Choices Made and Priorities
Set in FY 2010 Budget Request
Statement Senate Armed Services Committee (Budget
As Submitted by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Room
SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., Tuesday, February 02,
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the president’s
budget requests for fiscal year 2011. I first want to thank you for your support
of the men and women of the U.S. military these many years. I know they will be
uppermost in your thoughts as you deliberate on these budget requests. Our
troops are part of an extraordinary generation of young Americans who have
answered their country’s call. They have fought this country’s wars, protected
our interests and allies around the globe, and, as we’ve seen recently in Haiti,
they have also demonstrated compassion and decency in the face of
The budget requests being presented today include $549
billion for the base budget – a 3.4 percent increase over last year, or 1.8
percent real growth after adjusting for inflation, reflecting this
administration’s commitment to modest, steady, and sustainable real growth in
defense spending. We are also requesting $159 billion in FY 2011 to support
Overseas Contingency Operations, primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus $33
billion for the remainder of this fiscal year to support the added financial
costs of the president’s new approach in Afghanistan.
The base budget request was accompanied and informed by the
2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, which establishes strategic priorities and
identifies key areas for needed investment. The 2010 QDR and FY 2011 budget
build upon the substantial changes that the president made in the FY 2010 budget
request to allocate defense dollars more wisely and reform the department’s
The base budget request reflects these major institutional
· First, reaffirming and strengthening the nation’s commitment to care for the
all-volunteer force, our greatest strategic asset;
· Second, rebalancing America’s defense posture by emphasizing capabilities
needed to prevail in current conflicts, while enhancing capabilities that may be
needed in the future; and
· Third, continuing the department’s commitment to reform how DoD does business,
especially in the area of acquisitions.
Finally, the commitments made and programs funded in the OCO
and supplemental requests demonstrate this administration’s determination to
support our troops and commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq so they can accomplish
their critical missions and return home safely.
At this point, I would like to offer two thoughts to consider
when assessing the U.S. investment in national defense:
First, the requests submitted this week total more than $700
billion – a massive number, to be sure. But, at 4.7 percent of gross national
product, it represents a significantly smaller portion of national wealth going
to defense than was spent during America’s previous major wars.
Second, as you know, the president recently exempted the
defense budget from spending freezes being applied to other parts of the
government. It is important to remember, however, that this department already
undertook a painstaking review of our programs and priorities last year, and
proposed to cut, curtail, or end a number of programs. These programs, had they
been pursued to completion, would have cost the American taxpayer about $330
The FY 2011 budget request includes $138.5 billion for
military pay and allowances, an increase of $3.6 billion – or 2.6 percent – over
last year. This includes an increase of 1.4 percent for military basic pay,
which will keep military pay increases in line with those in the private sector.
This amount funds bonuses and other incentives to meet recruiting and retention
quality and quantity goals – especially for our most critical skills and
experience levels. The military deserves generous pay because of the stress and
danger these jobs entail. In recent years, the Congress has added 0.5 percent to
the administration’s requested military pay raise – an action that adds about
$500 million a year to our budget now and in future years, and reduces the funds
available for training and equipping the force. In this time of strong
recruiting and retention, I urge the Congress to approve the full requested
amount for the FY 2011 military pay raise but not to add to the request.
This budget supports the department’s intense focus on care
for our wounded, ill, and injured military members. As I’ve said before, aside
from winning the wars themselves, this is my highest priority. Key initiatives
· Achieving a seamless transition to veteran status for members leaving the
military and increased cooperation between the Departments of Defense and
· Ensuring a high standard at facilities caring for wounded warriors, including
first-rate hospitals and the Army’s Warrior Transition Units;
· Enhancing case management of individuals transitioning to civilian life –
especially those needing long-term care;
· Establishing a better Disability Evaluation System – to create a simpler,
faster, more consistent process for determining which members may continue their
military service and helping them become as independent and self-supporting as
· Working with the VA to create Virtual Lifetime Electronic Records to improve
veteran care and services by improving the availability of administrative and
The FY 2011 budget request includes $2.2 billion for enduring
programs for our wounded, ill, and injured. It also includes $300 million to
complete the Army’s Warrior Transition complexes and new medical facilities in
the Washington, D.C., capital region. The $2.2 billion for these programs is
$100 million more than the FY 2010 enacted amount and is more than double the FY
2008 level of $1 billion.
