SEN. INOUYE: (In progress.) Dr. Robert Gates, the secretary of Defense, and Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to testify on the administration's budget for fiscal year 2010. 

 

         And Mr. Secretary, while the full Senate Appropriations Committee has already had the pleasure of meeting with you, earlier this year, regarding the so-called supplemental bill, let me extend a warm welcome to you, on behalf of the Defense Subcommittee.    Your continued willingness to put your nation's needs ahead of your personal interests demonstrates your unwavering commitment to public service and your dedication to the men and women in our military. And our nation owes you a great deal of gratitude.  

 

         The administration has requested $534 billion, for the base budget of the Department of Defense, an increase of 21 billion over the amount enacted last fiscal year.  

 

         Additionally the administration has requested 130 billion in supplemental, non-emergency funding for overseas contingency operations in the next fiscal year.  

 

         Mr. Secretary, you have called this a reform budget. And in recent months, you have given several keynote speeches emphasizing in particular the need for greater balance in our force structure, between competing requirements for irregular warfare and conventional warfare, and for changing the way the Defense Department does business.  

 

         This budget request before us reflects these priorities. And as you're well aware, it will raise a few questions. A key theme you've emphasized, in recent months, is the need to improve an institutional home, in the Department of Defense, for the warfighter engaged in the current irregular fight.  

 

         Much of the critical force protection equipment that is used with great success, in the theater today, has been funded outside the regular Defense budget process and is being managed by newly created ad hoc organizations that appear to be temporary in nature.  

 

        For example, since 2005 the department has procured over 16,000 mine- resisting, ambush-protected vehicles, funded entirely with supplemental appropriations. Yet even after five years, they're -- all of these vehicles in our force structure and the future role of the office that manages this program within the department are undefined.

 

         Another example is the ISR task force, which is to accelerate the fielding of critical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets into the theater. And you have made it a point to emphasize these capabilities by adding 2 billion (dollars) to the base budget for the ISR capabilities.  

 

         Yet the role of this task force within the department's institutional chain of command remains ad hoc, and the future is undetermined. There is no question that these capabilities will be needed in the future, so we hope today you can illustrate to the committee how we can institutionalize the lessons learned with respect to equipping a warfighter and permanently address the warfighter's requirements in DOD bureaucracy without continuously adding bureaucratic layers.

 

         At the same time, Mr. Secretary, conventional threats to our national security remain. While irregular warfare is and will presumably continue to be a preferred tactic in non-state actors, we cannot lose sight of threats from traditional nation-states such as North Korea, Iran and others. So as we consider the many adjustments your budget proposes to modernize programs designed to address conventional threats, it is important that we understand the strategic underpinnings and consequences of curtailing or terminating programs such as the F-22, the C-17 transport, or Future Combat Systems manned ground vehicles.

 

         Now, there's no question, Mr. Secretary, that the requirements to winning irregular conflicts have been neglected too long. But I believe we must ensure that we strike the right balance between preparing for both irregular and regular wars. And we look forward to hearing your thoughts on that matter.

 

             Finally, Mr. Secretary, your budget emphasizes our nation's greatest military asset, the all-volunteer force. By fully funding end-strength growth, providing for increased medical research and increased funding -- warfighter families. These programs have long been funded through supplemental appropriations, and we welcome your commitment to our service members and their families by institutionalizing these programs in the base budget.

 

         On the other hand, the rising military personnel and health-care costs are creating budget pressures on our acquisition programs, calling into question the affordability of many high-priced platforms designed to meet specific military requirements.

 

         So, gentlemen, we have much to discuss this morning. We very much appreciate your being here with us today, and we look forward to your testimony.  

 

         However, before proceeding with your opening statements, may I call upon the vice chairman of the committee, Senator Cochran, for comments.

 

         SEN. THAD COCHRAN (R-MS): Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'm pleased to join you in welcoming the distinguished panel to -- this distinguished panel to review the budget requests of the Department of Defense. Mr. Secretary, Admiral Mullen and Comptroller Hale, we appreciate the hard work you're doing and the challenges you face, and we want to be sure that what we do will help deal with the problems that we face in the national security arena, and we thank you for your distinguished service.  

 

         SEN. INOUYE: (Off mike.)

 

         SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see the secretary and Admiral Mullen. I've had many conversations with them, and I appreciate their help. And Mr. Hale, I just had an opportunity to lead a Senate delegation on a trip to Iraq and Pakistan, Afghanistan.  I know you've made some visits of your own there, which is of significance to the troops, although I think they'll probably be more excited seeing Stephen Colbert than they were seeing me.  

 

         But it -- we did see some extremely hardworking men and women in uniform in each of the places we went. And we also saw our coalition forces, especially in Afghanistan, working and taking -- many of them taking a large number of casualties. Canada, our neighbor to the north, has had many, as have other coalitions, and yet they're working very, very hard.

 

         I wanted to be there because, as I mentioned before, Mr. Secretary, the end of the year will see 1,800 members -- up to 1,800 members of the 86th Infantry Brigade Combat Team from the Vermont National Guard going there. They're one of the only units with mountain skills. So then they train both summertime and in 20-degree- below-zero weather in Vermont in the wintertime. They're training hard on that. And I will, Mr. Chairman, have some questions on that.

 

         We're watching -- of course, I'm very proud of these men and women that are going, but this is the largest deployments we've ever had. I see Senator Feinstein here. It would be equivalent on a per- capita basis with about 100,000 people or more going from -- well, over 100,000 people going from California.

 

         So -- and Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your response and your willingness to work with us on some of the special situations they'll have.  

 

         Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

         SEN.      : Mr. Chairman, I have an open statement. I'd ask it be made part of the record in its entirety. And other than that, I just want to welcome Secretary Gates here, Admiral Mullen and Comptroller Hale.  

 

         Thank you.

 

         SEN. INOUYE: (Off Mike.)

 

         SEN.      : No opening statement, Mr. Chairman. I just welcome Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen.  

 

         SEN. CHRISTOPHER BOND (R-MO): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

 

         And welcome, Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen. We congratulate you on the progress you're making in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's not easy. But I think you have a way ahead with the counterinsurgency strategy. I will be back to ask some questions, but two points I want to raise with you.

 

         First, you have said we need to shift away from the 99 percent exquisite service-centric platforms that are so costly and so complex   that they take forever to build, deployed in limited quantities; we must look more to the 80 percent multi-service solutions that can be produced on time, on budget and in significant numbers.  

 

         And Mr. Secretary, I'd like to know how that fits with the recommendation in the overhead area to go with the NGO -- NGEO, when there are a number of less-expensive solutions that can provide a multitude of opportunities for getting the overhead collection we need. And Chair Feinstein and I, on the Intelligence Committee, having been looking at that very intensely.  And we would -- we'd like to continue the discussions with you on that.

 

             And the second thing -- Admiral Roughead recently stated that F/A-18E/F is the aviation backbone of our Navy's ability to project power ashore, and the way -- the numbers of the carrier capable strike fighters will decrease between 2016 and 2020 to affect our air wing capacity of effectiveness. And we had asked last year and actually set in law a requirement that there be a report on the multiyear procurement of the F/A-18. I believe that was due in March.  

 

         We think that is a very important element to consider, particularly with the delays in time, the budget being exceeded and the failure to meet operational standards of the plane forecast to take its place to date. So I will look forward to asking more about those and may have some questions for the record.  

 

         I have another meeting I have to go to, but I will come back for the questions. And I thank the chairman and the members of the committee and you for the indulgence.

 

         SEN. INOUYE: Thank you.

 

         And now Mr. Secretary.

 

         SEC. GATES: Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran, members of the committee, thank you for inviting us to discuss the details of the president's fiscal year 2010 defense budget. There is a tremendous amount of material here, and I know that there are a number of questions, so I'll keep my opening remarks brief and focus on the strategy and thinking behind many of these recommendations. My submitted testimony has more detailed information on specific programmatic decisions.

 

         First and foremost, as you suggested and commented on, Mr. Chairman, this is a reform budget reflecting lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet also addressing the range of other potential threats around the world now and in the future.

