth of challenges out there for our armed forces and therefore the increase in troops that is being requested  in this budget make will make a large difference in our ability to be prepared for unforeseen continues i would also like to be able to increase the number of mid grade officers and enlisted those are the ones who are the ones who are primarily doing the work of training other armies training other police forces and they come from our standing units and when we when we do that we decrease the rating is of those units so we can if we can look at the grade structure of our armed forces as we look at increasing the overall size we will empower the new grade  officers and enlisted to be able to do all that we've asked them to do i also think there are three areas where we need collectively as a government to look at today's authorities and determine whether or  not they still best serve the nation as we move forward one is in the way that we are authorized to help train our partners around the world to the expeditionary  nature of our other government agencies we have wonderful cade patriotic americans you know all of the departments of our government yet some of the rules and regulations that currently exist make it difficult for them to get out get out around the world and do the missions that we as a nation need them to do and because of that your own forces sometimes fill gaps that are better served with some other agency and then third i would say our interagency effectiveness i'm not saying we need a go order nichols act for the inner agency but i do think that to go into nichols act of the last twenty years has empowered our military in a way that we could not otherwise have been empowered in that we should at least take a look at each of the pieces of that legislation and see what might well serve the nation if applied to the interagency here in washington and around the globe and make the adjustments needed so we can better take advantage of all of the elements of national power mr chairman again thank you for the you are not only representing those folks in uniform you are the principal military adviser to the secretary and to the president and further provision which you mention in a recent letter do  we in congress have the right to request your professional opinion or advice and we thank you for that so we go the questioning the mr marshall mr chairman secretary as recently as a couple of years ago the administration and all of its representatives before this committee argued that it was not necessary to expand the size of our forces our conventional forces are cowan a letter that we intercepted written and early two thousand and four said that from our perspective anyway the americans are no problem for us they are targets eventually they'll figure it out withdraw to their bases there are a number who argue that part of the challenge for us and tactical mistake that we've made is a large conventional presence in iraq and that the structure of the four should be very different that conventional forces are not really capable of dealing with circumstances like this all of the national security challenges that you described as justifying an increase in the size of the force are challenges that we were aware of two years ago five years ago ten years ago those sorts of things so it seems that the increased size of the force is directly associated with operations principally in iraq and yet there are those who argue that that the way we've gone about this with a large conventional force doesn't make a whole lot of sense assumed they're correct assume that one of the lessons learned here is that we have to have a differently structured engagement a largely differently structured engagement for these kinds of challenges does it  make does it make sense under those circumstances to spend an awful lot of resources in expanding the conventional force mr marshall i think that the well first of all when i even before i came to this job i had  two concerns about about our soldiers one was that the size of the army and the marine corps was not big enough to accommodate the the multiple missions that they had been given over the  past dozen years or so and the second was that we had changed the role of the national guard and had we were we treating the national guard right and i've tried to address both of those issues and decisions that i've either made or recommend to the president i think that we need the cape a bit we need the full range of military capabilities we need both the ability for regular force on force conflicts because we don't know what's going to develop in places like russia and china in north korea and iran and elsewhere we clearly need larger special forces and an increase in the special forces as provided for in this  budget to deal with situations such as we're encountering in afghanistan and in various other and in the philippines and various other places around the world so i think that we need the full the full range of these capabilities another aspect of it is  beginning from the time we sent troops to bosnia and we have troops deployed in so many different places around the world one of the results of that plus the war in iraq is that our active force now down to a year at home and then a year deployed we would prefer that that be in fact our policy is that it be a year deployed in two years at home same way with the guard a year at home or a year deployed and five years away because the forces are stretched so thin lightly in a variety of places including especially after iraq we've had to break that commitment and that's more a one to one now for the regular force and so i think that for those reasons we need the full range of capabilities and i think that the increase in the size of the army and the marine corps for those reasons is justified but if if you're willing i'd be happy to let general pace offer a comment or two i'm happy to have general pace of course comment i guess i'm asking you to assume what i hear you saying the secretary is that you came to the job believing that our forces were to start conventional forces were too small for the multiple threats that we face and that you're not suggesting it's appropriate to increase the force because we want to be able to replicate the model that we've chosen to use with regard to iraq you're suggesting that it goes well beyond that yes sir general pace last year this time i testified that i thought we did not need to increase the size of the force of a based on what we projected as the commitment in iraq coming down by the end of  the year as you know that did not happen in a pan around july general but casey came in and said that he was going to retain at least fifteen brigade maybe go higher that cause us to go into a very thorough analysis so that by december of this year we were recommending and increasing the size of the armed forces so that we could maintain media attention because the intensity of it and certainly what we have in the iraq and afghanistan now in particular when you mention the expeditionary nature of the other agencies i think the personnel policies are not equipped statutorily to even support the nature of the types of missions that we're fighting  you know to the chairman's point i'm grateful that we're seeing a return to the small wars doctrine that the marine corps pioneered at the turn of the last century but i'd like to direct my question to the secretary for several years your predecessor and general pace of repeatedly testified on the very urgent need for bold interagency reforms often referred to as an interagency version of the goldwater nichols process reportedly this inner agency reform is one of the pentagon's top four priorities and as you know the project on national security reform under the sponsorship of the center for the study of the president is seeking to advance the needed inner agency reforms i understand at the pentagon was such an enthusiastic supporter of this effort that on december first  y secretary anglin agreed to provide significant financial and personnel support to the project my question is this is the pentagon providing the support to the project on national security reform that secretary england promised an f not why not my understanding mr davis is that we are willing in principle to be supportive of this but gordon and i have discussed this and we think first of all sense it involves the interagency process that it would probably be useful to have the other involved and and above all the white house and so we have not made a decision we have not made a final decision to support the project financially until we satisfied that moving forward is something that both the white house the national security council staff their national security council advisor and other principal advisers the president the cabinet secretaries are on board it doesn't make much sense for the defense department soley to support a study on the inner agency process to the tune of a couple of million dollars if nobody else in the rest of the government is prepared to participate it sort of identifies the problem from the beginning i think  facing a difficult paradox you're either going to become the mega institution handling all foreign policy and take away i think you get into a constitutional question of making your major commanders proconsul doing everything or constitutionally would be better off doing that somebody's going to have to take the lead i know personally secretary of state has told me that she supports the types of reforms and structures brought this up with the president personally but i'm curious that a policy adviser would object to something that would make their jobs easier well i'm  certainly i have a lot of admiration for for ambassador ab and the center in principle i'm very supportive of the project and if other elements of the government i'm not even saying that they have to contribute significant dollars i just want to make sure that everybody agrees that this is a good thing to go forward with i have not questioned one panelist or in private discussions i thought anybody who objects to this and many folks former secretaries of defense policy advisors have gone on the heard in support of this as well and i guess my question is who do we need to bring in to explain to us why they don't want to spend a paltry amount of money that would probably save a lot of lives and make the efficiency of the military  greatly improved well i have i would have to tell you that i do have a small objection to the pentagon being used as the government's piggy bank and particularly for things that are not related necessarily o strictly to our military mission the bottom line is i'm prepared to support it i'm prepared to provide the money for it i want to make sure that the white house and everybody is on board for moving forward and i will do that who's the person at the white house  t objects to this i will i will make sure that the appropriate people are contacted hopefully you know i have a chance to talk about this afterwards right now what i'm seeing are numerous highly qualified combat arms officers who are running agriculture programs trying to implement a banking system you know it's well known that the reason that the iraqi troops leave their units and go a wall is because they're paid in cash and they have to go home and take that money home and this is i think significantly hampering our operational capability a thousand small steps  that would save i think billions of dollars at the end of the day and process improvements to the entire national security apparatus and so my encouragement to you and i will support you i think that this committee would support you in any way possible to make sure that  we help you to overcome any potential objections and personally i think this would not only save lives but heck of a lot of money that could be reinvested in professional development or and retention of our soldiers mr davis all i can tell you is i spent nine years on the national security council staff under four presidents and if anybody understands the need for a better interagency process i don't know who i'm not objecting to your and your no i understand the need thank you very much  command and soon the fourth i d is going to move to colorado so thank you for paying attention the needs of the communities in colorado i also want to thank you for responding to the calls from the hill for an increase in the end strength of the another marine corps been added to the list to congress and marshall gray some good points about the need for the verse focus and expanding the various doctrines that apply to all the threats that we face and course that brings us to the question of the special forces and how we increase their numbers and it's a challenge because it's about training people and bringing them up to speed is not about equipment but in that spirit let me let me turn to the situation in iraq i think it's clear that all of us want to succeed the president knowledge that fact in a number of situations last week the democratic gathering down in williamsburg but there's a difference of opinion about how to proceed and i think many of us differ with the president publicans and democrats because we believe the surge is more of the same and we also think the american public spoke in november and in a democracy there's always tension between  passions and long term strategic needs but i have to i think in this case the american public both have the wisdom and the passion and they understand i think there was damage that we can't stand in the middle of a civil war we can work to stabilize iraq i think that's the definition of success for many of us and i'm very interested in whether there's planning going on to prepare for potential contingencies there have been a number of i think excellent pieces written and ideas circulated dealing with the question of whether we partition iraq there have been discussions about the rise of a strongman for example worst case perhaps some sort of anarchic fragmentation of power in the region that we call iraq could you comment on the planning that you may or may not have under way mr sector particularly given that if we all acknowledge that we poorly planned to win the peace in the initial after the initial invasion of iraq i would tell you first of all that we are certainly hoping that the baghdad security plan will be successful we are resourcing it to be successful we are sending the troops forward as  as general petraeus has asked and as the joint chiefs of recommended that sad i think that it would be irresponsible of me  not to be looking at alternatives should these expectations and hopes not prove to be fulfilled and so without getting into any details i will simply say to you that  that i have asked that we began to look at other contingencies and other alternatives i'm i'm heartened to hear you share that with the committee mr secretary and i know it's a delicate balance because of  one of my concerns has been that the counterinsurgency doctrine when i study it doesn't necessarily apply to a civil war situation and i wonder that if we haven't put general petraeus in a difficult situation regards to what we've asked him to do and when in fact we really are if not in the middle of a civil war in the middle of five very complicated wars based on some of the experts analysis of what's happening in iraq whatever bumper sticker might be applied to the situation in iraq whether you argue for or against the words civil war the fact of the matter is that