The FY 2011 budget includes $50.7 billion for the Unified
Medical Budget to support the Military Health System that serves 9.5 million
eligible beneficiaries. Over the past decade, U.S. health-care costs have grown
substantially, and defense health costs have been no exception, more than
doubling between FY 2001 ($19 billion) and FY 2010 ($49 billion). These costs
are expected to grow from 6 percent of the department’s total budget in FY 2001
to more than 10 percent in FY 2015.
The department remains fully committed to providing
assistance to our troops and their families in light of the unprecedented
demands that have been placed on them. As the president stated in the State of
the Union Address last week, our men and women in uniform and their families
have our respect, our gratitude, and our full support. The budget reflects the
department’s policy of shifting money to the base budget for enduring programs
so that they will not disappear as war funding declines. The FY 2011 base budget
includes $8.1 billion for a variety of family-support programs vital to the
morale and well-being of our military members and their families – an increase
of $450 million over last year. The OCO request includes $700 million for family
support – bringing the total to $8.8 billion.
The FY 2011 budget includes $18.7 billion to fund critical
military-construction and family-housing requirements, including substantial
funding to recapitalize many department schools for children of service members.
The FY 2011 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) investment
funding of $2.4 billion is less than prior years because most of the funding
needed to implement the 2005 round of BRAC decisions has already been
appropriated for 24 major realignments, 24 base closures, and 765 lesser actions
– all of which must be completed by September 15, 2011, in accordance with
We have requested$14.2 billion to modernize the department’s
facilities; to support the recently completed growth in the Army and Marine
Corps; to support the relocation of 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam; and to
recapitalize medical facilities and schools for servicemembers’ children.
Achieving our objectives in Afghanistan and Iraq has moved to
the top of the institutional military’s budgeting, policy, and program
priorities. We now recognize that America’s ability to deal with threats for
years to come will largely depend on our performance in the current conflicts.
The FY 2011 budget request took a number of additional steps aimed at filling
persistent shortfalls that have plagued recent military efforts, especially in
To increase these capabilities, this request includes more
than $9.6 billion for the acquisition of a variety of modern rotary-wing
aircraft, including the creation of two Army combat aviation brigades by FY
2014. The goal is to train 1,500 new Army helicopter pilots per year by 2012.
The FY 2011 budget request continues efforts to increase ISR
support for our fighting forces. The ISR Task Force was formed in April 2008 to
generate critical operational ISR capacity – primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Since then, the department has worked to secure substantial funding to field and
sustain ISR capabilities. In the FY 2011 budget, that includes:
· $2.2 billion for procurement of Predator-class aircraft to increase the Combat
Air Patrols (CAPs) available to deployed forces from 37 to 65 by 2013; and
· Doubling procurement of the MQ-9 Reaper over the next few years.
The FY 2011 budget request supports the QDR’s call for better
EW capabilities for today’s warfighters. The Navy procurement budget includes
$1.1 billion in FY 2011 and $2.3 billion in FY 2012 for the addition of 36 EA-18G
aircraft, with 12 procured in FY 2011 and 24 in FY 2012. These resources and
capabilities will help fill an imminent EW shortfall that has been consistently
highlighted by the combatant commanders as one of their highest priorities.
The FY 2011 budget requests $6.3 billion for USSOCOM – nearly
6 percent higher than in FY 2010. The department plans to call for SOF funding
to increase sharply over the next several years, including an increase of about
2,800 personnel in FY 2011.