 

         I visited Afghanistan last month. As we increase our presence there and refocus our efforts with a new strategy, I wanted to get a sense from the ground level of the challenges and needs so we can give our troops the equipment and support to be successful and come home safely. Indeed, listening to our troops and commanders unvarnished and unscripted has, from the moment I took this job, been the greatest single source for ideas on what -- (word inaudible) -- this department needs to do both operationally and institutionally.    As I told a group of soldiers in Afghanistan, they have done their job; now it is time for us in Washington to do ours. In many respects, this budget builds on all the meetings I have had with troops and commanders and everything that I have learned over the past two-and-a-half years, all underpinning this budget's three principal objectives:

 

         First, to reaffirm our commitment to take care of the all- volunteer force, which, in my view, represents America's greatest strategic asset.

 

        As Admiral Mullen says, if we don't get the people part of this business right, none of the other decisions will matter.

 

         Second, to rebalance this department's programs in order to institutionalize and enhance our capabilities to fight the wars we are in and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years ahead, while, at the same time, providing a hedge against other risks and contingencies.

 

         And third, in order to do this, we must reform how and what we buy, making a fundamental overhaul of our approach to procurement, acquisition and contracting. 

 

         From these priorities flow a number of strategic considerations, more of which are included in my submitted testimony.

 

         The base budget request is for $533.8 billion for FY '10, a 4- percent increase over the FY '09 enacted level. After inflation, that is 2.1 percent real growth. In addition, the department's budget request includes $130 billion to support overseas contingency operations, principally in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

 

         I know that there has been discussion about whether in -- this is, in fact, sufficient to maintain our defense posture, especially during a time of war. I believe that it is. Indeed, I have warned in the past that our nation must not do what we have done after various previous times of conflict on so many occasions and slash defense spending. I can assure you that I will do everything in my power to prevent that from happening on my watch. This budget is intended to help steer the Department of Defense toward an acquisition and procurement strategy that is sustainable over the long term, that matches real requirements to needed and feasible capabilities.

 

         As you know, this year we have funded the costs of the war through the regular budgeting process, as opposed to emergency supplementals. By presenting this budget together, we hope to give a more accurate picture of the costs of the wars and also create a more unified budget process to decrease some of the churn usually associated with funding for this department.

 

         This budget aims to alter many programs and many of the fundamental ways that the Department of Defense runs its budgeting, acquisition and procurement processes. In this respect, three points come to mind about the strategic thinking behind these decisions. First: sustainability. By that I mean sustainability in light of current and potential fiscal constraints. It simply is not reasonable to expect the defense budget to continue increasing at the same rate it has over the last number of years. We should be able to secure our nation with a base budget of more than half a trillion dollars, and I believe this budget focuses money where it can most effectively do that.

 

        I also mean sustainability of individual programs. Acquisition priorities have changed from Defense secretary to Defense secretary, administration to administration and Congress to Congress.  

 

         Eliminating waste and ending requirements creep, terminating programs that go too far outside the line and bringing annual costs for individual programs down, to a more reasonable level, will reduce this friction.  

 

         Second, balance. We have to be prepared for the wars we are most likely to fight, not just the ones we have been traditionally best suited to fight or threats we conjure up from potential adversaries, who in the real world also have finite resources.  

 

         As I've said before, even when considering challenges from nation-states with modern militaries, the answer is not necessarily buying more technologically advanced versions of what we built -- on land, at sea and in the air -- to stop the Soviets during the Cold War. At the same time, this budget robustly funds many modernization programs that will sustain our significant advantages for potential future conflict.  

 

         For certain modernization programs that have been canceled -- because of acquisition, technological or requirements issues -- such as FCS vehicles, it is our intention to relaunch those modernization programs, on a much sounder and more sustainable basis, after completion of the Quadrennial Defense Review, the nuclear posture review, the ballistic missile defense review and the space policy review later this year.  

 

         And finally there are all the lessons learned from the last eight years on the battlefield and perhaps just as importantly, institutionally at the Pentagon.  

 

         The responsibility of this department first and foremost is to fight and win the nation's wars, not just constantly prepare for them. We have to do better. In that respect, the conflicts we are in have revealed numerous problems that I am working to improve. And this budget makes real headway in that respect.  

 

         At the end of the day, this budget is less about numbers than it is about how the military thinks, about the nature of war, and prepares for the future; about how we take care of our people and institutionalize support for the warfighter, in the long term; about    the role of the services, and how we can buy weapons as jointly as we fight; about reforming our requirements and acquisition processes.  

 

         I know that some will take issue with individual decisions. I would ask however that you look beyond specific programs and instead at the full range of what we are trying to do, the totality of the decisions, and how they will change the way we prepare for and fight wars in the future.  

 

             As you consider this budget and specific programs, I would caution that each program decision is zero sum: a dollar spent for capabilities excess to our real needs is a dollar taken from capability we do need -- often to sustain our men and women in combat and bring them home safely.

 

         Once again, I thank you for this committee's ongoing support of our men and women in uniform, and we look forward to your questions.

 

         SEN. INOUYE: I thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

 

         Admiral Mullen?

 

         ADM. MULLEN: Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran, distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

 

         Let me start by saying I fully support not only the president's fiscal year 2010 budget submission for this department but, more specifically, the manner in which Secretary Gates developed it. He presided over a comprehensive and collaborative process the likes of which, quite frankly, I've not seen in more than a decade of doing this sort of work in the Pentagon. Over the course of several months and a long series of meetings and debates, every service chief and combatant commander had a voice. And every one of them used it.

 

         Normally, as you know, budget proposals are worked from the bottom up, with each service making the case for specific programs and then fighting it out at the end to preserve those that are most important to them. This proposal was done from the top down. Secretary Gates gave us broad guidance, his overall vision, and then gave us the opportunity to meet it. Everything was given a fresh look, and everything had to be justified.  

 

         Decisions to curtail or eliminate a program were based solely on its relevance and on its execution. The same can be said for those we decided to keep. If we are what we buy, I believe the force we are asking you to help us buy today is the right one, both for the world we're living in and the world we may find ourselves living in 20 to 30 years down the road.

 

         This submission before you is just as much a strategy as it is a reform budget. First and foremost, it makes people our top strategic priority. I've said many times, and I remain convinced, the best way    to guarantee our future security is to support our troops and their families.  

 

         It is the recruit and the retain choices of our families -- and, quite frankly, American citizens writ large -- that will make or break the all-volunteer force. They will be less inclined to make those decisions should we not be able to offer them viable career options, adequate health care, suitable housing, advanced education and the promise of a prosperous life long after they've taken off the uniform.

 

         This budget devotes more than a third of the total request to what I would call "the people account," with the great majority of that figure, nearly $164 billion, going to pay -- military pay and health care.  

 

        I am particularly proud of the funds we've dedicated to caring for our wounded.  

 

         There is, in my view, no higher duty for this nation, or for those of us in leadership positions, than to care for those who sacrifice so much and who must now face lives forever changed by wounds both seen and unseen.  

 

         I know you share that feeling. And thank you for the work you've done, in this committee and throughout the Congress, to pay attention to these needs and to the needs of the families of our fallen. Our commitment to all of them must be for the remainder of their lives.  

 

         That's why this budget allocates funds to complete the construction of additional wounded warrior complexes, expands the pilot program designed to expedite the processing of injured troops, through the disability evaluation system, increases the number of mental health professionals assigned to deployed units and devotes more resources to the study and treatment of post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injuries.  

 

         After nearly eight years of war, we are the most capable and combat-experienced military we've ever been, certainly without question the world's best counterinsurgency force.  

 

         Yet for all this success, we are pressed and still lack a proper balance, between op tempo and home tempo, between unconventional and conventional capabilities, between readiness today and readiness tomorrow.  

 

         And that, Mr. Chairman, is the second reason this budget of ours acts as a strategy for the future. It seeks balance. By investing more heavily in critical enablers -- such as aviation, Special Forces, cyber operations, civil affairs, language skills -- it rightly makes winning the wars we are in our top operational priority.  

 

         By adjusting active Army BCT growth to 45, it helps ensure our ability to impact the fight sooner, increase dwell time and reduce our overall demand on equipment. And by authorizing Secretary Gates to transfer money to the secretary of States -- for reconstruction, security or stabilization -- it puts more civilian professional alongside warfighters in more places like Iraq and Afghanistan.  