there's a major problem right now that needs to be fixed the iraqi army and iraqi police are loyal to the central government they are taking orders from the central government so from my perspective we are not in a civil war but i think having a debate about that particular word is not as and not as important as where are we where should we be and how do we get from where we are to where where we need to be and that's the mission that we've been working on for the last four or five months is what general casey and of a separate african command given the conversations many of us had with general jones and others in the military leadership in the pentagon in the threats and the opportunities in africa i think that's an enormously important step and you're to thank you  list of of places around the world where u s troops u s military personnel are deployed and as i as i listened to your to that to that list i thought of the the nature of warfare as it changes as it has evolved over the years different both in the type of conflict that we've fought and the intensity of the conflicts that we've fought throughout history each conflict being different than the one before it and so i'm wondering if you would just take use my time if you will to discuss briefly with the committee the nature and intensity of the threat that we face in various regions of the world that you mentioned in your opening statement  doing peace making in the not next block being in full combat and that pretty much applies to the globe as a well as well as the streets of any particular city in baghdad for example we have the opportunity on the low end in the peace keeping area to impact our friends and partners right now who do not have the capacity to defend themselves will divide the kinds of governance that are required it is in that opportunity that the other elements of our government being able to deploy to being able to help those countries provide for their citizens before they devolve into a situation where originally in that capacity and it is where you must go in with a military force preferably coalition and impose security so that good governance can take place and then you always have the conventional type of conflict and without predicting where certainly the korean peninsula is still  a place where conventional war could break out we did not expect in two thousand and one to have to conduct conventional operations in afghanistan but we did there are other countries out there that are gaining capacity and when you look at it threats from a military perspective you look at two parts one capacity and the other is intent we can gauge capacity so we can watch for example china increasing it's military capacity in a very substantial way today i do not believe that they have the intent to go to war with us but we need to be watching both capacity and potential intent across the globe who are potential competitors would be in the future and to make sure we stay ahead of their capacities so in all of those that entire spectrum we need our armed forces to be prepared and it is that basis the chiefs have done our analysis of our readiness to conduct the national military strategy the united states over the coming months and years and it is based on that that we've made our classified analysis that was sent to congress about two days ago that articulate where we believe we are and how we believe we should proceed to take care of some of the problems we see that are not yet fully taken care of german thank you very much crane in my district and the people back home that work very hard on research and development thousands are also patriots and working very hard to keep our troops safe and alive and doing their job and so i think we owe them a  lot of gratitude and thanks also that being said a couple of questions yesterday i was reviewing some of the testimony between you and senator by on the other side and he was asking about  iraq and what i want to quote we were talking about if the iraqis to meet their their requests or their commitments and you said first obviously we're going to try to persuade them to do what they promise to do but then there's always a potential withholding assistance or changing our approach over the terms of how we interact with the government the success of this strategy is depend entirely on the iraqis willingness to kill or commitments without i don't want military secrets but are the commitments of the benchmarks have you set those yet and if so i would like to know if you can tell me what kind of assistance we might withhold whether that's dollars whether that's true and then has that been clearly laid out to the iraqi government what those what those commitments and withholding might be first of all those trials where as i think that we are in the process of developing  i refer to as a matrix or a checklist of our expectations of the iraqi government and the iraqi military and some of those are items that we will be able to know fairly soon within a couple of months whether in fact they're meeting the commitments that they that they have made and those in particular fall into the military arena such as are their brigades showing up on time what is the level of manning of the brigades that are showing up are they interfering in operations depending on which sect may be involved which sectarian group may be involved are they allowing operations to take place in all neighborhoods and so on so some of those i think we'll know we'll have them be able to have a read within a couple of months i think that we have to give it a given a fair shot and then there are those that have a little longer timeline are they committing part of the ten billion dollars are they actually spending part of the ten billion dollars that they've committed on economic reconstruction and development in the political arena are they addressing issues such as the hydrocarbon law prevention elections and those kinds of things and those play out over a little longer period of time pennell what i have what i have said and it really fits in with the chairman's comment earlier about  our readiness to provide briefings periodically here on the hill i think that part of an honest dialogue between ourselves and the congress is to include in those briefings our reading of how we think they're doing  based on based on this checklist or or this matrix and for my part i'm not i'm not entirely in charge of the government fact i'm may not even be entirely in charge of the pentagon  but but i think that all kidding aside that my recommendation would be that we share this information with the congress we're all in this together and i think is an honest evaluation of how the iraqis are doing is very important i think that critical to its success and that if they do not fulfill their commitments that the united states has as i as you quoted me saying is going to have to look at other alternatives and and and and it consequences  and as general petraeus said in his an exchange with senator levin during his confirmation hearing that not only could include withholding financial assistance and other kinds of things but also withholding forces very much mr chairman gentlemen welcome as always thank you for what you do appreciate your comments about your interest in providing forthright candid honest testimony and i noted the  comments are full committee chairman and that's the general pace's structure under goldwater nichols and the opportunity we have to ask for the advice of the chairman of the joint chiefs gentlemen i'd like your honest forthright candid advice to this committee as we are beginning as the senate is now to consider a non binding resolution that expressed concerns and lack of support for the s mission how that might be received by the troops in the field sure i'll start no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in washington strengthens our democracy period there's also no doubt in my mind that just like we look out to our potential enemies to see division in their ranks and take comfort from division in their ranks that others who don't have a clue how democracy works who are our our enemies would seek to take comfort from their misunderstanding of the dialogue in this country from the standpoint of the troops i believe that they understand how our legislature works in that they understand that there's going to be this kind of debate but we're going to be looking to see whether or not there are supported in the realm of mission given and resources provided as long as this congress continues to do what it has done which is to provide the resources for the mission that dialogue will be the dialogue and the troops will feel supported the other very important part that is more very different than it was during vietnam is that despite our own citizens belief for or against our troops come home their fellow citizens welcome them home and thank them for their service so those two things believe that our fellow citizens appreciate what we do even if they don't agree with what we've been asked to do and congress is continuing funding for the two things that i believe we look to as military folks to know that we're being supported finding that i would add to that is that i think that you know i have no documentation for this but i've made two trips to the field in my first to afghanistan and iraq in my first six weeks an office and i would tell you that i think that they that our troops do understand that that everybody involved in this debate is looking to do the right thing for our country and for our troops and that everybody is looking for the best way to avoid an outcome that leaves iraq in chaos and i think they're sophisticated enough to understand that that's what the debates really it's about the path forward in iraq we are where we are there is relatively little agreement about the consequences should we leave precipitously or should we leave iraq in chaos and the question is what's the best path forward for america and i think they understand that that debates being carried on by patriotic people who care about them and who care about their mission so i that's how i see it i think you know it's as general pace and decay that it's it's a truism from the beginning of time and the time the first neanderthal picked up a club you try to see whether your whether your enemies are divided or not all i would say is that history is littered with examples of people who underestimated robust debate in washington d c for weakness on the part of america and i think a lot of people understand that as well thank you gentlemen i'm going to use my remaining time to make a statement with respect to the actual budget proposal i predicated upon supposedly the task force on the military health care that is deliberating now to my knowledge as of yesterday was the first day they were informed that they were expected to have those savings i'd riley and fort leavenworth and it is an honor during my campaign i had a great deal of support we have a lot of retired people were tired military in leavenworth it's a great place to retire and inordinate amount of support came out i never asked their politics i still to this day don't know their politics many enlisted many officers right on up to the general level and i came to understand that their main concern and their main support for me although many things went on stated was their deep deep love for this military that they had spent their lives putting together and their deep concern that it was it was heading in a direction that would in fact alter our ability to be ready so my question comes back to kind of a question that i've been having here and that has to do with readiness you read this recently the chief of staff of the army general school maker appeared before this committee to discuss readiness issues during that hearing the general indicated that the problems with the army readiness that he had talked about last summer had not improved i understand that combat units not deployed to iraq are experiencing shortages of equipment which are affecting training and readiness certainly at fort riley the shortfalls transfer terek translate into a reduced excuse me a reduced capability for our army to deploy to a new crisis and i like others i'm concerned that this presents a strategic risk for our country to borrow mr skelton's question general secretary gates are you comfortable with the readiness posture of army units in the continental united states no ma'am i'm not there are two things that need to be focused on one quick meant as you know about forty percent of our equipment with respect to the budget if congress approves the budget as submitted that the money that is in both the supplementals and in the base budget will in fact address the equipment part of the readiness the other piece for the mission to go back into iraq or afghanistan instead of having to two years at home that we'd like them to have and have that time available to train to both the mission they're going to go to but also the unexpected missions of combined arms operations and the like we have we are not able to train them fully to the missions that they may have to go to in addition to being able to train them for the mission to go into so when you say am i comfortable no ma'am i'm not comfortable i understand which gets back to the question of this escalation that we're heading into and what is the long term short term perhaps the short term consequences of that it's getting it's getting back into that area as well and when we talked a little earlier about deploying reservists and about our  s units and the answer that i received there was when we put these twenty one thousand troops again on the field that we would not expect to have to have additional combat support service units and i just again ask the question will will more combat support units be necessary it certainly seems that they'll be necessary for medical for logistic for all of the upper tier that we have to support them and i would appreciate a little bit more of a direct answer ron with the twenty one thousand troops we're still expected to need more combat support man will need a little bit more combat support probably unattended fifteen percent range two to three thousand additional troops those twenty one thousand will fall in on a vast infrastructure that for the most part will be able to absorb the extra capacity required gauge themselves and deploy have interval to the combat support combat service support but there are things like unarmed aerial vehicles military police maintenance that will require a b plus top estimate right now is that that'll be in about the two thousand to twenty five hundred range all right thank you so much mr bartlett thank you recognizing that many hearings and before our junior members have a chance to ask their questions unless i have a question that i think might change the course given my professional background have a keen appreciation for good financial statements and good financial reporting and i would like secretary gates and maybe ms jonas to speak to us today about how we're going to convert four hundred eighty one point four billion dollars into the into the various missions that we want i mean that's a staggering amount of money at any scale there say that most americans never say that much money alone try to think about it i was on a plane last night coming back from texas with a needs and all the others like him who who are the service to general pace talked about are so magnificent and they really are your commitment to as a new