The FY 2011 budget includes $189 billion for total
procurement, research, and development. This investment reflects the fact that
the United States needs a broad portfolio of military capabilities with maximum
versatility across the widest possible spectrum of conflict, including
conventional conflict with the technologically advanced military forces of other
countries. To meet the potential threats to our military’s ability to project
power, deter aggression, and come to the aid of allies and partners in
environments where access to our forces may be denied, this budget request
includes substantial funds for conventional and strategic modernization.
The FY 2011 budget funds programs to develop and buy superior
aircraft to guarantee continued air dominance over current and future
battlefields, most importantly the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The FY 2011
base budget includes $10.7 billion for continued development of the F-35, and
for procurement of 42 aircraft. An additional JSF is purchased in the OCO
budget. This budget reflects a restructuring of the JSF program to stabilize its
schedule and cost. The department has also adjusted F-35 procurement quantities
based on new data on likely orders from our foreign partners and realigned
development and test schedules.
The FY 2011 budget continues to support development of a new
aerial refueling tanker. The KC-X, the first phase of KC-135 recapitalization,
will procure 179 commercial derivative tanker aircraft to replace roughly one-third
of the current aerial refueling tanker fleet at an estimated cost of $35
billion. Contract award is expected in the summer of 2010 and procurement should
begin in FY 2013. To support this long-range effort, $864 million has been
requested for research into the next-generation tanker.
The FY 2011 budget ends production of the C-17, supports
shutdown activities for production of new aircraft, and continues the
modification of existing C-17s. With the completion of the program, the United
States will have 223 of these aircraft, more than enough to meet current and
The FY 2011 budget reflects the department’s formulation of a
realistic, executable shipbuilding plan through the Future Years Defense Program
(FYDP). Overall, the FY 2011 budget includes $25.1 billion for FY 2011
procurement of new ships, equipment and research and development into future
construction – including $15.7 billion for Navy shipbuilding and conversion
activities. It reinforces the ongoing transition to a naval force that can meet
the needs of today’s warfighters and reduce reliance on very costly and
increasingly vulnerable large surface combatants in the future. The FY 2011
request and planned out-year funding would allow the department to:
· Build a new aircraft carrier every five years;
· Shift large-deck amphibious ship production to a five-year build cycle to
maintain a long-term force structure of nine large-deck aviation ships to
support amphibious operations;
· Stabilize near-term production quantities for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
and the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) to support irregular warfare operations;
· Produce two attack submarines per year beginning in FY 2011 and continue
development of a new strategic deterrent submarine; and
· Build three Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ships – one ship per year in FY
2011, FY 2013, and FY 2015.
The FY 2011 budget advances restructuring of the Army’s
Future Combat Systems (FCS), principally through Brigade Combat Team (BCT)
modernization. The FY 2011 request for BCTs is $3.2 billion, mostly for research
The FY 2011 budget also supports the development of a new
ground-vehicle program to replace aging systems. The new program will take into
account the hard battlefield lessons of recent years, especially with respect to
threats posed by improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and will include a role
for the MRAP and M-ATV vehicles that have been so important in Afghanistan and
Just about all of our military forces – land, sea, and air –
now depend on digital communications and the satellites and data networks that
support them. The role of space and satellites has never been more crucial to
military operations – from GPS-guided munitions and navigation to missile
defense and communications. The FY 2011 budget continues to strengthen U.S.
capabilities in space, with $599 million allocated to procure Advanced Extremely
High Frequency (AEHF) satellites instead of the Transformational Satellite,
which was cancelled in the FY 2010 budget.
With cheap technology and minimal investment, adversaries operating in
cyberspace can potentially inflict serious damage on our command and control,
ISR, and precision strike capabilities. The FY 2011 budget continues to fund the
recruiting and training of new experts in cyber warfare begun in FY 2010, and
supports the stand up of a new U.S. Cyber Command.
The Department of Defense continues to pursue missile-defense
systems that can provide real capability as soon as possible while taking
maximum advantage of new technologies. In accordance with the 2010 Ballistic
Missile Defense Review, our goal is a missile-defense program that balances
capabilities and risks in order to deter aggression; project power and protect
U.S. and allied interests; and respond to warfighter requirements.
