Hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee - Fiscal Year 2009 Defense Authorization Request, Future Years Defense Program, and Fiscal Year 2009 Request for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your service. And Mr. Secretary, one item in the Defense budget is not often cited but it's important. That is the investment in critical basic research for universities. And I commend you for maintaining that in a very difficult budget environment.

SEC. GATES: I was heavily lobbied by some of my former colleagues. But frankly, I felt it was very important to send a signal that we were going to again emphasize fundamental research, peer-reviewed research. So it's about $200 (million), $300 million for '09 and about a billion dollars over the FYDB.

SEN. REED: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Admiral Mullen, following on Senator Warner's line of questioning, there is a decision to freeze our force levels at 15 brigades in Iraq this summer. That would almost automatically require continued use of 15-month deployments for the Army and an accelerated call-up of Reserve and National Guard forces to maintain that force structure.

ADM. MULLEN: In the review of this that I've undertaken so far, General Casey has indicated that that may not be the case. I mean, he's really working his way through that right now, that, in fact, it is possible that we could get to shorter deployments.

But that, again, is all tied into General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker coming back, or the assessment, the recommendation, what the president decides, because clearly that's the bulk of the deployed force right now. And both sustaining what we're doing as well as creating relief is going to be in great part based on that decision.

SEN. REED: But I think one of the obvious consequences is that any -- the real opportunity to reduce the tours to 12 months would be seriously compromised if, in fact, we commit to 15 brigades indefinitely.

ADM. MULLEN: With some assumptions, we think it's actually doable. And, in fact, then if you end up with a 12-month, 12 out to 12 back, clearly -- and to sustain at a certain level is to say if we sustain it at 15 brigades, you just would end up deploying sooner.

SEN. REED: Does that put pressure on Reserve and National Guard units?

ADM. MULLEN: It would put pressure on the entire force, including the Reserve and National Guard.

SEN. REED: Mr. Secretary, the Army needs approximately $260 billion for their Global Force Initiative reset, re-equip, modernization operations through FY '11. It looks as if there's about $141 billion, roughly, committed. There's a big delta. Are you concerned that we won't be able to continue this modernization and force increase for the Army?

SEC. GATES: I have -- I must say, I think that if you look at the total cost of the future combat system over the entire duration, I think the total cost of that program is about $120 billion. And frankly, it is hard for me to see how that program can be completed in its entirety.

One of the things that I think is attractive about the way the Army has approached this is that as they are developing new technologies, they are putting them into the field right away instead of waiting to bring this thing full up.

But I think that in light of what are inevitably going to be pressures on the Defense budget in the future, I think that that one is one that we will have to look at carefully.

SEN. REED: And tomorrow, or this week, or later this week, Mr. Secretary, we'll hear from the Commission on the National Guard. One of their concerns is a shortage of equipment within the National Guard inventories for a response to a civilian incident here in the United States, and they're estimating that there's about a $47 billion shortfall which is not being covered at the moment. Do we have such a gap? Does it effectively compromise our ability to respond to incidents within the United States?

SEC. GATES: There is a gap. We have, in fact, $46.8 billion in the budget between FY '07 and FY '13 for the National Guard, and we will push $17.5 billion worth of equipment to the Guard over the next 24 months -- helicopters, 16,000 trucks, communications and so on. The fill -- the historic fill rate for equipment for the Guard has been about 70 percent. That fell to about 40 percent in 2006, was up to about 49 percent in 2007. We'll get it to about 66 -- 65, 66 percent during the course of 2008, and we hope into the low 70s by the end of 2009. Our goal with what we have budgeted now would put the Army at a fill rate of 77 percent in 2013 and the Air Force -- the Air Guard about 90 percent. If you want and try and get them to 100 percent, which we've never done before, that would require an additional amount of money.

But one important part about this -- about this new equipment going to the Guard is that it is exactly the same equipment that is in the active force. That will be a first. They have always in the past had either equipment that had been used by the -- by the active force or equipment the active force was no longer using because it had been replaced by more technologically sophisticated stuff. What we're going to be sending out to them is the same stuff -- same equipment that is provided to the active force.

SEN. REED: You know, I appreciate your efforts and your concern about this issue, but it seems we do have an equipment gap here with our Guard forces, principally attributed to deploying equipment in Iraq, leaving it there, and then as you point out trying to modernize old equipment that's been in the inventory too long.

But this raises a very general point, and that is, do you agree with Admiral McConnell's assessment that al Qaeda in Pakistan is growing in its capacity and capability to recruit, train and position operatives within the United States to conduct an attack against the United States? And doesn't it raise and serious question our overall strategy if we have basically weakened our position in the United States in civic response? We have committed hundreds of thousands of troops to Iraq. We've had billions of dollars -- we're debating how many billions that'll go to Iraq. And yet our -- our enemy, which poses an existential threat to the United States, according to our intelligence leaders, is growing in their capacity as we discuss and debate Iraq.

SEC. GATES: I think that Admiral McConnell is correct in saying that al Qaeda is taking advantage of the safe havens on the Pakistani side of the Afghan border to expand and train for attacks. Much of what we hear concerns attacks in Europe, to be frank about it, but there's clearly -- there's no doubt that they have the intent of attacking the United States. And frankly, I think that's one of the reasons why you're seeing a major push for equipment over the next 24 months.

SEN. REED: Well, Mr. Secretary, I don't think anyone has done a more credible job in my short tenure here as secretary, and unfortunately your short tenure, too. And I want to also commend Admiral Mullen for his distinguished service. But I think we will look back and seriously question some of the strategic decisions that have been made in the last several years, particularly in reference to our last discussion.

Source