secretary getting the d o d to a point where the financial statements are intended and the way congress intended for you talk to us about your commitment to the financial reporting of the o t i mean let me offer a couple of general thoughts and then ask as jonas to comment we've talked a lot about the men and women in uniform and and we certainly all applaud their service there are also a very large civilians in the department of defense who dedicate their lives to doing exactly what you just suggested and that is how do we get the right things in the right hands of the right people at the right time and and there will always be a newspaper story about where we fell down on the job when you have the world's largest and most complex enterprise  that's inevitably going to happen but there are people who spend very long days trying to make sure that there is not that they do everything they can to prevent waste fraud and abuse but more importantly into your point to make sure that the right things get bought and put in the hands of the people who can use them in the in the best possible way i'm committed to that served on corporate boards before coming here i'm glad i don't have to sign the financial statement for the department of defense but i do have to sign one for the controller of the currency about how much we spend then i'm not looking forward to that either because the number is going to be a lot bigger than when i was d c i but but i think that what so many of these civilians as well as some of our senior as well as our senior military leadership who are assigned to the pentagon really feels a personal responsibility is that every day they're not just dealing with numbers they're not just dealing with contracts and so on they're dealing with the tools that will be used by our men and women in uniform and i think that there is a moral commitment on their part in that respect that may be missing in a lot of businesses and i think they really devote their all and i commit to devoting my all to making what you suggest happen mr conway thank you for th question and as you may know we're working very hard we have a comprehensive department wide program called the financial improvement on readiness program and we're taking the balance sheet of the of the department and we have so far  been able to get a clean opinion on certain line items in our assets we get about fifteen percent of our assets or about two hundred fifteen billion and about nine hundred sixty seven billion of our liability so about forty nine percent because that filters all the way down to whoever's responsible for taking care of that young man last night and i know the commitment is there but i want to make sure that that that you hear it from us while we talk about all the other things that go on and i also appreciate the service budget and you know i think it's important we talk about the president's proposed escalation of troops which has begun actually by my unit that's already on the ground and our she baghdad right now but you look back four years ago mr secretary and general petra sir my hope is that it will well first of all i think that things don't come to an abrupt end but i think what we what we hope will happen that over the course of the coming months we will see the government in baghdad be successful in beginning to in lowering the level of violence and in baghdad that they will in fact carry out and enact the legislation with respect to national reconciliation and that they will in fact spend the money on economic reconstruction that they have pledged  in that event it seems to me that if that were all developed over the course of the next months that in the latter part of this year we could begin drawing down american troops in iraq that is essentially the best case story and and that is our hope that is what we are trying to effect with what we are doing and as i mentioned to an earlier question are  i don't think that i would be responsible and in basing my thinking about the future purely on my hopes and so i think i have a responsibility to look at what some of the alternatives are twenty eight twenty nine at least when we look over there but you know in the stars and stripes newspaper which you know they get over there i mean i know the one headline was top generals tell congress surge won't end soon and so when we at you know when you mention the hopes and dreams you want to base everything on that but you look at ok we do secure baghdad safe it does work out but then what's next or i mean what's what's at the that is it the crit i mean is there other searches planned in iraq that will obviously take more than just a few months  being planned anywhere else and in iraq the hope is that by lowering the level of violence in baghdad we will we will in fact the iraqis because they are in the lead on this with our support by lowering that violence will create the political space in which some of these other activities the political and the economic can take place that the assumption is that you can't you can't be successful in iraq if baghdad is out of control on the other hand if you get baghdad under control and especially if the iraqis play the role that they must in making that happen then their own capabilities to be able to deal with the situation in some of these other towns will be  listened carefully to your exchange earlier with mr davis about the inner agency process and i hesitate to go over the same ground except since in the early days of our involvement in iraq and afghanistan i have personally heard frustrate from the pentagon from the commanders on the ground from ordinary soldiers and marines that we were not bringing the full array of national assets to bear in those struggles for a variety of reasons a number of which general pace mentioned in his opening statement and i'm concerned as a suspect others are that not only does it hurt the military because we're asking them to do everything but that there is no way we can be successful in the long term in what we're calling the global war against terrorism without bringing the full array of national power i understand it's not just the d o d issue but on the other hand if you don't chronicle and say this has to be fixed it's obviously not going to be fixed in this administration it's going to be a longer term thing but if if if you and others don't this isn't a parrot to be fixed then it's not going to get the attention it needs and not only in the administration but in congress i mean were is at least a good part of the problem and as a subset of that i want to ask you both sensually are you satisfied with our government planning and strategy the wider global war against terrorists and i should say that i'm one of those crossover members on the intelligence committee i know i have some understanding of what happens at national counterterrorism center chairman smith and i've recently been to tampa and talked to so calm about it and have some understanding about what they do but what i really would like from from each of you is are you satisfied that at least at the planning level our government is able to lay out the strategy for the long term and how we defeat or succeed in this global war against terror i can only give you a preliminary view at this point because i'm so new but i will tell you that first of all as i am significantly impressed by the difference in the level of coordination and the level of quasi collaboration in the government relating to the war on terrorism compared to what i saw in the government dealing with the soviet union and and various world problems at the time i left in one thousand nine hundred three so there has been significant progress a week ago last monday i was at  north com northern command and went through with them their planning in coordination with a variety of other elements of government and dealing with a variety of domestic challenges everything from hurricanes   and flu and everything else and the presidents in those commands of representatives from other parts of the government was impressive the level of planning and a great in planning that i saw there and the input of other departments was impressive i've seen the same thing i've met with the leadership of the department of homeland security and the degree of coordination that's that's gotten underway there as it is a perfect absolutely not but it seems to me it's better than i expected it would be so i would say that the whole thing is a work in progress but i would say also that there has been significant progress over the last several years i think that this whole concept of doing something in terms of whether it's a civil reserve corps such as the president has called for or some other changes has a lot of promise and i think actually the interest of the congress that i've seen in both houses and the interest on the part of the president may be does give us an opportunity to try and do something to fix this problem structurally so that five years from now we don't have  challenges and standing up prevention reconstruction teams and things like that over the nine seconds left we have had significant progress but we do need better understanding we need to have individuals in uniform and out who have had a chance to serve in other agencies who've been able to get the understanding of what's possible so the current system is being used i believe as effectively as possible but i think the current system is not the system we need to get to the future thank you journalist from new hampshire carol shape thank you mr chairman thank you for being here i want to tell all of you that i truly love the military i was a military spouse my husband was born in heidelberg germany his mother served schools for thirty years and father served the army that really has nothing to do with the discussion that we're having today i think that we all understand that we love our country however doing that the majority of the american people do not understand what our mission is anymore and would like us to leave and so i do not think that the message is fractured in this country i think it's actually pretty clear with the people now so soldiers need to know that we support the mission but they also need to know if this mission is the best interest of the united states of america and so i think that's what we have to understand when we talk about this we're talking about a great deal of money and a great deal of resources here this reduces other needs for our country such as shipbuilding i'm concerned about the nuclear navy that china is building and concerned about other areas in the world some of which you mentioned that are under strain and we could fall into conflict with them so i am addressing this strictly as what's best for our country and i wanted to talk a minute about iraq after we have spent four years in iraq i heard you secretary gates say that one of the questions we're going to have to  are the brigades showing up on time now four years later after listening over and over again about how we had trained this was a rocky military and how we had everybody in order and we had the support that is such an elementary question that i just have to ask you why is that a question now and if we have to worry about them showing up on time what makes you think that we have any chance of having this escalation succeed and that will get the political support there first of all i think it's important to appreciate when the iraqis have been in the process of creating an army from scratch and if you look back earlier in our history there were more than a few instances when units didn't show up the the key here is the discipline of the soldiers the training of the soldiers and the quality of their leadership and and i mental i merely use that as an example of the checklist that we'll be using in terms of whether they're fulfilling their commitments so far so good the brigades that were told to show up have shown up one brigade showed up had fifty five percent or sixty percent of its people i said last friday in a press conference that wasn't good enough general casey tells me that twenty five percent of those people were on leave to take their pay back to their families so the point is that we we have created something with the iraqis here that has not existed before in iraq and we need to evaluate it as we go along to see if they're fulfilling their commitments that was really the only point about mentioning than that but we're talking four years later and that seems like a basic building block that we could have after all this money that i suspect that we have not won the hearts and minds of the iraqi people sixty one percent of them said it was ok to kill an american this is a pretty critical issue here we have not won the peace there and i would like to suggest that the mission creep has been very very upsetting to not only the american people but also to the military and to the people in iraq who by majority poll say they would like us to leave and that we're now looking at the shia sunni conflict which has a lot a lot of trauma for the people there and i also want to ask you and i asked last week of another general what percentage of the uprising in the trouble in baghdad and in iraq is actually caused by outside forces like al and what percentage is caused by the shia sunni conflict or other internal problems like criminals very quickly i think there are four wars going on in iraq right now in the south sectarian violence and the principal in baghdad a bath of insurgency and al qaida in iraq there are there are some foreign fighters but they are not the principal source of the problem al qaeda in iraq may not commit  majority of of major attacks but they do commit they and the insurgents commit the majority of the biggest attacks they were the ones that were responsible for the some are a mosque bombing and so on and so they stoke this violence there's a there's a method behind all of this it isn't just random people going out and gangs of people going out and shooting each other there is a strategy here and it is to stoke this sectarian violence so that this entire effort does fail and that is caused principally by out qaida and by the insurgents what percentage would you say is al qaeda in iraq and in baghdad in terms of a specific percentage i'd have to get that three to seven percent and the reason i'm asking these questions is because i'm concerned about afghanistan i've been listening and hearing some testimony in afghanistan where we are losing that battle and that fight we went there because that's where the editorial for the washington post and i want to ask before the next war subtitle do not let the people who brought us iraq define the question advise advise on the justification based on the intelligence that would get us into iraq this is the statement after the media  this guy is going to fall i went down that next day and said fine if you want to salvage this thing i'll give you the course there's the name you can have the name but i'm going to keep doing every single thing that needs to be done and i have get to the question and i complimented you and i trust you but i found out after we went into iraq that certain entities primarily douglas feith and people like the ninety's wanted this country to go in and remove saddam hussein who was an evil man no question about it that i found out that the intelligence and it had been pretty much verified had been manipulated as it came to members of congress to sell us on going to war someone our story right now every family in