This year’s base budget request includes $9.9 billion total for missile defense
– almost $700 million more than last year, mostly for the Missile Defense Agency.
This includes funding for:
· Enhanced missile defenses for deployed forces, allies, and partners to defend
against regional threats – including THAAD battery ground components and
interceptors, as well as the conversion of additional Aegis ships.
· The “Phased Adaptive Approach” for missile defense: a flexible, scalable
system to respond to developing threats. This has particular applicability to
Europe, where the new approach allows us to adapt our systems more rapidly as
new threats develop and old ones recede. In the short-term, we will be able to
provide immediate coverage and protection by deploying current and proven
systems such as the Aegis and SM-3.
· A viable homeland defense against rogue threats – including ground-based
interceptors at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and Vandenberg AFB, California.
· Expansion of the flight-test program to test capabilities against medium,
intermediate, and long-range threats.
· Investments in break-through technologies to improve our ability to counter
threats during the boost phase while focusing on the most promising new
The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) being released in March will
outline the policy framework for achieving the president’s objectives to reduce
nuclear weapons with a long-term goal of elimination; and maintain a safe,
secure, and effective arsenal as long as these weapons exist. It will also
provide steps to strengthen deterrence while reducing the role of nuclear
weapons. While the NPR conclusions are still being developed, the president’s
budget requests for the Defense and Energy departments reflect several
priorities already established in our review:
· Funding to sustain a nuclear triad of ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers under
the New START Treaty; and
· Increased National Nuclear Security Administration funding for infrastructure,
warhead life extension, and science and technology.
Details of these and other elements of our nuclear posture
will be presented in the final NPR report in March.
In a world where arguably the most likely and lethal threats
will emanate from failed and fractured states, building the security capacity of
partners has emerged as a key capability – one that reduces the need for direct
U.S. military intervention, with all of its attendant political, financial, and
human costs. To provide more resources, predictability, and agility to this
important mission, the department will seek an increase in Global Train and
Equip authority in the FY 2011 budget to $500 million – authority that includes
coalition activities to support current operations.
President Obama is committed to ending unneeded and troubled
programs and achieving a better balance between capabilities needed to succeed
in current conflicts and capabilities needed to prepare for the conflicts we are
most likely to see in the future.
The FY 2011 budget request builds on the reforms of last year
by ending a number of un-needed or troubled programs:
· Next Generation Cruiser CG(X): Cancelled due to concerns about costs and
utility in future combat scenarios. Any resulting capability gap will be filled
by an enhanced Navy destroyer program.
· Navy Intelligence Aircraft EP(X): This Navy-planned EP-3 replacement was
cancelled because of cost and its redundancy with other technologies and systems.
· Third Generation Infrared Surveillance (3GIRS): This sensor system was
cancelled because there are better alternatives.
· The Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS): DIMHRS has
been in development for over 10 years and cost $500 million – with little to
show and limited prospects.
· Net Enabled Command and Control (NECC): This joint program has had cost
overruns and performance shortfalls.
One of the tougher decisions we faced during this budget
process was whether or not to formally add the alternate engine to the Joint
Strike Fighter program. It has been the position of this department since 2007
that adding a second JSF engine was unnecessary and too costly.
Over the past year, as part of our thorough review of the overall JSF program,
we took a fresh look to determine whether the second engine option had reached a
point in funding and development that supported a different conclusion. We
considered all aspects of this question and, in the end, concluded that the
facts and analysis simply do not support the case for adding an alternate engine
program. There are several rationales for this conclusion:
First, even after factoring in Congress’ additional funding, the engine would
still require a further investment of $2.5 billion over the next five years.
Second, the additional costs are not offset by potential savings generated
through competition. Even optimistic analytical models produce essentially a
Third, the solution to understandable concern over the performance of the Pratt
& Whitney program is not to spend yet more money to add a second engine. The
answer is to get the first engine on track. Further, the alternate engine
program is three to four years behind in development compared to the current
program, and there is no guarantee that a second program would not face the same
challenges as the current effort.