 

         I've said it before, but it bears repeating. More boots on the ground are important but they will never be completely sufficient. We   need people with graphing tablets and shovels and teaching degrees. We need bankers and farmers and law enforcement experts.  

 

         As we draw down responsibly in Iraq and shift the main effort to Afghanistan, we need a more concerted effort to build up the capacity of our partners. The same can be said of Pakistan, where boots on the ground aren't even an option.  

 

        Some will argue this budget devotes too much money to these sorts of low-intensity needs, that it tilts dangerously away from conventional capabilities. In my view, it does not. A full 35 percent of the submission is set aside for modernization, and much of that will go to what we typically consider conventional requirements.  

 

         We know there are global risks and threats out there not tied directly to the fight against al Qaeda and other extremist groups, threats like those we awoke to on this past Memorial Day, when the stability of an entire region was shaken by the increasing belligerence of North Korea. 

 

         The work of defending this nation does not fit nicely into any one bucket; it spans the entire spectrum of conflict. We must be ready to deter and win all wars, big and small, near and far. With this budget submission, the nation is getting the military it needs for that challenge. It's getting a strategy for the future.  

 

         Thank you all for your continued support and for all you do to support the men and women of the United States military and their families.

 

         SEN. INOUYE: Thank you very much, Admiral Mullen, Mr. Undersecretary (sic).

 

         If I may now begin my questioning. Mr. Secretary, we -- our troops entered Afghanistan in 2001 and our troops entered Iraq in 2003, and we soon learned that it wasn't what we expected, and in some ways we weren't quite prepared. So we rapidly developed platforms like the MRAP and anti-IED mines.  

 

         Now, why was it necessary to go outside the regular DOD acquisition process to get these things? And how can we institutionalize these activities instead of continually adding layers of new bureaucracy?

 

         SEC. GATES: We've had to do -- we've had to go outside the regular bureaucracy, I think, in four major areas, one before I became secretary and three subsequently. The first, that was formed before I became secretary, was the effort to counter the IEDs, as you suggest. The subsequent ones have been for dealing with wounded warriors, for building the MRAPs and for greater intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance needs. The problem is that there was not -- I guess the most graphic way I've put it is that there were too few people that came to work in the Pentagon every day asking, "What can I do today to help our warfighters succeed and come home safely?" And so we needed to go outside the regular procurement processes.  

 

         We need -- because, frankly, without the top-down direction from the secretary of Defense, these efforts would not have been successful. It required -- in the case of the MRAPs, it required using a number of authorities provided by law only to the secretary of Defense in terms of acquisition of materials and priorities and so on. But in other cases, the solution was across multiple services and outside the normal bureaucratic structure.  

 

         I believe that the services are changing the way they do business. For example, the Air Force, just in the last year or so, under General Schwartz's leadership, has taken on board the significance of the ISR challenge and the need to have significantly larger numbers of pilots who can pilot -- who can run these UAVs and so on.

 

         And so the services, I think, are beginning to embrace the needs of the current warfighter and provide for them. And frankly, the reason for my putting a number of these things into the base budget is because that's where the services draw the resources to be able to go ahead and pursue these programs.

 

         For example, the ISR task force -- my anticipation is that it will disappear. And one of the challenges that I've had is keeping it focused on, what can we do in the next two or three months to help get more ISR capabilities into the field? And the natural bureaucratic propensity has been to try and squeeze -- because I'm paying attention to that task force -- to try and squeeze all kinds of new long-term programs that'll take years and so on into it. So we've had to be very disciplined about keeping it focused on the near term while the longer-term issues are taken care of in the regular bureaucracy. But I'm satisfied enough with the progress that the Air Force and the Army are making in the ISR area that I believe this task force can go away.

 

         The truth of the matter is, in the case of the MRAPs, had it not been for the generosity of the Congress and the American people, we never could have built the MRAPs. We -- as you suggested, Mr. Chairman, we built and deployed some 16,000 of these. We are now developing a new kind of MRAP for Afghanistan.    But the total cost of that program to date has been about $26 billion. If we had tried to carve $26 billion out of the current Pentagon budget, there would have been a real bloodletting. So the only way we were able to do the MRAPs was through the special funding from the Congress.

 

             But I -- what I am trying to do is to bring about a change in the culture of the Pentagon so we can, as I've described it at another hearing, walk and chew gum at the same time, so that we can energetically and with a sense of urgency deal with the wars we are in and at the same time plan for the future wars, which, as you rightfully suggest, that we have to be prepared to fight.  

 

        SEN. INOUYE: Thank you.  

 

         Mr. -- Admiral Mullen, many have described the acquisition process in DOD to be cumbersome and inflexible because we tend to seek the perfect solution. It takes many years to do this.  

 

         But for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we -- as the secretary pointed out, we've expedited the process, maybe not seeking a hundred percent, but going for 75 (percent).

 

         My question to you, as a leader of troops: Do you believe that we are meeting the needs of warfighters?

 

         ADM. MULLEN: Yes, sir. And if I were going to use the task force analogy, just briefly, because I've been in this building for -- in and out, but in -- certainly in the last decade or so, for a long time, and I just think it takes the kind of leadership focus that has been offered in those to create the sense of urgently (sic) -- to constantly update the guidance, so the system does not take off by itself. And it is really in those areas that the secretary and you have talked about. In addition, the equipment, the personal equipment for our warfighters, which all of us have taken a great interest, and service chiefs certainly lead that as well, and -- so from an equipment standpoint, absolutely.

 

         That doesn't mean that we won't continue to advance in some of these areas, because we still need more capability in terms of capacity. ISR would be a great example.

 

         I also, having participated in this acquisition for a long period of time, think the -- we don't move swiftly, with the sense of urgency and the speed, and we do look too far out to meet the current needs. And I've seen the kind of focus that these task forces have created and been -- and the leadership that's on the top of them be able to do that. And I just don't believe our system could have done that.

 

         I do think they need to at some point in time sunset, have a sunset clause, set the criteria out there to be absorbed in the   system. And as the secretary has indicated, that's the case for the ISR task force.

 

        So I am -- I am confident we have the equipment we need. We also need to stay focused as the enemy changes, to ensure that we stay ahead of the enemy as he changes his tactics.

 

         SEC. GATES: Mr. Chairman, let me add one more example of, frankly, where we, the chairman and I, have to fight the inertia of the department on a daily basis. One of the things that we've been trying to do this spring -- and this goes to Senator Leahy's point about his troops going to Afghanistan -- is drive the medevac time, the time required for medevac, from two hours down to the same "golden hour" that exists in Iraq. And we've made some substantial headway in this. We're now on average at about 68 minutes, and many are much faster.

 

         And I sent a number of additional resources forward from the Air Force and the Army earlier this spring, including three additional field hospitals. But the sad reality is that without the chairman and I paying attention to this almost daily, getting it done and getting it done in a timely manner is just a real challenge.

 

         So at the end of the day, I'm not sure that there is a permanent bureaucratic fix, but what it does take is the focus of the leadership on what's important. And that priority, in my view, when we are at war, is taking care of those who are at war.

 

         SEN. INOUYE: Mr. Secretary, you suggested about 10 percent of this budget will be for irregular warfare, about 50 percent for conventional strategic traditional warfare, and 40 percent for dual use. How did you divide it up in that fashion?

 

         SEC. GATES: Well, that -- actually, those numbers came after the fact, Mr. Chairman. I made the decisions on each of the program areas independently and in the context of each other from a strategic standpoint and capabilities standpoint. And it was only after I'd made all the decisions that, frankly, the guys who manage the money told me that that was about how the breakout of the percentages worked.

 

        So it basically was a recognition of a reality that -- formed by the decisions that had already been made. I didn't go into it with the goal of shifting X dollars.  

 

         SEN. INOUYE: Thank you.  

 

         Senator Cochran.  

 

         SEN. COCHRAN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your mentioning the MRAP vehicles, the vehicles that have been used in Afghanistan. And I wonder about whether the budget requests funding for the new all- terrain vehicle as well, the M-ATV, as it's now referred to.  