america  lost a loved one i don't tell you this to impress you i am saddened every day i got home i spent three hours in the office counting extended families i have sent i was six thousand letters to families in this country it happens to be a letter that on the second page is a quote i found that roosevelt president roosevelt sent to families in world war two so it requires me to sign two pages so i've signed a total pages six thousand let us and over twelve thousand pages in for a year because i don't have the military background and i realize we must have a strong military to defend this country and the freedom that we enjoy but there's something i found out from rudyard kipling about two years ago he was very pro war in england until his son was killed and his writings from the epitaph war and this applies to me sir not to that i hope that you will say to this congress this administration that there is a constitution and the constitution demands that the congress send men and women to die for this country and i will never vote for any resolution democrat or republican as long as i'm here that does not come to this congress and ask for a declaration of war because we have advocated constitutional responsibilities and this failed policy in iraq that allows us the freedom to debate here in congress the policy i wish you well i wish on men and women well and i ask god to continue to bless america thank you thank the gentleman  courtney from connecticut thank you mr chairman and i want to thank the witnesses for their testimony mr skelton at the outset stated what the mission of this committee is which is readiness is the job of this committee and we cannot neglect the future and having before us a budget of seven hundred sixteen billion dollars it's hard to imagine that there's any contingency that's not protected or covered by some of that magnitude but  i want to ask some questions about the fact that the shipbuilding component of this budget is still i think concerned general briefly alluded to the fact that the chinese navy is  building up its size in fact they're building two and a half submarines a year at the present clip that they're that they're on this budget that we have before us still maintains a one submarine a year  building schedule based on the projections that up in groton connecticut no that actually is going to result in a submarine fleet from twenty twenty to twenty thirty three of less than forty eight submarines and it really is and so i would just like to ask you to please comment maybe a little bit more about what you see happening in the pacific right now and terms of our long term strategic needs and what i would describe  disturbing decline of the size of our our navy fleet the budget i think has no i don't think i know has eight ships to include one submarine as you point out thanks to the great folks in groton connecticut are the finest in the world and that's why we're able to have great comfort in our quality over other people's numbers but as you have also  quality quantity all of its own and we are watching very carefully the size of the submarine fleet over time in the navy does have a plan in future years to to ask for more than the one there's a date for that i don't have  r second again without regard to intent because i do not believe that china intends near future to be going to war with the united states we still need to watch what they are doing their recent anti satellite test of great concern the building of aircraft carrier their submarine operations out of what is normally their operating areas and things like that  are things that we should probably pay attention to our ability to respond should their intent change ensure that in our budgets we request resources needed to ensure that we we can prevail this budget ensures that we can continue to prevail against the foreseeable challenges over the next four to five years that we say  but we do have to pay close attention while we are focused on the global war on terror that we not let a potential conventional threat rise that we did not foresee or prepare for and that's why the budget is balanced and that's why the number is as you pointed out large so that we can ensure that we are ready for the full spectrum of operations those that we are involved in and those that we may need to become involved  regardless of the adversary just like to add though that this building schedule is cutting into the workforce and groton i mean if we maintain the once of the year through two thousand and twelve we're going to continue to see a workforce that is getting older and smaller and i certainly intend to work very hard with the navy to try and see if there's ways that we can accelerate that production so we don't not only i think have an impact on the size of our fleet but also damage this very specialized workforce that cannot be just sort of replaced with with the snap of a fingers s fort bragg sunday night had dinner with a number of troops or wives or children terribly destructive to see this congress divided about where we're going we did the right thing but waiting to use the momentum that he thinks in to develop from this resolution debate to defund the troops we don't need to do that in a moment i'd like for you to answer the question somewhat hypothetical what's the cost of losing one of the consequences because of the questions that all be included in this debate to cost the loser future of this country based on our past we can't afford to lose  someone asked what is the in look like well to me it looks like victory it looks like a military diplomatic intelligence and security the national interest a victory that's what it looks like so i hope it again one thing the troops appreciate is the ability of people to come to washington and express themselves it's very healthy it's good and they like to say that but this congress made a decision to go to war to remove a brutal dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of people and given additional weapons who knows but anyway again i hope you all will be a little less politically correct maybe that's my opinion an old it stronger in terms of where is this debate going to go in are we going to literally maintaining the funding keep this up and let the troops win this victory would they are winning there but these buildings are going to be on of a level to serve the troops that both sides of the aisle say we want to have so spigot medium out the budget is coming up but also in terms of the impact and how we repair the damage that's been done by the c r and everybody has priority we're spending the people's money not our own that's the our does not fund the families or the actual military members how are we going to get over that crisis how are we going to address it in the upcoming budget and what's the cost of losing the war against terrorists and again thank you thank you for the men and women that you represent we simply cannot meet the mandate given to complete the brac alignment in the timeline that is required by law so that's a fact number two there are families impacted by this very directly the army's plan for example to restructure and as they grow is based on being able to get the brac work done on a timeline has been laid out for several years expecting to do it on a timeline that congress told us to do it we don't get the provide quality of life the families have to do what congress was told to do on on losing in thirty seconds i think that the frankly my perception of the debate is that what people are debating is how how do we proceed from here in a way that avoids leaving iraq in chaos and and the general belief that that would be a very bad thing for the united states and for our friends in the region and i think it would be a huge strategic setback thank you stands for funding and then  unpredictability of the need for american forces in the days ahead i've been blessed to be in the congress now over thirty years and since nine hundred seventy seven there have been twelve military conflicts involving our country and at my request the congressional research service listed them and at this time without objection  challenges we face and you also pointed out three areas that need to be addressed in an agency cooperation rules and regulations red tape need to be removed and we need to  have lighter rules as far as our authority to train people are partners and and secretary gates you spoke on the fact that this is a smaller percentage of the budget that we're spending now but defense related purposes than at the end of the cold war so it's really not that much money that you're asking for and of course  you talk about the president's budget his base proposal four hundred eighty one point four billion dollars in discretionary spending that doesn't include the seventy billion dollars in bridge being asked for and so we've got all the facts and figures we've got your comments to date and it seems like we're avoiding the central issue which is our involvement in this unwinnable war in iraq and i don't want to get we know that the american public expect results from this new congress and we're going to be very responsible as we look at budget needs because we know we do need a strong male military but we have a house burning and we're putting gasoline on it by sending more troops to iraq when what we need to be doing is trying to put out that fire and  gates know that people are concerned about the two aircraft carriers that have been deployed over to the persian gulf that make a war with iran more imminent and i'd like for you to comment about that and then general pace the last time you were here i asked you how much will this new deployment of the twenty two thousand troops how much will it cost  point eight billion dollars and i want to know whether or not you still agree with that and if so where did you get that figure from if not then how did how do you account for this five point eight billion dollars figure very quickly well first of all two points just to your comment about sort of indicating that we had somehow communicated the message that all of these different budgets didn't represent m money the truth is they represent a staggering amount of money and and we understand that in terms of the size of the two carrier battle groups we have consistently maintained one carrier battle group  in that area we have sent a second carrier battle group in substantial measure as a gesture of support to our friends and allies in the area who were becoming very worried about iran's aggressiveness i would tell you that there are no plans for any conflict with iran i think we are being cautious in that respect it's a pretty small area confined to our combat troops away from patrolling the streets of baghdad back to their bases and then simply assisting the iraqis as they train to help chairman i want to thank you personally for recognizing people my age need coffee to stay awake in bathroom breaks to stay focused so i'm very grateful if i could just first i want to thank you for an observation you made your opening comment which i think we do well to reflect upon which is while we are spending an enormous amount of money it's a historically rather small fraction of our national wealth and we're asking an awful lot out of out of you and your colleagues with the resources we give you even though they are considerable i have to be want to pick up where mr hayes was focused on the consequences of this three point one billion dollars that we cut out of the c r and what will happen if that money is not replaced along the way and i would like you to talk about it not just in terms of timelines or statutory requirements as important those are and i would invite your comments to mr general pace but what this is go mean for soldiers and sailors and marines and their families i was raised by a career noncom and i remember my first memory was when we were in scott air force base and there was a shortage of base housing and we lived in a converted chicken money is not replaced how's this going to impact soldiers and their families that's ok with you mr cole maybe i could ask mr jonas to talk about the specifics in that three point one billion we have kind of a general view but i many families many military families are will be sorely disappointed by that the administration has had a commitment to no out of pocket costs for our military and so that will have a clear impact and a very near term impact so they would literally level have less to spend on their own families out of exactly right sir and again i think the secretary suggested earlier many of the forces that are becoming home will be coming home to housing less than we expected to give them and so it's very important for us that we tended to talk mostly about the numbers here but it does have a personal impact on the service members and their families thank you let me i'm limited i know let me move to another point i was very pleased to see the request for additional monies for the future combat system and others meant some certainly some problems with that system but i'm absolutely convinced that maintaining it and  moving ahead is really going to be critical for the army in the years ahead and i'm very worried that that's going to be the target frankly if we come up short the ministration budget request can you tell me how critical that is  going forward general pace sure it's critical to the future capacities of united states army and what is most encouraging about the way the army has laid out the plan is that they're not trying to get from one level to another level and one in one large step has produced the increase in capacity that will spin off each of those into the current into the current four so rather than being a step from one level to another over a five or ten year period i know we're well behind other countries in terms of the field artillery system for instance that we have now and it balances a great system but it's it's seen its best days so i would urge you to fight very hard for that i make one last  observation request i also noted in the budget with considerable satisfaction that you're looking at finally replacing k c one thirty five for beginning that process now we get to fix those at tinker air force base and  dad was in the service in the late fifty's when they bought those planes he worked autumn he did twenty years at tinker air force base where i worked on him he died in two thousand and those planes are still coming through so we've got a great civilian work force there but they can't indefinitely maintain airframes you know that it's unbelievable to me what they're able to accomplish but it's going to be pretty critical that that program to get us a new tanker fleet move ahead yes  thank you very much and thank you for your service i am very very grateful for and i know everybody on this committee is thank you mr chairman i yield back leadership secretary gates i didn't have the opportunity to ask you a question last time you were here and i want to ask you specifically about the president's state of the union address where he said that certain economic and political things need to take place and in your testimony earlier you both said that this current military plan did not have any hope of success if there wasn't significant progress on the political and economic and the president first to a few things of oil revenues and reconstruction contracts i'd like your view about this budget are funds being committed to have progress on the political and economic sense that many people agree that