Fourth, split or shared buys of items, particularly from only two sources, do
not historically produce competitive behavior since both vendors are assured
some share of the purchase. Another reality is that the JSF is designed to
support a wide diversity of military customers, including the Navy, Marine
Corps, and overseas buyers, many of whom are unable or unwilling to purchase
from two engine manufacturers.
For all these reasons, we are firm in our view that the interests of the
taxpayers, our military, our partner nations, and the integrity of the JSF
program are best served by not pursuing a second engine.
I believe most proponents of this program are motivated by
the genuine belief that a second engine is the right thing to do. And I look
forward to engaging the Congress in this discussion and sharing with them our
facts and analysis. However, we have reached a critical point in this debate
where spending more money on a second engine for the JSF is unnecessary,
wasteful, and simply diverts precious modernization funds from other more
pressing priorities. Accordingly, should the Congress add more funds to continue
this unneeded program, I will strongly recommend that the president veto such
The FY 2011 request completes the C-17 program and begins
shutting down the production line. At present, we have 194 C-17s (plus 111 C-5s)
in our strategic airlift fleet. By the end of this fiscal year, the department
will have procured 223.
Three department studies completed over the past five years
have concluded that the U.S. military has more than enough strategic airlift
capacity, and that additional C-17s are not required. Some factors to consider:
· In 2004, the Air Force Fleet Viability board determined that the fleet of
C-5As – the oldest variant – will remain viable until at least 2025. The Air
Force and the manufacturer believe that the C-5 fleet will remain viable until
2040. And ongoing modernization and refurbishment efforts are intended to
increase the reliability, availability, and maintainability of the C-5 fleet;
· Despite the demands of the current military campaigns, the existing C-17 fleet
is not being “burned up.” With the exception of 2003 – when there were only 111
aircraft in the fleet that were being surged to begin the Iraq war – the annual
use of the C-17 inventory has been within program limits; and
· While it is true that the C-17 can land places where the C-5 cannot, of the
200,000 landings made by C-17s since 1997, less than 4 percent were in places
that were not accessible to the C-5.
In summary, for these and other reasons, the department has
concluded that the current C-17 is more than sufficient to meet the military’s
airlift needs. Should Congress add funds to continue this program, I will
strongly recommend a presidential veto.
The department is implementing initiatives that will increase
the numbers and capabilities of the acquisition workforce, improve funding
stability, enhance the source-selection process, and improve contract execution.
Our intent is to provide the warfighter with world-class capability while being
good stewards of taxpayer dollars.
To operate effectively, the acquisition system must be
supported by an appropriately-sized cadre of acquisition professionals with the
right skills and training to perform their jobs. To address these personnel
deficiencies, DoD will increase the number of acquisition personnel by 20,000
positions – from about 127,000 in FY 2010 to about 147,000 by FY 2015. We will
be making significant increases in training and retention programs in order to
bolster the capability and size of the acquisition workforce.
The FY 2011 budget funds a pay raise of 1.4 percent for DoD
civilians – the same as the military pay raise. The request includes funding to
transition out of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) – as directed by
the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act.
About 225,000 DoD employees are covered by NSPS. These
employees must convert to a successor statutory personnel system. The FY 2011
budget includes $23 million to implement NSPS transition and $239 million for
estimated higher civilian pay for employees transitioning out of NSPS.
The request supports the DoD plan, announced last year, to grow its civilian
workforce by in-sourcing – replacing contractors with DoD civilian employees.
DoD is on track to reduce the number of support service contractors from the
current 39 percent of our workforce to the pre-2001 level of 26 percent, and
replace them with fulltime government employees. DoD will hire as many as 13,400
new civil servants in FY 2010, and another 6,000 in FY 2011, to replace
contractors and up to 33,400 new civil servants in place of contractors over the
next five years. This includes 2,500 acquisition personnel in FY 2010 and 10,000
through FY 2014.