 

         Is that -- will that be useful in Afghanistan? Or do you foresee other uses of those vehicles, besides in our efforts to deal with the challenges in Afghanistan?  

 

         SEC. GATES: They're primarily being designed for use in Afghanistan, where the extraordinary weight of the regular MRAPs we've designed, for Iraq, sometimes makes their usefulness particularly off- road -- limits their usefulness off-road.  

 

         So what we have done, in the all-terrain MRAP, is to try and provide essentially the same level of protection, but with a different design that will give it more capability off-road. And there is money in the budget that, both in the overseas contingency operations funds and also in the base budget, that will fund most of the requirement for the all-terrain vehicles.  

 

         The requirement has been growing since we submitted the budget. And so I don't think that there's enough money in the budget to buy all of those needed, for the -- to meet the requirement. But a substantial number -- in fact, Mr. Hale can give you the exact numbers.  

 

         ROBERT HALE (undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller)): We have 1,000 MRAP-ATVs in the '09 remaining supplemental and 1,080 in the fiscal '10 OCO. And I believe Congress is adding some to the fiscal '09 supplemental.  

 

         SEN. COCHRAN: In connection with ship requirement, we've noticed the increase in the amphibious ship fleet needs that go beyond traditional military missions. The tsunamis, the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico led the military to contribute ships, some aircraft    carrier capabilities, for humanitarian relief and providing food and medical supplies to these areas that were hard-hit.  

 

         Do you see a continuing need for shipbuilding, in the amphibious area, because of the willingness to use those vessels for non- traditional missions?  

 

             SEC. GATES: This is one of the issues where I did not make any significant decisions, because I didn't feel that I had the analytical basis to do so. So one of the subjects that the Quadrennial Defense Review is addressing is the role of amphibious capability, going forward, and not whether we need it, but how much we need.  

 

         And so those -- that will be one of the areas of the QDR where I will be looking for some analytical guidance. But it's clear that those capabilities range far beyond the kind of armed intrusiveness or the armed intervention that was the original design purpose.

 

         SEN. COCHRAN: The activity we've noticed with concern in North Korea in the recent short-range missile testing has led to concerns about whether or not we're moving fast enough with a ground-based interceptor production line. What is the impression that you have about the request in this budget, as it relates to our capacity to defend ourselves against what looks to be an emerging and a continuing threat from North Korea, and maybe others?

 

         SEC. GATES: The ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California clearly are an important element of defense against rogue state launches, and, I would say, in particular North Korea. I think the judgment and the advice that I got was that the 30 silos that we have now, or are under construction, are fully adequate to protect us against a North Korean threat for a number of years.  

 

         Now the reality is that if that threat were to begin to develop more quickly than anybody anticipates, or in a way that people haven't anticipated, where the 30 interceptors would not look like they were sufficient, it would be very easy to resume this program and expand the number of silos.

 

         I was just in Fort Greely last week, and it's an immensely capable system. And one of the things that I think is important to remember is, it is still a developmental system. It has real capabilities, and I have confidence that if North Korea launched a long-range missile in the direction of the United States, that we would have a high probability of being able to defend ourselves against it.  

 

         But one of the things this budget does is robustly fund further development and testing of the interceptors at Fort Greely and at Vandenberg, so that as new interceptors with new capabilities and that are more sophisticated are developed, we will put those into the silos and take the old interceptors out. So we -- the idea is, this is not just a static system up in Fort Greely, but something that is undergoing continuing improvement. And if the circumstances should change in a way that leads people to believe that we need more interceptors than the 30, then there's plenty of room at Fort Greely to expand.

 

         SEN. COCHRAN: Well, we thank you and Admiral Mullen and the department and the soldiers and sailors who carry out your decisions -- well and continued success as we protect our nation.

 

         Thank you.

 

         SEN. INOUYE: Thank you very much.

 

         Senator Leahy?

 

         SEN. PATRICK J. LEAHY (D-VT): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for Secretary Gates, too.  

 

         I was going to ask some questions about the MRAP ATV, but Senator Cochran and others have. Chairman Inouye's been very helpful with the money on that.  

 

         Mr. Hale, you had mentioned the money for it in the '09 budget. We doubled it here in the Senate. We're now in negotiations with the other body of that.

 

         I have a particular interest in this. I -- everybody I talked with when I was in Afghanistan told me how much they -- how much they need this, for the same reasons that the secretary described. I -- it was interesting, from the commanding generals to the coalition forces and others.  

 

         And you know this terrain far better than I, but you just look at the terrain -- and coming from a rural mountainous area myself, I can easily understand why -- the MRAPs, as great as they are, with their weight, try to go off road, they're just going to tip over.

 

         So I hope it will happen. I -- the -- incidentally, when we were there, we visited the Kabul Military Training Center -- we is myself, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Warner -- it's -- sprawling former Soviet base where the Afghan National Army goes through a kind of -- type of basic training.    And I went to some of the training courses and saw what they do, and the extraordinarily high rate of illiteracy among the recruits there has to be a cause of concern. I saw so many of the training things were written in their language, but also almost like a comic book, showing diagrams of people doing things.  

 

         The -- and then I read the article, which I'm sure you've seen, the C.J. Chivers article from The New York Times about the failures, especially in the police force and the training of the police force.

 

        And even -- and then in the military in a patrol, one of the things that struck me is when one Afghan insulted the other and they started to -- a fistfight in the middle of patrol. I mean, we're out in an area where you have to depend on everybody being at their highest level. That's on the bad side.

 

         On the good side, I heard from so many there how they don't see us as occupiers; they see us as people trying to help. They see a country, unlike one of its neighbors, a country probably with the potential of pulling this out, with our help. And our help means a lot of -- a lot of money and, unfortunately, a lot of casualties.

 

         But how do you feel? Are we going to have a cohesive, trained Afghan National Army and police force? Because I don't see how we leave until there is one. What -- I mean, you must look at this all the time, Mr. Secretary.

 

         SEC. GATES: Let me -- let me start, and then ask Admiral Mullen to add in.

 

         I think our commanders are very optimistic about, particularly, the Afghan National Army. It is, I think, at this point perhaps the strongest national institution that exists in Afghanistan. And we are on a path to increase the size from about 82,000 to 134,000.

 

         I think a lot of the problems with the police are being addressed. Part of that problem is the lack of sufficient trainers, and part of the added forces that we're sending in will in fact be for training the police. And we have a program where we're going back into districts, pulling the police force out, retraining them, giving them new equipment and then putting them back in with police mentors. And the experience with that program so far has been encouraging. It's still pretty small-scale and it needs to be expanded and accelerated, and I hope that the addition of our trainers will be able to do that.

 

         But there's no question but that the -- our ticket out of Afghanistan is the ability of the Afghans to maintain their own security. And I think our commanders feel that we're on the right track. But let me ask Admiral Mullen to --

 

         ADM. MULLEN: I would only echo that, Senator Leahy, from the point of view that these are warriors. They are a warrior nation, and they have been, in many cases, at war over the last 30 years. And we share the concern about illiteracy.

 

         That said, in my many visits, this kind of issue has never routinely raised its head as something that we can't take into account and move forward with.  

 

         SEN. LEAHY: But would you agree that there is a significant difference between the police and the --

 

         ADM. MULLEN: Yes, sir. Not -- actually, not unlike Iraq. The -- 

 

         SEN. LEAHY: Yeah.

 

         ADM. MULLEN: In Iraq the army came quicker. It's the same thing in Afghanistan.

 

         SEN. LEAHY: But the average person is going to see the police before they're going to see the army, in many, many instances, in their day-to-day life.

 

         ADM. MULLEN: Yes, sir.

 

         SEN. LEAHY: And if they see bribery and corruption and all that, they -- that's the face of the government. I mean, it's the same in our country. The difference is that we've evolved so that most of our police forces are extraordinarily well-trained.  

 

         But do you feel confident we can turn that around?

 

         ADM. MULLEN: Yes, sir. I think -- it's actually -- Minister of Interior Atmar -- and I don't know if you've met him --

 

         SEN. LEAHY: I did. I had a long --

 

         ADM. MULLEN: He's a very impressive guy. He understands the problems he has, and he's addressing them. It's going to take some time.  