this cannot be won militarily and i agree with that ma'am this this has to be one  politically at the end of the day the i think in this budget the only money that we're asking for that relates to either political or economic reconstruction is the commanders  emergency reconstruction program that the bulk of the bulk of the money that we're looking at for economic reconstruction is the ten billion dollars that the iraq government has pledged to spend of its own money the economic part of this is critical because the strategy is is clear build and hold in previous operations we've done the clear we've done the hold for a while and then moved on and the analogy that i've used as it's like the tide coming in and going out we've sent our troops in we've lost some lives the troops come out and you can never tell we were there so the iraqi forces plus up in baghdad on our own is to expand or prolong the whole period to provide the window rebuild and the build is the part where immediately after the commanders after the area is cleared we have money to put in people's pockets to to for jobs to pick up trash or hook up sewage or something like that but then the iraqi government and others have to come in behind that in terms of creating longer term jobs that give these people a stake in protecting their neighborhoods in their their own neighborhoods so that when when general pace talks about the three legs of the stool this economic reconstruction and development part is really critical available for this committee to review everybody seems to agree that these funds are about the most effective funds that we can we can spend because they the commanders can allocate them immediately based on the situation on the ground and and i think general petraeus has above all one of the foremost advocates of this at the beginning of the war we were told congress was told that the iraqi oil revenues would pay for the reconstruction and the department of state says iraq is earned over thirty one revenue and we've provided over thirty billion for iraq reconstruction and the budget request additional fourteen point four billion to train and equip iraqi security forces the secretary the special inspector general for iraq reconstruction reported that the iraqi government's budget fourteen billion for infrastructure and security over the next three years but spent only a fraction of these as of august two thousand and six the iraqi ministry of defense is only twenty four percent of  budget and the state department reported that in all of two thousand and six iraq spent only twenty percent of its six billion capital budget how are we going to assure that these well revenues are being used for reconstruction and to limit the amount of fraud and corruption that's currently with regard to all revenues well we know in terms of how the iraqis spend their own money we will be i think in a position the whole idea is for this money to be used in the areas that we've just cleared and so i think we will be able to see whether they are in fact allocating that money as they have promised and and my hope is that there's always a tendency on the part of government funds big projects and what really this money needs to be used for in my opinion is to fund small projects to get shop owners to be able to reopen their shops and small factories and things like that and i think we'll just have to watch it and make sure it is their money the ten billion that i spoke about one of the reasons that i in my confirmation hearings strongly supported keeping stuart bowen the special inspector general  role and and in fact met with him last week because i think that the kind of work he's been doing is so important mr klein thank you mr chairman thank you gentlemen and lady for being here now there was a milk on problem i am concerned about about this three point one billion i'm not going to i'm not going to dwell on that because i think it's brought out but it really will be interested as we go forward and seen as we try to make up for that error will do what we can but you may be looking for some reprogramming or something and i am known how you do they simply can't have a three hundred million dollars black out of family housing for example that to general conway this morning the army in the marine corps particularly are trying to resettle for a while they're fighting the force and trying to grow the force same time and now we compound the problem by impacting the infrastructure the housing the military construction they're going to need as part of all that i think that we still have still a little bit confusing to me the differences between how the army is approaching reset and modernization how the marine corps is and i'm very uncomfortable that it seems to me we we haven't you haven't asked for an up and we haven't provided of resources to do all of those things reset fight grow and move forces around are you comfortable as a secretary that between the way the army is approach this in the marine corps approach this that you know if you feel like you've got all of those pieces captured in this budget request i think so and i will invite general pace to make a comment that i would i would note that if you include the enacted f y o seven appropriation the f y o seven emergency supplemental and the global war on terror request those three elements together provide for the for the services about seventy seven billion dollars for reset reconstitution and if you add approximately eight billion dollars civically identified over the those three elements for the national guard it's about eighty five billion dollars so it seems to me that while there's been a lag that given what the congress has already given us an f y o seven and and what we have proposed in these additional lives we have a replacement the m b twenty two that's coming along so that's modernization but it's also reset we i'm worried that a year from now or eighteen months from now we will have worn out or lost through combat action and of equipment that the modernization replacement won't have caught up and so i guess what i'm really asking is if you're satisfied that you are in the case of the n b twenty two in particular but  just an example stepping up that modernization that that allows a reset because not just enough to replace a broken piece of equipment with another piece of equipment and i see my time is up so any answer you may want to provide first of all you're right we are replacing general pace thanks for your comment upon how the troops might look at the debate back here at the thirty one years in the military i kind of ollie's was pretty used by those  that when they debate about what you're doing with national treasure of ours is not supporting the troops i always wanted to know if they really were thinking through the best use of our military when i was overseas so i appreciate your comment general it's a watch the q t r and the great work that you did it overseen by you and you did a lot of undergirded by a lot of great analytical work on the joint staff particularly with you what were the three i think it was three major contingencies you planned for in that  shelf term and whether or not we had sufficient resources to address those as examples of the kinds of things and also as you did this you had dynamic commitment and you looked at a school of countries probably afghanistan we plan for the other three large ones and we responded that if we were ready for the three large ones that we would be ready for something that we did not foresee so what changed since last year's testimony on the to because of that change in the fact that we now would have twenty five brigades twenty in iraq three in afghanistan one in kosovo and one in korea those twenty five i would not have based on for the country to reconstitute its forces and have sufficient force but as i look forward and having been wrong two years ago and where i thought we would be  now forward for the next two years as a military professional looking at the potential needs for the nation i cannot sit here and not recommend it so we can have the ability to do what we're being asked to do now and be prepared to take on future threats you mention china and korea in your testimony here when we have drawn down our five army prepositioned sets built them back up with some of the modular designs in them and then drop down upon them again support is not open ended for the iraqis and so then one must prepare to handle consequences even though one may not want to the military has to times plan for that can you envision in plan for redeployment that's correct sir despite the fact that a ninety nine year old ted stroup head of the army personnel advocated an increase of some forty thousand troops then chairman thank you and i want to thank our witnesses for being with us today i want to thank them for their dedicated service to our country both secretary gates and general pace and i also feel the same way mr chairman about their immediate predecessors i think you've given a very forthright testimony here today and i wanted to ask two specific questions of first one i'll direct to general pace you know place i noticed in the fiscal zero eight baseline budget that there is a decrease funding for the missile defense system i think we're talking about five hundred sixty million dollars less than what it was in the fiscal year  increasing their defense budget as we know and of course the obvious situation in north korea and iran nuclear ambitions do you have a concern about that cut and if you would address that the general pace and then i'll ask my second question of secretary gates i do not have a concern about it because it's a cut from about ten billion to about nine point five i asked  the man who was in charge of a missile defense agency whether or not he could continue to provide on the timelines that we've provided to him the missile defense for the nation to include buying the additional missiles getting the radars in place doing all we need to do he assured me he could and based on his analysis i was ok with that with the general would and i thank you for that response would you be concerned with further cuts as as congress goes forward and works its will in regard generally not my time is limited so i'll go ahead address my question to secretary gates secretary this situation of the manpower increase of the twenty one thousand i have heard in fact i think some of this is coming from c b s show that maybe that that is a low estimate by a factor of one point four i've even heard some say that because of the need for support troops of about one point four for each boot on the ground  combat troops that will be need forty eight thousand could you address that and try to make it clear to this committee what the actual facts are as i understand it the first of all when the original announcement was made about the twenty one thousand five hundred i think it included some reference to that there could be some modest admissions for combat support as general pace has said other forums the first of all these troops are going into an area where there is already a very large combat support apparatus each of these brigades has its own combat support capability very different number than some of the assumptions and i think i don't know what their assumptions were but it looks like they took a straight line projection from the original deployment and didn't take into account the existing infrastructure that is the readiness in terms of the mental health of our soldiers i'm very concerned that we're asking more and more and more young men and women and i don't believe that our government is stepping up for our responsibility to make yes ma'am i'm told that one hundred percent of our troops are screened after their deployment approximately twenty two percent have test positive that doesn't necessarily  mean that they have post traumatic stress disorder they are reassessed the troops are reassessed three to six months after again three to six months after the deployment and then screened again during  counseling could you please address i'll have to take that for the record that's simply not consistent with the information i've been given i'll go back and general pace reserve marine corps as well but it's really the army that's stepping up right now and bearing the large cost of of this war in terms of in terms of the people that are that are serving  nation that's for sure i think first of all with regard to your first question about mental health we do need to pay very close attention to that and we should allocate resources necessary not only for the sake of the service members but their families as well the stress on the families that we need to be attentive to as well i believe that in the budget that the quality of life that is fundamental is how we prepare our troops to be participated in of returning warriors weekend program funded by the v f w a program for returning soldiers as they come back from iraq and afghanistan that integrate the family that integrates the kids to make sure that the support is there and that we pay attention to these our families before they deployed while they're deployed and when they return and we should fund that properly and we will have somebody get in touch with you on talk further about this because it's a concern to us systems general pace do you see that that's a very important for the future army obviously that money is kind of competing for the reset just a comment on on your commitment to that program sir it is important in the way that the army has structured the to use what they're learning with a force we have to understand that was a philosophy about a year or two ago and i think that makes a lot of sense to because in the people getting trained in the new systems as well the second question i had seems like there was a little bit of a difference of opinion on the c seventeen question those of us here taking a look at the c seventeen we're using it to land on hot short runways and things that we're not having to pack pack in t c one thirty s and make double seems like this been used it's performing very well and yet it seems that the budget is saying we're done with those we're going to get rid of the supplier base i think there's a little concern that maybe the air force is primary mission which is air superiority may be taking more priority over the capacity to provide that air left would you comment on that from where i'm not what is happening inside the air force as you know about two years ago i think it was maybe three and there was a mobility study that said we needed to have eight hundred eighty seven teams in about ninety five i think it was in the inventory as a result  of those airplanes greater hours per month than expected we are looking to keep the c seventeen line open to be able to replace those that are being consumed quicker than we thought we were but that's to maintain the overall need of seventeen's and five if we want to get some relief on the c five side of the house and be allowed to retire the old but that would probably impact the amount of c seventeen needed but since we're required to keep a number of the balance the total lift capacity is right but you feel that that that overall lift capacity is pretty much iraqi and afghan forces is drop significantly more than fifty percent is what's what's your sense on that that we've gone as far as we can go in that or i think it was  with regard to equipment and by december of zero six we were supposed to have three hundred twenty eight thousand iraqi