As the president stated, the goal of the United States in
Afghanistan and Pakistan is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda and to
prevent its resurgence in both countries. The international military effort to
stabilize Afghanistan is necessary to achieve this overarching goal. Rolling
back the Taliban is now necessary, even if not sufficient, to the ultimate
defeat of Al Qaeda and its affiliates operating along the Afghanistan-Pakistan
border. I believe the strategy announced by the president represents our best
opportunity to achieve our objectives in a part of the world so critical to
The FY 2010 supplemental requests $33.0 billion to support
the president’s buildup of U.S. troops in Afghanistan for the rest of this
fiscal year and fund other related requirements, including $1 billion for Iraqi
security forces. The Department of Defense urges the Congress to approve this
Supplemental by the spring to prevent disruption of funding for our troops in
The FY 2010 Supplemental includes $19.0 billion to support an
average troop level in Afghanistan of 84,000 U.S. troops – 16,000 higher than
the 68,000 assumed in the enacted FY 2010 budget. Troop levels are expected to
reach 98,000 by September 30, 2010. The additional troops will consist of:
· Two Army counterinsurgency Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs);
· An Army Training BCT;
· A USMC Regimental Combat Team (RCT); and
· Enablers such as Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams.
The supplemental also includes $1.1 billion – on top of the
$11.3 billion already enacted – to field and sustain critically important
lifesaving MRAPs and M-ATVs for troops already there and for the additional
forces being deployed this fiscal year.
To fund military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in FY
2011, we are requesting $159.3 billion, comprised of these major categories:
· Operations ($89.4 billion): Incremental pay for deployed troops, subsistence,
cost of mobilizing Reserve Component personnel, and temporary wartime end-strength
· Force Protection ($12.0 billion): Body armor, protection equipment, and
armored vehicles to protect forces – including the rapid deployment and
sustainment of MRAPs and M-ATVs.
· IED Defeat ($3.3 billion): To develop, procure, and field measures to defeat
improvised explosive devices threatening U.S. and coalition forces.
· Military Intelligence ($7.0 billion): To enhance U.S. intelligence
capabilities and operations including ISR.
· Afghan Security Forces ($11.6 billion): To build and support military and
police forces capable of conducting independent operations and providing for
Afghanistan’s long-term security.
· Iraqi Security Forces ($2.0 billion): To continue building and sustaining
Iraq’s efforts to defend its people and protect its institutions as the U.S.
removes troops by the end of 2011.
· Coalition Support ($2.0 billion): Reimbursements and logistical sustainment
for key cooperating nations supporting U.S. military operations.
· Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP) ($1.3 billion): To provide
flexible funds for commanders in the field to finance urgent humanitarian and
· Reconstitution/Reset ($21.3 billion): To fund the replenishment, replacement,
and repair of equipment and munitions that have been consumed, destroyed, or
damaged due to ongoing combat operations. This request includes funding to
procure one Joint Strike Fighter aircraft to replace the combat loss of an F-15.
· Military Construction ($1.2 billion): To expand the logistical backbone and
operational foundation for our fighting forces.
· Temporary Military End Strength ($2.6 billion): To support temporary end-strength
increases in the Army and Navy for ongoing military operations.
· Non-DoD Classified Programs ($5.6 billion): To fund non-DoD classified
activities that support ongoing military operations – the president’s counter-terrorism
strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq.
This request supports the president’s goal of a responsible
drawdown of U.S. forces and transfer to full Iraqi responsibility and control.
Troop levels in Iraq are projected to decrease to 50,000 by August 31, 2010.
Further reductions will occur in accordance with the U.S.-Iraq Security
Agreement. The projected forces levels would be:
· Six Advisory and Assistance Brigades (AABs) by August 31, 2010.
· Six AABs for the first part of FY 2011, decreasing to approximately four AABs
(approximately 35,000 personnel) in Iraq by the end of FY 2011.
Mr. Chairman, my thanks to you and members of this committee
for all that you have done to support our troops and their families. I believe
the choices made and priorities set in these budget requests reflect America’s
commitment to see that our forces have the tools they need to prevail in the
wars we are in while making the investments necessary to prepare for threats on
or beyond the horizon.