 

         This program the secretary mentioned, which is this Focused District Development, where they go off to school for eight or nine weeks and then return with mentors, is another significant step in the right direction. But it's going to take time, and the police are not going to come as fast as the army is. But it is the way out.  

 

         SEN. LEAHY: Well, if they -- and if your staff could keep me posted, both of you, on how that's going, because I'm one who wants to see it work, and that's -- and I know a number of our Vermonters are going to be involved in helping to train that. I think the potential is there. And I think it's a real uphill battle.

 

         Thank you.

 

         SEN. INOUYE: Thank you.

 

         Senator Shelby.

 

         SEN. RICHARD SHELBY (R-AL): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

         Secretary Gates, I believe that we must have a fair, open and honest Air Force tanker acquisition process that ensures that our men and women in uniform receive the best possible aircraft.  

 

         It's also my belief that the upcoming request for proposals should utilize the best value process, so that we're procuring the most capable tanker for our warfighters.  

 

         We talked about earlier this year, and it was my understanding that you stated that you believe the process should be fair, open, transparent. 

 

         With regard to the process, who will be the acquisition authority for the upcoming tanker competition? Will be the Office of the Secretary of Defense? The Air Force? And also, do you believe that the draft RFP will be released this month, or when?

 

         SEC. GATES: I don't know that it'll be released this month.  

 

        And I'm in the process, the final decision process, in terms of the acquisition authority and the structure we're going to put into place, to ensure that it is a fair, open and transparent process.  

 

         I would expect to be -- to make the decision on the acquisition process within the next week or 10 days. And all I have heard is that their hope is to put the RFP out this summer, perhaps next month. I'm not entirely sure about that. And we will fulfill the commitment that we have made, to you all, to share the draft RFP here in the Congress, as part of being a transparent process.  

 

         SEN. SHELBY: Mr. Secretary, shifting to Army aviation, your proposed budget calls for an additional $500 million, over last year's funding level, to field and sustain helicopters.  

 

         As stated in your testimony, this is an urgent demand in Afghanistan right now. And I support your initiative here. I understand, you've indicated, the focus will be on recruiting and training more Army helicopter crews.  

 

         But will you -- could you provide additional details, regarding how this money would be spent, either now or for the record?  

 

         SEC. GATES: I'd be pleased to do that for the record.  

 

         SEN. SHELBY: Okay.  

 

         SEC. GATES: But let me just say that having visited Fort Rucker, it's clear that the schoolhouse needs to be expanded and modernized.  

 

         SEN. SHELBY: Thank you.  

 

         SEC. GATES: Admiral Mullen, the LCS, littoral combat ship; the department's '10 budget provides an increase, in purchasing the littoral combat ship, from two to three ships.  

 

         Do you believe that this program will play a vital role in our Navy's future fleet? And could you tell us here the advantages that the Navy will gain, once the service begins to utilize the LCS around the world?  

 

         ADM. MULLEN: I need the LCS at sea deployed today. The urgency of that requirement has been there for a number of years, which is why we started this program. And that urgency hasn't gone away. And I'll be very specific about its need in places like the Persian Gulf.    It offers unique characteristics in terms of speed and mobility. And -- 

 

         SEN. SHELBY: Also firepower.  

 

         ADM. MULLEN: And firepower.  

 

         It certainly provides, and back to helicopters, if I'm short one thing sort of across the department, helicopters qualifies for being at the top.  

 

             They -- it also -- the LCS also has a small crew. It has flexibility in its mission. It has the modules, depending on where you're going to apply it, where you're going to deploy it, whether it's mine warfare or anti-submarine warfare or surface warfare.  

 

         So it's a very adaptable platform. We need them -- I need them out and I need them in numbers as rapidly as we can get them out.

 

         SEN. SHELBY: You need them now, too, if you can.

 

         ADM. MULLEN: Yes, sir.

 

         SEN. SHELBY: Thank you, Admiral.

 

         Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

         SEN. INOUYE: Thank you.

 

         Senator Feinstein.

 

         SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

 

         Mr. Secretary, I'd like to put on my intelligence hat for a minute. And I note Senator Bond has come back. Without getting into details or classified matters, I wanted to ask you about the overhead architecture program.  

 

         I think it's fair to say that both sides of the aisle on the Intelligence Committee are very concerned about matters dealing with this program, and particularly the huge investment in electrical- optical satellites. And Senator Bond mentioned your statement that you would not necessarily favor a 99-percent solution, but a lesser solution.  

 

         And so my question is, can the department's imagery needs be met with a larger number of lower-resolution systems?

 

         SEC. GATES: I have agreed with Admiral Blair on the architecture that is before you and before this committee. And I would say first of all that I think that the primary need for the very high resolution of the upper tier of capabilities is needed above all by the intelligence community. We have had those kinds of satellites -- obviously, the new ones are much more sophisticated than when I was last in the intelligence business, but we have always needed that kind of resolution and multi-mission capability. My view -- the reason that I supported going with the lower tier satellites, frankly, is because there is some schedule and technology risk associated with the upper tier. And I felt very strongly about having a capability that was proven technology and that we would have high confidence would work and meet with the upper tier the needs of the military.

 

         I would have to get back to you for the record in terms of whether -- of what military needs are satisfied by the higher- resolution capability.

 

         SEN. FEINSTEIN: Well, if you would, I think both Senator Bond and I would appreciate it. We have extraordinarily serious concern involving the waste of many, many dollars over a period of years and are rather determined that that not happen again.  

 

        We also have information that the so-called lesser tiered satellites can be just as effective and have a stealth capability.  

 

         So if you would get back to us on that point, we hope to sit down with Senator Inouye and Senator Cochran and our staff and talk very seriously on this issue. Because I think, you know, to make this mistake once or twice is all right, but to continue that mistake doesn't make sense, I think, to the vice chairman or to myself or to other members of the committee or to our technical advisory group, who has looked at this as well. So if you would, I would appreciate it very much.

 

         Let me move on to another thing. There has been a lot of discussion and -- in the public press about the possibility of Israel attacking Iran. And I think we asked you the last time you were before us, in the last year, do you believe that the chances of that happening have gone up or down?

 

         SEC. GATES: Well, I'd hesitate to speculate about the decisions of another government, but I would say that our concern about the nature of the Iran problem has continued to rise as they continue to make further progress in enriching uranium and in -- particularly in their public statements, and also as they have enjoyed some success in their missile field.  

 

             So I would say that our concerns with Iran's -- with Iran's programs -- and I believe I can say also Israel's -- has continued to grow, given the unwillingness of the Iranians to slow, stop, or even indicate a willingness to talk about their programs.

 

         SEN. FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much. Final question, if I may, Mr. Chairman, and it's on the subject of Afghanistan. And we have slipped into this very easily, very quickly. I believe there are about 68,000 men and women either due to Afghanistan or already there. Is that a correct figure?

 

         And you look back at 48 years of history. And let me just give you one quote from a recent General Accountability Office report. And it said some progress has occurred in areas such as economic growth, infrastructure development and training of the Afghan national security forces, but the overall security situation in Afghanistan has not improved after more than seven years of United States and international efforts.

 

         I'm one that has deep concern as to how you turn this country around, after 40 years, into a much more secure area. I know you're making changes, and maybe they work and maybe they don't work. I don't know. But could you share with us how you see this going? Because this is a large commitment over a substantial unknown period of time, with no known benchmarks, no known exit strategy at this time, but just a continuation of beefing up troops and changing commanders.

 

         So if you could give us some idea of what benchmarks you would hold, how you would evaluate success, where you would look for it and within what time frame, I think it would be very helpful.

 

         SEC. GATES: Let me open, and then -- and then ask Admiral Mullen to add his thoughts.

 

         First of all, I think that the administration's new strategy gives us some opportunities that we have not had before, and I think the strategy brings a focus to our efforts that we may not have had before. The reality is, the situation in Afghanistan went along okay after 2002, until about 2006.

 

        And it coincided -- to a considerable degree, the beginning of greater Taliban activity in Afghanistan began as Pakistan began to do these peace agreements with various insurgent and extremist groups, in -- on their western border, which then freed the Taliban to come across the border, because they had no pressure from the Pakistani army.  