army and police trained we did and we had ninety eight percent of the equipment bought by the end of december there is however increased it although the whole numbers come down the numbers come down significantly in iraq because we're almost there in iraq and it's gone up significantly in afghanistan so we can we can fast forward the training of the afghan army so you'll see that number i think is about five points it's three point eight billion for iraq and five point nine billion for afghanistan but my understanding just talking to some people in the field was that the iraqis sometimes equipment we give them they just sell at the black market is that we got to deal with or just a quick comment i think we're almost out of time so we need we need to keep track of our equipment we need to make sure that our embedded teams know what's supposed to be there and report back on it as well as we need to develop inside the iraqi army the kind of accountability systems that we have inside of our own thank you thank you for the great work you're all doing  and oh eight in the global war on terror the amount for training for iraqi goes down to two billion and for afghanistan training equipping goes down to two point seven billion so it's the trend line the general is talking about testified that america will by staying on the same course in iraq and implementing the escalation the generals confirm that if our personnel and equipment are tied up in iraq then our ability to our ability to handle future contingencies is reduced deploying extra units will force the army the army and marines to draw more equipment from units not in combat this will further reduce the ability of these units to remain ready for missions elsewhere in my state of florida the national guard does not have all of the equipment it needs to train soldiers they are only twenty eight based budget a four hundred eighty one billion you add to that fiscal year zero seven for the war in iraq of ninety three point four then for fiscal year zero eight for the war one hundred forty one point seven billion those two put together two hundred thirty five billion if you mean that's about half of the entire base budget for the and the the base budget also includes work in i think president bush in proposing his overall budget made a very predictable political statement and cutting health care for the most vulnerable in the united states children seniors fuel oil for seniors while maintaining tax cuts for millionaires but for the d o d budget itself i think that he also makes  very troubling statement the war in iraq is beginning to swallow the entire base budget it's creating a strategic risk that will take years to build back and be able to adequately defend our country he's refused to target sufficient political and economic solutions for iraq and it's eating into our readiness how much longer will the president continue to ignore investments in political and economic solution in iraq in the middle east and how much longer will the president allow the war in iraq to eat into the readiness and our ability to address all global threats while i can only answer the first of those questions and that is that i think that  commitments that have been made by the iraqis to spend ten billion dollars on their own economic projects relating to the baghdad security plan really represent a as we  transition to iraqi leadership in the military phase of the baghdad security plan so to do we transition to iraqi to the iraqis using  principally their own money in terms of of economic development and investment you know the department of state budget request by the president no it's about sixty three simply a questionnaire that was given to them to fill out and no direct interaction no direct screening and they were in such a rush to get out get home to their families they fill it out and they turn national guard i've never been prouder of the american military and the difference that they have made of enabling people and nations to be free with the greatest extent of democracy and freedom in the history of the world  have a concern and it's been expressed over and over and you've addressed it largely in regard to readiness for units that are not deployed and that there are measures to address the deployed there is for reset for the national for the army guy in reserve there is in the seven supplemental and in the global war on terror total our cation of about eight point eight billion dollars for reset that is allocated specifically to the national guard there also is a plan program in place between f y o five and f y thirteen to invest a total of thirty six billion dollars in the national guard as well so there has been an effort to to try and deal with this and i have a number on the on the air force  reset on reconstitution that number is for the zero seven enacted is two point six billion dollars for the supplemental is two point seven billion dollars and for the global war on terror oh wait seven point three billion dollars so a total of twelve point six billion dollars and in the three categories and for the same three categories it's about eight point seven billion for the navy and other encouraging aspect of that is that with the new policy that window of potential deployment they will receive the equipment attention that will ensure that at least on a cyclical basis they get a good hard look every five years let me take that question have people look into it i just don't know the answer and another question i have the budget requests for military construction funding shows a five point three six affect us you know when the equipment is there in iraq and then with got shortfalls in the national guard that was mentioned before maybe you can address a little bit on that with your permission sense and involves a matter of readiness i'd like to ask general pa replaced additional risks involved with using that equipment and not having it available elsewhere but when you take the totality of what we have available to the nation two point four million men and women  in just over two hundred thousand florida right now you take the strength of the air force and the navy which are available to the nation when you look at the potential threats on the horizon we have an enormous capacity left you included that in your budget to be sure that we replace that stock increased the army twenty billion dollars overall but we've added a lot to readiness we have eleven billion dollars in the budget for double maintenance we also have additional double maintenance in the supplemental and the request the global war on terror and i never wanted to miss an opportunity to express to you how grateful i am to all of you who wear the uniform and for that the ones that are on the front line of freedom to that are working to protect human dignity and human freedom across the world because i know that no one of you is more against war than those of you that of had to be so well acquainted with its horrors and tragedies i believe with all of my heart that you would do away with all war if only those who are committed to destruction of human freedom at the expense of human lives would embrace the same concept so let me start out with that with that general pace i'm wondering i question has been dealt with in a number of different ways here but sometimes the foundation of statesmanship is to reemphasize the obvious if as you surveyed the president's  approach in iraq just ask a quick series of questions and you can answer them in total number one can we prevail is it your opinion that this gives us a better chance of prevailing number two what are the implications of the united states drawing too early in iraq in terms of not only our credibility to deter aggression and terrorism throughout the world but also its ultimate cost an innocent human life if we should leave there and allow terrorists to take that nation over and and turn it into a base of terrorist outreach throughout the world so we can prevail but not by military might alone this is a three legged stool it requires the strength of the military to be able to provide security it requires the strength of the political leaders in iraq to provide the leadership to provide the  balance to roache to their citizens to provide the kinds of opportunities that would make their citizens want to live in a country and support their government and requires an economy that provides jobs to those citizens they can do something besides build bombs for a hundred dollars so yes we can prevail but but not primarily militarily they are certainly a very important part to the military with regard to withdrawal it would have immediate lessons that are learned by al qaeda in iraq will be translated to afghanistan for good or bad and that if we would have the same kind of an outcome in afghanistan they would follow us home so there should be  a in a way game so to speak if i could use that analogy but we need to be smarter application of power and we need to encourage other countries to help us especially on the governance and economic  well thank you general and again reiterate my earlier comments secretary gates in your written testimony you expressed it related to our missile defense and our space defense capability that not only are we protecting our own homeland here potentially but that we are a an umbrella for other nations throughout the world and our credibility with them and our ability to deter enemies o freedom that might employ some type of missile strike on one of their neighbors all of those things are at stake and i think your request there is it between the the missile defense and the space based  defense capabilities about sixteen billion combined number one do you think that that will be forthcoming from this congress and number two what do you think the implications are long term if somehow that is diminished as it has been over the years now the the overall missile defense capability at least the spending not the defeat not the capability but the spending on that capability there's been a lot of cuts and i'd like for you to try to address that sir and what its implications are for for freedom in general but i may ask you about that mr mayor thank you and i'm tempted to ask about that too because the dialogue goes on and it's almost as if we wanted iraq to get us on a bin ladin and al qaida or out of iraq rather than afghanistan but i'd rather go to a separate subject but it seems we've been going down this road before too long we're in iraq to get al qaida who wasn't there till we got there and we said come on in and then they came but in surprised and shocked at c b s response relative to the cost of the surge in troops anywhere depending upon the length of deployment from nine to thirteen billion for a four month deployment from twenty to twenty seven billion for a twelve month deployment but also cvo had estimates relative to additional support troops that would be needed in the number of support troops according to the c b s estimate was could be anywhere but could be up to twenty eight thousand more troops in addition to twenty one thousand troops now i know that you have initially said that that's not true that we're only going to have a few thousand but i just want to go through the cvo i got a briefing this morning they use standardized methodology to determine their answer and other words they looked at searches through out the course of this war and they basically have categories and they say that for every brigade over a period of this war there is on average nine thousand four hundred eighty one support troops they have been other times during the course of this war specifically in december of two thousand and four january of two thousand and five when the elections were held were up to around eighty nine thousand troops and it appears as least from the statistical analysis from cvo that their estimates i'm i nterested why for the first time in the history of the war we wouldn't need as many support troops as were needed the cvo can't guess the department's true intentions but they use logic to examine them and i look at this report and i can't imagine why we wouldn't need more than you've been quoted saying three thousand support troops more recently why would we only need three thousand support troops and isn't it isn't it true that the commanders who are on the ground they will be requesting more support troops so we don't really know what they're going to require us to do we we identified let me let me make a comment and then i invite general pace because he's got more continuity of experience with this than i do but what i've been told is that that these forces are going into an area where there is already a substantial support infrastructure the brigades and cells have an inherent combat support capability and the between the two they have anticipated there would be some additional increase they estimate frankly we haven't been given a firm asked amount but it's been categorized to us that it would be ten to fifteen percent of the four so ten to fifteen percent of twenty one thousand five hundred now that's the that's the way it's been if in fact we only needed let's say three thousand support troops and we had a surge of twenty one thousand troops that would it seems to me mean that we have thirty three percent support already in iraq w general casey and nearly everyone else has said we don't have more people than with needed in terms of iraq so if the statistics from c b l and you gotta understand this is where we try to get our data and information so we can provide constitutional oversight that last that there's enough left in the folks who are already on the ground to be able to pick up some of that slack and that what's going to be deploying with the brigades inside the twenty one thousand additional capacity and then for the fact that you've stepped into this position when you are incredibly needed and you've done it with great diplomacy and great accuracy and professionalism and that has been very enjoyable to watch because we've needed your your attention and your about the impact to the families of the no out of pocket costs this would actually take money out of their pockets so we're very concerned about this but it creates an enormous disruption particularly the army  ability to function i know that you know that it's not just an ability to execute a task that results in decrease in personnel but it also significantly impacts ingenuity and the overall years forward and i would ask you to take a look at the assessment of what were the impact will be on the air force of its process of recapitalization and its personnel and also wonder if you have any thoughts presently well in terms of person air force as you well know has a program to reduce by about forty thousand people over a period of time and to use the savings as part of the recapitalization modernization program and my understanding is so far that's healed at about eleven billion dollars that has been able to be transferred i will tell you that concomitant with the increase in the end strength of the army and the marine corps air force is now going to have to go back and look at that program and see if an increase in the end strength of the army in the marines is going to require them to change some of the assumptions that they had made about the number of people they need to fulfill their missions so in terms of the tomorrow in the budget that we continue to in science and technology take a hit i hope that you'll continue to look at ways in which we can find funds because