Hearing of the House Armed Services Committee - The Defense Department's Fiscal Year 2009 Budget

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. MICHAEL TURNER (R-OH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And let me join everyone's thanks, for each of you, for your service and your work.

My first question concerns the Air Force. I continue to be concerned about the reductions in personnel for the Air Force. We are aware, of course, that the reductions in end strength are largely designed to address a plan of recapitalization.

They are not based upon a reduced threat. They're not based on a needs assessment that indicates that we need less personnel in the Air Force. I think everyone remains concerned about these reductions and then also the needs for additional investment in the Air Force in its recapitalization efforts.

Mr. Secretary, could you speak to a moment about the reductions that are occurring in the Air Force, and any concerns you might have?

SEC. GATES: Well, I think the Air Force, and I think Admiral Mullen may be in a better position to answer this than I am, but my impression is the Air Force is taking another look at this, in part for the same reason the admiral mentioned earlier. And that is, with the increase in the end strength of the Army and the Marine Corps, what are going to be the additional burdens on the Air Force going forward.

Admiral?

ADM. MULLEN: I just -- actually, having gone through this in the Navy over the last several years in a way that -- we really did try to measure how many we were going to need for what capabilities. And I think it hits at the health care issue and the overall cost of our people, which is how are we going to resource for our people in the future as costs continue to grow. Even in the Navy, while we were taking people out, in fact, we were having to put more money in. So in fact, we weren't really taking that money and investing.

And I think that's a very difficult challenge for the Air Force now as well. I've spoken with General Mosley. I know that he is concerned about this and that he may have come down too quickly. I think this budget gets him to about 316. The Air Force has not been allowed to retire a lot of old airplanes. They need to do that. They've been restricted because of legislation. They're having to invest money in that that they need -- we need, I think, to be investing for the future. And their recapitalization program has suffered for lots of reasons, not the least of which is not able to do that as well.

So I think the goal was a good goal initially. I worry about the ability to execute it and then the pressure that's now there to whether 316's too low or he should go to 330, I think, is what he's talking about, even though it's 316 in this budget.

But that's another billion or billion-and-a-half dollars' worth of personnel funds that would have to be found somewhere to fund that.

So it's a very tough problem that the Air Force is in in that regard, and we need to review it and really look t what the right way ahead is.

REP. TURNER: Thank you. I appreciate your comments in that regard, because I know everyone has remained concerned as to that number being too low.

Mr. Secretary, you were talking about health care costs. Last year, as we all looked at the issue of Walter Reed, and subsequently Dole-Shalala came forward with recommendations, I know many of which had bipartisan support. Could you tell us how those recommendations are being implemented and how that is moving forward?

SEC. GATES: I'd be happy to have Secretary England come up and brief you in detail, but in brief, all of the Dole Shalala recommendations that we can implement on our own have already been implemented or are being implemented. And then there are several of their recommendations that require legislation, and that legislation is here on the Hill.

REP. TURNER: I also want to echo Tom Cole's comment on BRAC. I appreciate your acknowledgement of the pressure of the 2011 deadline as a result of delays in funding. If you could keep us all posted as to how you see timelines slipping, it would be appreciated.

One concern that I have is that the delays in funding approval might result in timelines slipping, and then if you're not telling us soon enough, it may appear that it's a result of your performance, and not the delays in funding that has occurred, which could then result in requests for review of the BRAC recommendations themselves and whether or not they should be implemented. So I would appreciate your letting us know as you see those time frames moving and the impacts as a result of the both delayed and reduced funding that you've received.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source