 

         And that situation has continued to worsen. And it is a combination of the Taliban, which are the heart of the problem we face but not the only piece of it; the Haqqani network, al Qaeda and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and these others.  

 

         And so as this problem became worse in terms of the violence caused, by the Taliban coming across the border from Pakistan, I think that it's self-evident that we were underresourced to deal with it.  

 

         We did not have the military capabilities or the civilian capabilities, in terms of counterinsurgency, to be able to deal with it. I think under the administration's new strategy, we'll have both the military and the civilian capacity to be able to make headway with the Afghans.  

 

         And I think the key here is the strengthening of the Afghan national army and police that we talked about earlier. It is the strengthening of other institutions in Afghanistan.  

 

         I think one of the things that's important to remember, about Afghanistan, is that we have 40-some other nations there as our allies. This is not just the United States carrying this by ourselves.  

 

         Now, do we wish they had more troops? Do we wish they spent more money? Absolutely, but the fact is, our allies have 32,000 troops in Afghanistan. This is not a trivial commitment on their part. And as, I think, Senator Leahy pointed out, the Canadians, the British, the Australians, the Danes and others have been in the fight and have lost a lot of people.  

 

         So I think that the new strategy and now the newest development, which gives me more hope than I've had in quite a while, the newest development of the Pakistani army taking on these extremists, in Swat and elsewhere, I think, is an extremely important development.  

 

        And the possibility of the Afghans, the Pakistanis, ourselves and our allies together, working against this problem, has given me more optimism about the future than I've had in a long time in Afghanistan.

 

         I will say we have developed in the interagency benchmarks for success. I pressed very hard for these, because I said, you know, the last administration had benchmarks forced upon it. Let's volunteer them. Let's say, here's what we think we need to achieve, and here's how we can measure ourselves against this.  

 

         My own view is, it's very important for us to be able to show the American people that we are moving forward by the end of the year, or a year from now, to show some shift in momentum. This is a long-term commitment, but I think the American people will be willing to sustain this endeavor if they believe it's not just a stalemate and that we're sacrificing lives and not making any headway. So I think the benchmarks are important, and I think making an evaluation a year from now of where we are is important.

 

         The last point I'd make before turning it over to Admiral Mullen is, I'm very sensitive about the number of troops we put into the United -- put into Afghanistan. I'm too familiar with the Soviets having had 110,000 troops there and still losing. If you don't have the right strategy, and if you don't have the Afghan people on your side, you will not win in Afghanistan, because, as the admiral said, they are a warrior nation.  

 

         And so I think that we have to be very cautious about significantly further expanding the American military footprint in Afghanistan, in my view.

 

         Admiral?

 

         ADM. MULLEN: Ma'am, I'm encouraged, first of all. It is -- there is a strategy. And it's a regional strategy; it's not just Afghanistan or Pakistan, because I think they're inextricably linked, and we've got to approach it in that -- with that in mind.

 

         Secondly, I recognize it's -- that it has changed a lot since 2002. And the resources we're putting in there now meet a need that we've had for some time. Our lessons learned from Iraq, the whole -- the counterinsurgency force that we are, the civilian-military approach that we now have with -- obviously with Ambassador Holbrooke, who has focused this effort and does so full time -- I believe we know what we need to do. And I too am concerned about time, and think that with these forces we're putting in there now, we've got to reverse the trend of violence over the next 12 to 18 months. And I think it's possible.  

 

         So I think we have the strategy right. We're resourcing it right. But I do not underestimate the difficulty of the challenge here, the benchmarks not only in security, which are important, but also in governance and improvement in whether local tribal leaders, local district, sub-district leaders are providing for their people, and that we make the Afghan people the center of gravity here.  

 

         We've been through some difficult times with civilian casualties. We can't keep doing that. The more we do that, the more we back up, and it hurts our strategy. So I am actually optimistic, more than I was, but I think the next 12 to 18 months will really tell the tale.

 

         SEC. GATES: We heard two statistics on a teleconference, video conference, with Kabul this morning from one of our commanders. They believe this year will be the first year in 30 years that Afghanistan will not need to import wheat; that the wheat crop is sufficiently robust that they won't need to import. And just as important, it's at basically price parity with poppies, and in some districts even higher value than poppies. So, you know, maybe I'm grasping at straws, but I thought that was pretty interesting.

 

         SEN. FEINSTEIN: It's a good one to grasp. Thank you very much.

 

         Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

         SEN. INOUYE: Senator Bond.

 

         SEN. BOND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

         And with respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan, I agree with what you've said. I believe the counterinsurgency strategy is important I think we have to realize that while our NATO allies had many people over there, they very often didn't get in the fight. They were restrained in the compounds; they traveled around in armored tanks and went back home at night. And the Taliban works at night. We did not have an effective force. 

 

         As the Admiral has said, we have to have an Afghan face. We've got to do that. The counterinsurgency strategy is essential. I know the Commanders Emergency Response -- the CERP funds were used to buy    wheat, at least in Nangarhar province. And that kind of rebuilding of agriculture, I think, is a critical key.  

 

         But I would just ask you, is it reasonable to expect the counterinsurgency to pacify the whole country in 12 or 18 or even 24 months?

 

        Seems to me, we have to be realistic, and we have to say, yes, we're seeing signs of progress. Nangarhar Province, for example, is an area that I know about, and the poppy production has dropped almost to nothing. But still, does it not take some time to get the full benefits of the counterinsurgency strategy? Should we be looking at a slightly longer time frame?

 

         SEC. GATES: Absolutely, Senator. And what I was referring to, and I think what Admiral Mullen was referring to, is hoping to see a shift in the momentum over the course of the next year to 18 months. This problem will not be over in 18 months. This problem will not be over in two years. This is -- let's be honest -- a long-term commitment in a -- that we are involved in in Afghanistan, if we are to ultimately be successful.

 

         I think what we are saying, simply, is that we think that the strategy needs to show some signs that it's working, not that it has been totally successful a year or 18 months from now.

 

         SEN. BOND: Well, I think you can cite Nangarhar as one little province that's working. With the Marines going into Helmand, I think that you'll see some changes there.

 

         I would mention, following up on what my good friend from California said, the kinds of overhead requirements you have -- I was talking with Admiral Blair earlier this morning about intelligence needs in Afghanistan for the PRTs and others. They needed some overhead. And that's the kind of thing that we think can very well be supplied, in terms of military needs, by the smaller, cheaper, more flexible alternatives that we would like to see with NGEO.

 

         And we would welcome the opportunity to talk, and we will look forward to talking with -- the chairman and the ranking member and other members of the committee, in a classified setting, about some of the problems and some of the opportunities. And I hope that we will be able to continue to talk with you about that, because we feel very strongly about the overhead.

 

         I want to ask one other -- one other point. Today I agree with Admiral Mullen, so many things -- at breakfast last week, you said we're all concerned about the industrial base. I have been for a period of time. The competition for who is going to build JSF was done years ago, essentially moving down to one contractor. And that's where we are. What I worry about -- and you want as much competition    for as long as you can. That said, we years ago got down to a minimum number of competitors. I'm concerned about how -- I do not have a lot of other choices about where to go to build.

 

        I think it's an important consideration. We need to pay attention to it.  

 

         And I would agree with those statements. And I think that maintaining the JSF, the F\A-18 as a bridge, moving forward on the C- 17 and the next-generation bomber -- which you, Mr. Secretary, have indicated you wish to pursue -- are all parts of that strategy.  

 

         And I happen to think that no matter who won the competition, giving the entire purchase was a tragic mistake on the tac-air. And I would like to hear your comments, both Mr. Secretary and Admiral, on the defense industrial base.  

 

         SEC. GATES: Well, it is -- it is a concern. And frankly the last time I was in government, in 1993, we had -- we had a lot of choices. And when we wanted to build satellites, we had multiple choices as well.  

 

         And so I think that, you know, with respect to -- with respect to the F/A-18, we have 31 in the budget for FY '10. We will probably buy more in '11. And one of the subjects that the Quadrennial Defense Review is examining is the right balance for our tactical error. And I look forward to the conclusions of the QDR on that.  