as we went into iraq we saw a tremendous difference between gulf war want to go for two and what our capabilities were then  we work very hard i want just wanted you to know in the record to reflect that we worked very hard with our republican colleagues urging them to please pass the appropriations for military construction  because kicking it into the hundred ten we were very concerned about a continuing resolution and that's that's where we are today but i'm also confident that we're going to be able to fully fund the  some of the troops and part of those troops were the first and i made mention to the delegation these are the soldiers that are not going to have a place to go back to if we don't pass the military construction i know everybody's very very focused on that and i believe that that we will and i just say very quickly i had the opportunity and during courtesy calls on both the democratic and republican leadership of the senate last week to raise this issue and i found that they all took it seriously and are all looking for a solution absolutely vitally important from my perspective i was going to ask each of you to comment on a couple of different areas first of all you know had a few weeks after the president's plan has been implemented as the ranking member made mention and so i'd like your assessment mr secretary how doing from your perspective to date and then general pace we worry about our troops in afghanistan because they have always been concerned that there have been forgotten just i've got a report first of all the baghdad security plan was supposed to be implementation was supposed to began actually on the fifth of february my guess is it's going to be a rolling implementation  and not sort of all it wants according to the report i received a before yesterday from general casey the brigade that was supposed to show up at a certain time did show up i was turned and said so in a press conference last friday that it was only it's fifty five to sixty percent of strength but he said in his report that twenty five percent of that brigade actually was on formal leave to take their pay home so he thought that the turnout actually had been better than expected about eighty five percent of them of the manpower as as far as he could tell the iraqis so far have have fulfilled the commitments they made in terms of appointing a military governor of baghdad and the reports on him are positive seems to be serious and professional in authorizing attacks or operations in all parts of the city he's been balanced in terms of sectarian going after the different sectarian areas that are where there is a lot of lawlessness the two commanders the iraqi commanders on either side of the river have been appointed so i think his short short hand would be so far so good that i have i have indicated we're putting together some checklists and major cities and we're we've agreed with the chairman to brief the committees and we think that you know we're all in this together and we want to share with you our evaluation as we this as this thing rolls out in terms of how god how these guys are doing i might just say in terms of afghanistan that i was just there a couple of weeks ago and that was one of the reasons for the decision to extend the tenth mountain division as the eighty second to still coming in to have a plus one of my concerns coming into this job was in fact that afghanistan might have been the glad that someone is here afghanistan our troops a certain extremely well there's about fifty thousand troops all total of all nations about half of that about twenty five thousand of us as a century says we get ready for what is the annual spring offensive that we have increased the number of troops that are available for the foreseeable future we had to bring it to combat brigades we now have will have three are returning i think in the context of a concern about their health it's important to be reminded that that that the best and brightest of our young people in fact do go into the military and generally typically they have a number of requirements among those just to be absolutely drug free which is a very difficult requirement to meet now with with employers on the civilian side  with respect to the newest sessions i'm reminded when i was in ballade with what the gentleman from texas mr wright and we had a couple of mortars come in just as we arrived in the general made us get inside the building very quickly it was a movie theater we walked in and there were four hundred g i s with their battle gear at their feet having a baptist church session it was sunday and they had i think a choir of about one hundred folks on the stage first time i think in history where we were congressman were forced under gunfire to go to church and state and we got to sit through the sermon which was how you keep your family together while you're in the military and i was impressed with the  normalcy even temper the deliberate confidence of our people in uniform and i was reminded as i listen to my my colleagues talk about their concern for the mental health of our soldiers a marines that the people that i've known in this country who have been the coolest the calmest the most effective in civilian life long after they leave the military were interestingly people who have been in fairly intense combat and i've seen a lot of the great great people whose character has been improved by service in the us military and that that's accrued to the benefit of our country  two so that we'd have a democratic ally with a strong economy on that side of the pacific it's in our interest to have in el salvador that a friend and ally and central america that  shielded from the f e m a land from the from the marxist girl as she stood up a free government there it will be strongly in our interest to have a free iraq that is capable of protecting itself  being an ally of the united states not an adversary and not be a state sponsor of terrorism and in the decades to come now we're on the second what i would call the second phase of the three phase blueprint that we've used for sixty years in extending freedom around the world when you stand up for free government number two you stand up a military capable of protecting that free government number three the americans leave and we're now in the second phase which is most difficult that is standing up a military that's going to be capable of protecting this free government the iraqi army is comprised of one hundred twenty nine battalions at this time well i understand we're standing up a few additional battalions every several m the number of the battalions i understand that led to understand about fifty percent of the battalions have been have been rotated into combat operations in some cases that's a function of where they're stood up where they are assigned if they're in the sunni triangle or baghdad or al anbar province are going to have more action than the guys in the other areas i would think that the one thing that we can require that we can demand aside from these general goals and metrics of rotation in a contentious is own because as we as we all know and as general pace knows especially nothing matures a fighting force more quickly more effectively than actual operational experience so mr secretary i would hope you could provide for the committee a description of the hundred twenty nine battalions that iraqi battalions with one or two sentences that describes their their operational experience have they been in heavy combat for example in baghdad or the sunni triangle have they been essentially in a benign province in a garrison type situation what is their experience and what is the demand on the iraqi ministry of defense to rotate all hundred twenty nine but talian over the next year or so into a three or four month combat operational rotation so that the end do you have an experienced iraqi military which has come when called which has exercised a chain of command and which is shown some modicum of combat effectiveness that is one thing that we can demand that is ascertainable and i think is the key to completing this second phase which is standing up a military that can protect the the the government  the on the question of embedded troops i would think that i that the that iraq's neighbors and i'm thinking of neighbors that have helped us to some degree in terms of training schools and things like jordan  could could start supplying sean embedded troops in what i would call them and nine disciplines that is medical combat medical capability could jordan for example or saudi  transportation logistics and other areas that would seem to me to be to be an embedded species of embedded forces that would not be a threat to the iraq sovereignty or to  the to the leadership of the iraqi military could you speak to that and it certainly is an idea worth pursuing and and i will general pace and i will pass it back to general petraeus and we will also pursue it with  with our own government and we will do our best to give you the report on the hundred twenty nine battalions what if you could speak are there any are there any plans right now to to effect this operational rotation schedule to to have one in effect where all of the combat or all of the iraqi battalions are rotated and moved in to a combat area for a three or four month couple of points to remember and i know you do sir of the ten iraqi divisions five were recruited from the hometown and the five were recruited nationally so so you have an expectation at least in those five divisions that they're there for home homeland defense so to speak it not for deployment so we would we would have to work with the iraqi government to ensure that as a real recruit in the future that they recruit their entire army to be used throughout the country as opposed to some of that having been recruited to be homeland offense but general would that preclude them from even doing a three month tour in a hot zone so to speak each of the soldiers that are deploying step and of one hundred fifty dollars per month to get the first month spain advance to get the subs going to pay when they are back out of baghdad so they are taking on some of those ideas and working with the sovereign government of iraq on how best to employ their own forces this we appreciate you being here because a lot of members have questions and concerns concerns i want to ask just make two or three quick comments and a couple of questions i know when the present made his decision on this new plan there was a lot of discussion about levels of troops and you had a variety of suggestions from probably no increase to substantially more than the twenty one settled on one of the concerns i've had is that while if you're one of those twenty one thousand troops it is a huge impact on you on the congress hasn't focused on even asked about several times as interagency cooperation there was discussion about it some kind of goldwater nichols act to deal with this kind of stuff we don't have several years to do that my fear is that will make these kinds of statements and then i get lost again and we'll be dealing with the same kinds of issues we had the last several years of how to deal with other issues in terms of the economic development the redevelopment the diplomacy which which has not been there in the view of a lot of people to support the work the troops have done with regard to defense health care issues that mr mchugh mentioned about three hours ago this line from the defense health programs part of the budget quote in fiscal year two thousand and eight this budget includes one point  six two million a million in proposed assumes savings which assumes an accident of a seven hundred nineteen million alleged opposable an additional regulator torrie modification requiring further study and a recommendation to be made by the department of defense task force on the future military healthcare i've met with the leadership of that health task or their final report is not even do until december of this years they have no expectation of their job is to find a recommendation which you all to base savings in the health care budget so we need we need to be sure that we understand what their legislative statutory mission is and it was not specifically to find savings for this year's defense budget the specific question i want to ask about the budget is following up on what mr ellsworth was talking about he has the crane never warhorse war for center in his district in indiana which does research and passed on to miss jones their page fifty three from the analytical perspective talk about the science and technology budget and it shows for defense that basic research is a proposed cutting nine percent in applied research shows a proposed cut of eighteen percent i don't understand as we think that our militarily technology a nd our ability to stay ahead of competitors out there why we would propose a cut at this magnitude in the basic and applied research budget in the defense budget thank you sir as you pointed out we've got about ten point eight billion dollars associated with our s and t program and we have that is down slightly from the enacted projected enacted level last year these accounts are somewhat thrown off by the fact that again you mentioned that in your opening statement your written statement one very specific issue i want to ask it came out of goldwater nichols it was considered rape for the service chiefs to be removed from the chain of command when it came to project so your chief of naval operations that plays no role in overseeing the construction of a vessel despite cost overruns or whatever is going on is it time general pace to revisit that issue of the service chiefs being in the chain of command when it comes to procurement there a way to do that and in a way that we can take off a bite size morsel of that perhaps in this year's defense bill without screwing up the whole rest of the picture or do we have to sit back and say we've got to revisit the whole procurement system before we can look at that as i think you should simply remove the prohibition on the service being involved in the process when things go off track you hold them accountable but you don't give me any way to be twenty eight thousand those ninety two thousand are in uniform today because of the temporary increase so what we're talking about is an actual additional number of about sixty four thousand of additional troops that you would have at the end of five year period is a fairly modest increase annualized basis we had trouble on the committee determining how that number was a ride and in terms of scenarios and assumptions and mr klein had an excellent question which was what assumption is made with regard to the level of of reserve component troops but my question is this is the broad one are you satisfied with the process of evaluation that arrived at granted that there were different processes for the marine corps in the army are you satisfied with the processes that arrived at the number ninety two thousand yes sir for this reason the number that came to me was really a five there was a general  that we needed to increase the end strength of the force everybody agreed that the best way to do that was first to make the thirty thousand person increase temporary increase that you all had authorized permanent and then over a five year period to add five seven thousand a year to the army and five thousand a year to the marine corps the reason they came up with those numbers was as i understand it was that was the number