 

         ADM. MULLEN: Senator Bond, it's a great airplane. It's actually at a great price. You've certainly dealt with the multi-year aspect of this. One of the reasons it is at a great price is because it has been under multi-year a number of times.  

 

         That said, we're at a point in time where we're trying to figure out how long the program goes on, how many more years. And that's really the analysis that's at the heart of this.  

 

         As I said the other day, although I'm amazed you got absolutely every word I said very accurately -- 

 

         SEN. BOND: My other business is intel. (Laughter.)  

 

         ADM. MULLEN: And I do have a concern about the industrial base in airplanes, in ships, in satellites. And we dramatically brought the defense contractors together in the '90s, and that -- by virtue of that eliminated an awful lot of competition.   

 

         And so I don't have the answer with how we go ahead here, except I think we do have to pay attention to it, over the long run, and make   some strategic decision. And I think the we there is the department, the services, the industry itself, as well as here in Congress.  

 

        And it's that strategic relationship which I think is important, which says, this is how much of America's industrial base we are going to make sure is in good shape for the future. And the aegis of that obviously drive that continuation.

 

         As I said before, and would only repeat, it was years ago this decision was made about the JSF. And at that point in time, it's my view, we made a national decision to go down to -- essentially to go down to one contractor for the future. And we're living with the results of that now.

 

         SEN. BOND: I think that's a tragedy. I've made my point time and time again at these hearings, year after year: I have an answer for you.   If you ever want to call me some time, I'll be happy to share it with you. But I'm not the witness today. Mr. Secretary --

 

         SEC. GATES: You know, I used to be in intelligence, and I think I know the answer. (Laughter.)

 

         SEN. BOND: Yeah. (Laughs.) I'll bet you do. We'll see if we can communicate by mental telepathy.  

 

         But can we expect a study assessing the cost benefits of an F- and-A-18 multi-year anytime soon? I think it was requested in law to be delivered a couple of months ago.

 

         SEC. GATES: We can certainly provide a response, Senator. I think that the -- what we're hoping to do was be able to give you a meaningful response after the QDR. If the decision, for example, were made to continue the F/A-18 line, then a multi-year contract would make all the sense in the world for exactly the reasons you and Admiral Mullen have been talking about. We can provide you an interim response if you would like.

 

         SEN. BOND: Well, I think -- I just think it was required in law, and the QDR -- I know everybody hypes it, but if it's just a justification of what it -- what you put in the budget, I hope there will be some thinking on that, broader thinking along the lines that maybe Admiral Mullen suggested and your intelligence suggests.

 

         So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity.

 

         SEN. INOUYE: Senator Specter? SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (D-PA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

         Mr. Secretary, I was intrigued with one of the points you made in testifying before the Appropriations Committee on the war supplemental, where you said that it would be useful in our dealings with Iran to have a missile defense that is aimed only at Iran.  

 

         And that played into the relationship that we have with Russia, and it is generally recognized that if we're to be successful in dealing with Iran, we're going to have to have cooperation with other countries, perhaps mostly Russia. We've talked before about the issue of having Russia enrich Iran's uranium, which Russia has offered to do and Iran has declined, as a way of being sure that Iran is not moving toward the use of enriched uranium for military purposes.

 

             A two-part question. Number one, is any progress being made on publicizing Russia's offer, which I think has gotten scant -- little attention? And the Iranian refusal really shows -- raises the inference of potential bad faith.

 

         And secondly, where do we stand on efforts to pick up your suggestion that missile defense be aimed only at Iran and not at Russia, which has given so many political problems?

 

         SEC. GATES: First, I think that although it's certainly not been a secret, it has not been, I think, widely enough publicized -- Russia's offer and Iran's turn-down of it. And I think equally not publicized was the fact that the United States indicated that we thought that was a pretty good idea and would be supportive.  

 

         With respect to the missile defense, I think that the Russian -- I still have hope that we can get the Russians to partner with us on missile defense directed against Iran.  

 

         SEN. SPECTER: Have we made that offer suggesting that missile defense would not be aimed at Russia?

 

         SEC. GATES: Oh, yes. And I've made it myself to then-President Putin, and I've made it to President Medvedev. And we've made a number of offers in terms of how to partner, and I think there are still some opportunities -- for example, perhaps putting radars in Russia, having data exchange centers in Russia.  

 

         And so I think the administration is very interested in continuing to pursue this prospect with the Russians, and it may be that our chances are somewhat improved for making progress, because I think the Russians -- when I first briefed -- when I first met with President Putin and talked about this, he basically dismissed the idea that the Iranians would have a missile that would have the range to reach much of Western Europe and much of Russia before 2020 or so. And he showed me a map that his intelligence guys had prepared, and I told him he needed a new intelligence service.  

 

         And the fact of the matter is, the Russians have come back to us and acknowledged that were right in terms of the nearness of the Iranian missile threat. And so my hope is -- and that they had been wrong. And so my hope is, we can build on that and perhaps -- perhaps at the president's summit meeting with President Medvedev, perhaps begin to make some steps where they will partner with us and Poland    and the Czech Republic in going forward with missile defense in the -- this third site.

 

             And I would say, although I took the money out of the '10 budget for the third site, the reason I did that is because we have enough money in the budget from '9 that would enable us to do anything in the way of construction necessary.

 

         SEN. SPECTER: Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining? There's no clock here.  

 

         SEN. INOUYE: (Off mike.)

 

         SEN. SPECTER: I'm pleased to see the announcement of the joint military operations or sending military commanders to Syria. And it appears to be part of a general change in U.S. policy which I believe is long overdue in trying to at least explore with Syria the possibilities of having them stop destabilizing Lebanon and stop supplying Hamas and moving toward the negotiations which have been brokered so long now by Turkey with Israel.

 

         What do you see -- and this may be over into State, but Defense is certainly involved -- for the opportunities to improve relationships with Syria along those lines?

 

         SEC. GATES: Well, I guess my attitude would be that there's no harm in trying. And the CENTCOM representatives who will be going to Syria -- I'll ask the admiral to correct me if I get this wrong, but I think their mandate is focused on the security of the border between Syria and Iraq, and particularly to try and enlist Syria's support in stopping the foreign fighters from crossing that border into Iraq and attacking us and the Iraqis.

 

         ADM. MULLEN: (True ?).

 

         SEN. SPECTER: I have one more question. There may -- and I emphasize "may" -- be good news in the offing, with what is happening along a number of fronts. The election results in Lebanon, with Hezbollah losing and the dominance of U.S.-backed interests, is certainly encouraging. There's speculation that President Obama's speech in Cairo may have had some effect on that. The political campaign in Iran, by all press accounts, is about as much of a political brawl as you see -- to pick South Philadelphia as an illustration.  

 

         And the question that is in my mind -- I'm interested in your views -- as to whether the change in policy toward Lebanon and Syria    and the speech that President Obama has made -- is there any intelligence that that is having an impact on the forthcoming Iranian elections and whether it has had any impact on the elections in Lebanon?

 

         SEC. GATES: I have not seen any intelligence specifically relating to either Lebanon or Iran on that.

 

             SEN. SPECTER: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

 

         Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

         SEN. INOUYE: Thank you.

 

         Senator Murray.

 

         SEN. MURRAY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

 

         And Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, thank you all for being here, and for what you do for all of our men and women who serve this country. I really do appreciate it.

 

         Apologize for my voice. I was out in Seattle this weekend. It was warm weather, and the allergy season went crazy. Secretary Gates, you're going to be out there, I believe, to speak to the University of Washington. Be prepared. (Chuckles.)  But I apologize.

 

         But I wanted to -- I understand I missed some questions from Senator Shelby on the tanker competition and your statement that you expect some kind of decision on how to move forward in the next seven to 10 days. And I wanted to ask you, is that discussion going to include who will lead the process, whether it's you or the Air Force?

 

         SEC. GATES: Yeah, the period seven to 10 days was how we will structure the acquisition. And who the acquisition authority will be, I'm in the process of making those decisions right now, but have not -- have not made final decisions. And I don't know with specificity but, as I told Senator Shelby, our hope is to probably try and get the RFP out mid-summer. And we will fulfill our commitment to bring the draft up for you all to look at.