they thought they could recruit while sustaining the quality of the force and then connection with my direction to them to minimize the use of stop loss so those are how the numbers were come up with it's not as high as the travis air force base home of the air mobility command and you know at a time when we have somewhat of an airlift crisis and the need to project forces and obviously our military operations not abating there are no funds in the budget request to purchase any additional c seventeen so i'd like you to address that if you could and regarding the cost of the war the president's budget included three major requests as you know the main baseline budget requests for four hundred eighty one point four billion in discretionary spending then there was the additional ninety three point four in f y o seven supplemental funding to cover the remaining unfunded war costs and then there is the additional bridge  brings the total budget request to seven hundred sixteen point five billion with two hundred thirty five point one billion just for war costs i just want to know how do i separate out the cost of the surge do you have a cost for the surge and n our estimate for the force cost in the global war on terror for the size of the force in iraq is premised on one hundred forty thousand troops in iraq and twenty thousand and afghanistan and what we have provided is essentially a straight line projection from today's costs and so it's caviar and with the fact that obviously what happens in them on the ground is going to make a big difference either up or down if i can just come in on the c seventeen piece of it we know we're going to need more c seventeen s i take responsibility with a couple of my other colleagues for getting up the number up to ten in last year's budget because the cost to the american people for c seventeen that we may not admit we need now but will eventually authorize and appropriate is going to be much higher than it would be if we ordered them today or prepared to order them today because the company building the c seventeen is going to make the line cold and what our attempt to do is to kind of demand to keep the line warm so that the average price in the future for the american people is more reasonable than it would be if we didn't have any future appropriations so i would ask for a consideration of the fact that it's going to cost us somebody to keep this line warm we certainly know our nato allies are looking at acquiring four c seventeen which is great for interoperability and for many other reasons  the money actually out late in proposed training and equipping of troops and police in afghanistan and iraq adds up to seventeen point six billion dollars your testimony indicates that we have more than three hundred thousand soldiers and police trained and equipped in iraq and i believe the number in afghanistan was now up to eighty eight thousand how many of the how many people in iraq how many police and security forces in iraq will be trained in fiscal zero seven and in fiscal zero eight in terms of the actual numbers i'll have to get  money and we don't readily have an answer the question how much we're spending per training if i if i asked the chief of police in my home district how much he or she is spending per training i would expect them to have an answer pretty quickly you have it you have an estimate how much don't understand it part of the problem here is the growing skepticism of the members of the public and of the committee about whether this training is effective at all and here's the devil's advocate proposition there are people who believe that the reason the effectiveness of the iraqi security forces has been erratic at best others would characterize it as very poor  is that the problem really is not the training the problem is the loyalties of the troops to whom they are loyal that their principal loyalties are to their tribe or their sect or their warlord as opposed to the iraqi government one of the ways that i think you could dispel that argument say that you know that we're effectively training people but it's hard to dispel the argument if you don't have some specific information on the cost what does it cost to train an american persons who successfully completed training the number of persons who have taken the off ramp for whatever reason and how much on a per capita basis we've spent in both iraq and afghanistan both the security forces and thank you very much  and what you would like to see it achieve and i wonder going into the budget you may not have intimate knowledge but are we really funding that in a way that is appropriate number one and number two do we have the expertise to really call on people the p r the whole effort in iraq as i understand it is going to be dependent on the on the provisional response teams there and and what they're able to bring to the table we know from many articles journalists that we obviously did not have that ability in the green zone or out in the community people who had great desire i think to be part of the process to make a contribution but unfortunately didn't have the expertise to do it where we're going to get people how are we going to fund them are we giving them additional bonuses to do that what is that going to mean in terms of our overall effort do you have some funding levels to share with us and are you are you satisfied with what i think that the state department has come in with a request for funding for additional provisional reconstruction teams the initial request because we want to stand them up quickly that the department of defense provide from the national guard and elsewhere people who have the engineering expertise the legal expertise and so on a nd we will we will try to be as helpful as we can in that because we think it's important but the reality is that i think that in terms of the government's ability to respond that that we need to look work with the congress to figure out if there's a way to bring greater flexibility first of all in terms of being able for us perhaps to transfer money to another department of government to be able to pay for our help with the expenses of somebody is being dispatched to a war zone from the department of agriculture or something one of your colleagues has suggested on another forum the possibility of of legislation that would create expeditionary positions and some of these departments where they would get military like pay and benefits so their families would be taken care of if a forty year old man with a family and the department of agriculture was willing to volunteer to go to afghanistan to help out then how do we compensate him in a way that's different than somebody that rides a desk here in washington d c so there are several ideas on the table that i think we're just going to have secretary gates because i think what is so frustrating is we all see that this is an important thing to do and perhaps general pace you could better did we not think about that did we not know that we're going to need people who could bring that kind of expertise to the to the effort and i know that as a military commander surely you share with others that the fall burden of this is really on the military where did we where do we miss this we have thought about it this is not deploy so that when we have somebody we have missed a page from treasury or from wherever else in our government that that individual is able to be deployed that the job description includes being  departments in the government and the congress to determine what the best way we do need not just for this conflict but for the next ten twenty years as a government to be able to do these things for our nation long term as well as short term i would just put in a general secretary i do want to thank you for taking on a very difficult job but what is going back to your very eloquent statement about was making mistakes and short term funding that have long term implications of repeating it your budget proposal for shipbuilding is pathetic we count on seven i will combine that with the trend in the navy to retire she adds that about twenty years that means the legacy of the bush administration will be one hundred forty navy that's crazy and i wish i could say that well we're doing things short term to make up for the fact that we're not doing things long term but then i look at an inspector general report that came out just yesterday govern the d o d from february to october that said the units deployed in afghanistan and iraq are experiencing shortages shortages now former vehicles electronic countermeasures devices crew served weapons such as fifty caliber machine guns communications equipment service members driving off base in afghanistan in s u v s and ford ranger trucks were  using armored wreckers to recover vehicles wrapping the drivers and kevlar blankets to afford them some level of protection so we got horrible problems at the top we got horrible problems on day to day operations l c s program which at the level where i was looking at this was the fact that we had one hundred seventy seven billion dollars in the budget for modernization seven hundred one billion of that is for procurement seventy six billion dollars for research and development i know on the l c s that we put a stop action order on the third on the third ship because of the problems in the program to evaluate and see where we go from here i also know that on shipbuilding we went from the little over eleven billion dollars last year to hold a fourteen billion dollars this year so those trend lines seemed in the right direction to me at the macro level but i will certainly take a look at what your request but even the requests no more  that if there's an attack on the homeland it's going to look a lot like i think the proper response to that elevate the chief of the national guard bureau who we're going to be counting on to respond to something like that to a four star status and have a name a member of your joint chiefs of staff what would be your reaction to this bill that's already been introduced by a number of senators and a number of congress i have a problem with elevating the head of the guard bureau to the joint chiefs of staff because of unity of command issues but i'm very open to the possibility of a four star for the head of the national guard bureau i think looking at the responsibilities and i've asked the joint we we have the commission that's underway right now looking at the national guard i've asked the joint staff to look at this and make their recommendations to me but my inclination is in the direction of of a four star command in the process right now the northern commander which was jerry rigged to begin with and and pulled out of all the other commands in terms of personnel  also another hat the national guard is supposed to take care of that so when you take up that question i hope you'll take up getting rid of that useless command no following up on  approach i can tell you that the budget put forward for the next year and a half with the supplemental and the and the budget is eight hundred dollars for every man woman and child in the united states eight hundred dollars for every man woman and child in the united states and the people who are trained or not trained or trained to whatever degree they are are now going to be involved in plan for this as it unfolds for this surge which started i believe on the fifth on the iraq side is lieutenant general abboud you know on the u s side it is general casey sir that's not what i'm speaking of who's in charge at the ground level right down there in the police stations when the decision has to be made at the police station where the iraqis have the lead the iraqis are making the decisions but that will not impact what u s forces do or don't do peace there in the in the area they're the ones who checked the people coming in and out they've been withdrawn who is in charge who makes the decision to the iraqis or in the lead and we are in support and are u s commanders will make decisions about what u s troops iraq sergeant says this is where we're going the americans fall is that correct that's not correct then how is it going to work so it's going to work this way the iraqi commander will decide what he wants to do he will go do with iraqi troops if they need support he will ask his embedded u s support team for that support the american commander will decide whether or not that supports the appropriate and he'll decide whether or not it's available when you say to americans commanders that an american sergeant talking to an iraqi sergeant  the field going door to door so that they will not be that kind of teams going door to door they'll be iraqis going door to door under iraqi command if they get in trouble the u s army or u s marine captain who has his company  to support will be requested by the u s invented team to provide that support and then they'll decide whether or not that support is appropriate and if it is whether or not they can provide it support would they be back at the police station percent of their equipment already provided through december of last year ninety eight percent there is a few vehicles that are not yet delivered to the iraqi army does that include the radio communications it does or everybody has an  squads where they're going to be most at risk to be shot or to have to make decisions about shooting can't talk with one another u s squad will be inside of us no tunes will be commanded by us company commanders and you really think this is going to work and not it is not easy it is not p r and there are going to be difficulties in iran not enough interpreters but it is iraqi leaders and we are trying to support how long do you expect that this will work i mean how long will it take to know whether you've accomplished your mission in these in these nine different areas we should start seeing results in march april  timeframe sir to know how well the operations are going as you recall i have said many times i will continue to say that the military piece of this is one leg of a three legged stool and no matter how well or how bad military operations go they will not be successful without the political and economic pieces but what kind of a timeline are finished as the question what kind of timeline are you giving for this operation to transition to what you just mentioned about political and economic so we expect the military piece to be providing results in months before the start of the fiscal year if i can talk to you although i would be happy to have a very direct conversation with i do not want to be telling our enemy publicly when it is we are going to stop or not stop operations i'll be happy to have you tell you face to face thank you thank the gentleman it's interesting to note the prime minister question i don't like use the word surge but it's been used so much by the media and by other folks but it's really a troop increase and it's based also what are the alternatives for this country i have said that mr chairman that i don't think this is the so called last chance i think that i would as i have sat where we hope this will work we are funding it to work are resourcing it to work we are sending the troops forward but i would be irresponsible if i did not have people looking at contingencies in the event this does not work and and if in two months or three months or whatever period of time people turn to me and say ok now what do we do so we are working on those and then i'd be happy to discuss those with you in person let me