 

         SEN. MURRAY: Okay. I really appreciate that. And I just wanted to ask you if you're thinking about what kind of measures you're going to take to make sure that we don't have claims of unfair valuation, or the scales are tipped one way or the other, as we move through this?

 

         SEC. GATES: Well, part of the process I'm going through right now is to try and structure this in a way that puts the best people on this program and that provides a supervisory role. And right now, tentatively thinking, I'm -- you know, I'm going to clearly ask the deputy secretary to take a very close interest in this process. SEN. MURRAY: Okay. Well, you know, clearly, this is a real challenge. And we all want the best aircraft at the end of the day. We all want fair and transparent competition. Everybody's saying that, and I think that's clear. I think we want the best war fighter, and we also want what's best for the taxpayer as well. You have been a strong proponent of the winner-take-all competition. Is that still your opinion at this point?

 

         SEC. GATES: Yes, ma'am.

 

         SEN. MURRAY: Okay. Thank you very much. Secretary Gates, let me ask you, you've referred to your budget as a reform budget, reforming how and what we buy. And I'm really worried about how we are balancing this acquisition reform effort in relation to our domestic industrial base. I'm worried about the long-term ability of our domestic industrial base to provide our military forces what they need to accomplish their national security missions.

 

         Since we talked last April, I have worked with Chairman Levin on the acquisition reform bill, and included language to require a report regarding the effects that cancelling a major acquisition program would have on the nation's industrial base. And I wanted to ask you today if you can tell me how you are taking into account the health and longevity of our domestic industrial base, including our suppliers, design engineers, manufacturers, as you tackle acquisition reform in the DOD.

 

         SEC. GATES: Well, I think so far, in terms of the decisions that I've made, most of the issues have not been taken -- the decisions have not been taken with a view to the industrial base, but rather acquisition programs that had been extremely badly managed, in substantial measure by the Department of Defense.

 

        And so I would say that, in all honesty, not very many of the decisions that I made were made with the industrial base being as an important consideration, but rather as acquisition programs gone badly awry.

 

         But as we go forward -- as Admiral Mullen talked about a few minutes ago, clearly we have concerns about the industrial base. But to be perfectly honest, decisions made a long time ago have limited our options in this respect. And the best example, and as he cited, is the Joint Strike Fighter. And so we are where we are.

 

         SEN. MURRAY: Well, we are where we are. But if we keep going down the road and we all, 10 years from now, go, "Oh my gosh, what happened?" without thinking about it now, we're going to be in a bad place.

 

         So I agree with you, we've looked acquisition reform in terms of contracts gone bad. I do think we have to start talking about acquisition reform in terms of our industrial base as well. And I hope we can work with you on that.

 

         And Admiral Mullen?

 

         ADM. MULLEN: Ma'am, if I could just offer one other thing -- and I spoke to this earlier -- but the other thing that I have found which keeps primes very focused, as well as subs, is predictability. We can't keep changing the program, whatever it is -- whoever "we" is because we all do this, year after year after year -- because they just won't plan. They won't invest in the industrial base if there's great uncertainty and great risk associated with that.

 

         So as we come to grips with this whole issue of acquisition, which I think we need to do, and which this -- which this budget really attempts to do -- and the acquisition reform legislation is critical to that -- is that is a key piece, is can we get programs into some level of predictability and stability?

 

         SEN. MURRAY: Okay. I think that's really important. Thank you for that.

 

         Secretary Gates, I wanted to applaud the budget plan in terms of military health care. And I really think it goes a long ways towards ensuring that all our service members and their eligible family members have access to and get the best medical care possible.    I just want to say, I am so -- as I think all of you are, so concerned about the psychological health of our service members. We continue to see reports -- and Admiral Mullen, I know combat-related stress is a great concern for you. If you can just address that for a minute here and tell us what you're doing -- (inaudible) -- to continue to focus on that.

 

         ADM. MULLEN: Again, this budget puts a lot more money in that direction, and that's key. We -- leadership throughout the department, and clearly the military leadership, is very focused on making more capability and capacity, more mental health providers available. And I just -- I won't rest on the fact that we're short nationally.

 

        I -- if I do that, then I just accept that we're going to be short. And I'm not going to do that until I have no other choice. And I just don't believe we've wrung it out.

 

         We've taken some steps in the stigma issue, but that's still a huge issue, and I don't think we really remove that until we get to a point where everybody receives an effective screening -- and it's not voluntary; you must do it -- and create, again, opportunities to both understand when somebody is under -- is suffering, as so many are right now, which is pretty normal and pretty human.

 

         So leadership will continue to focus on this. In fact, it was at Fort Lewis -- I was there maybe 18 months ago now -- that really -- Madigan has really got some very innovative staff personnel, medical personnel there. We're trying to pay attention to them and to spread those kinds of best practices. But we're not there yet. It's still -- as long as we've been at this, it's still early.

 

         SEC. GATES: Let me just add two things. First of all, the admiral mentioned money. This budget -- we've budgeted $428 million just for psychological health in 2009, FY '9. The FY '10 budget will have $750 million in it, so a substantial increase focused strictly on psychological health.

 

         Second, one of the things that I'd like to explore with the Congress -- and I've mentioned this in the other hearings on this budget -- and it goes to the issue of the availability of mental- health-care providers.

 

         SEN. MURRAY: Right.

 

         SEC. GATES: And the truth is, there are a lot of places in this country where we are trying to hire them and they aren't available. We have hired a lot, but not as many as we would like.  

 

         And one of the things that I'd like to explore with the Congress is expanding the military medical education program so that it goes beyond just physicians and includes mental-health-care professionals, whether it's people getting master's degrees -- and I'm not talking necessarily about funding somebody to become a psychiatrist -- but somebody who can do counseling, and somebody who can -- who is the first-line provider for mental-health care, and to pay for that education for someone in exchange for a commitment to the military. And then, frankly, we will have done the country a service, because then they can go out into the broader population. SEN. MURRAY: Mr. Secretary, I think that's exactly what we need to be doing, because, as the admiral mentioned, this isn't just a DOD problem. It's a problem for everyone. And we can't just say we hope that they come through the other system.  

 

         I think if the military really focuses on that and promotes and sustains a program within itself, it will help the military; it will also help the rest of us. So I think it's a great idea, and I really would like to work with you on making that happen.

 

         Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.  

 

         And Mr. Secretary, I look forward to seeing you out in Seattle at the Husky graduation.

 

         SEN. INOUYE: Mr. Secretary, Admiral Mullen, as we close the session, I'd like to make a couple of observations, if I may.

 

         Your decision to terminate the acquisition of the C-17s, the F- 22s, the DDG-1000 and the Future Combat Systems vehicles -- we have concerns that it may send the wrong signal to our friends and our potential aggressors, that we're reducing our capability. It may also have a long-term impact on our defense industrial base.  

 

        It may diminish our capacity to provide deterrence, and reduce our strength that we provide to our allies. We hope that this is not the consequence, but some of us are concerned.

 

         Second observation is that in that ancient war in which I involved myself about 65 years ago, the casualties were high, but the survival rate was not as good as the ones we have today.  

 

         For example, in my regiment, which -- in one year's time we went through -- from 5,000 men to 12,000 because of replacements -- we had no double amputee survivor. None of those survived. And yet if you go to Walter Reed today, double amputations are commonplace.

 

         We had no brain injury survivors. As a result, as I look back, we had very little psychological concerns.

 

         But today we have survival rates so well because of high technology that double amputees, triple amputees are surviving; brain injuries are surviving.  

 

         And as we can anticipate, as Senator Murray pointed out, psychological problems become commonplace. I just hope that we are preparing ourselves to cope with all of these problems.  

 

         With that, I'd like to thank you, Mr. Secretary, Admiral Mullen, Secretary Hale, for your contributions today. And we hope that we can continue our discussions, because we will be submitting to you, if we may, questions for your concern and response.

 

         Our next hearing will be held on June 19th at 10:30, at which time we'll listen to public witnesses.  Mr. Secretary, Admiral Mullen, Mr. Hale, we thank you very much for your service to our country and, through you, we thank the men and women of our uniformed services. Thank you very much.

 

         SEC. GATES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

         ADM. MULLEN: Thank you, sir.