tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN February 1, 2010 12:00pm-5:00pm EST
minority leader are saying that the pentagon should be included in the spending freeze, and there is a great deal of waste in contacting. why is defense off the table? >> first, defense is not off the table in terms of fiscal constraint. but in terms of inclusion in the freeze, we are at war in a to adequately fund our troops while we are at war. .
we could do a better job by cancelling those programs. we will be pursuing those kinds oval proficiencies in the defense budget, meanwhile, making sure our troops in the field are adequately funded. cbi>> and does the decision noto go to the moon not send a message to our rivals that we have given up? >> not at all. let me be clear about what is happening at nasa, the consolation program which is over budget and behind schedule 8%'!öuro+wiçz done, whs returning man or woman to the moon. we believe in the future of space flight and that nasa can spike -- can inspire americans to decide to begin vances' -- scientific advances.
development and find those new technologies that will i actually allow us to go further in space and not just repeat what we have already done, especially for a program that is behind schedule and over budget. [> your past life, and your institution certainly was involved in that, and he called for looking at two sacred cows, mortgage rate deduction and health care, some of that is addressed in the health care bill. but looking forward as you start this bipartisan process, is >> izod said before, we put before you -- we put together the budgets we were looking at and we have to respect the work of the commission and let it do its work. that is what we intend to do.
fiscal commission, while pleased that you are going in that direction, would like to see more from the)sw administrationd -- and then just tough talk about choices that will be necessary. it was there any consideration when you put the boating -- the budget together paying for some of the policies of the bush tax cuts or not permanently extending them? trillion in this budget and a lot of painful choices have been put on the table and we have already discussed some of them. is more necessary? sure, but to get the medium deficit -- the median deficit down to where imrick is required óbwñióñiñifâ3mds4ixo/ñrn process and that is -- to where it needs to be, it requires a
bipartisan process and that is what we're doing. >> the reduction that was proposed last year for this year, 2011, it seemed like there 3izy"e"i6r/1ñ8e[']ni%v6i+y in a slow mortgage market. are you confident you can get enough support in congress for that? it seems like it is one of the sacred cows we have been talking about. >> we're proposing to limit itemized deductions forym(5sl#7% -- top 5% of taxpayers back to when ronald reagan was in president -- was president. and there's a lot about what can it and acted and what cannot. i would just returned to the point that last year, many ñ5/rw5kçó that we would succeed in getting a lot oftionand deductions that we put forward
at that point. we are one to fight for them because we need additional job creation out and significant debt reduction in our ears. that is the plan that the president has put forward and it economy as a whole. >> [inaudible] >> they drink lots of conversations on capitol hill, not surprisingly. -- they were in a lot of conversations on capitol hill, not surprisingly. >> an hour ago, the president ççskoowr!ññtñbód; nation at wa. can you give us a sense of the budget for that this year and the cuts that the president spoke about? >> even war spending is subjected to the same scrutiny that the base budget and other fiscal spending is. $160 billion for the wars in iraq and afghanistan.
that is roughly level for the ball in cost for 2010. -- for the all-in costs for 2010. about turning the.q@l tap off ia gradual way so as not to kick the legs out from recovery? >> as i mentioned, we face two substantial challenges. more than 7 million lost jobs since december 2007 and a fiscal deficit with large out your deficits, 5% even after the we need to get the deficits down in the future so we do not joke of economic activity and job creation. but we want to make sure we do not do that too quickly or we will repeat the mistakes of 1937. remember what happened then, when the economy was beginning ñi57?/md
to consolidate the debt to57?/md quickly ended through the economy back into recession. we do not want to do that. we are seeking a really -- a fairly smooth out the puts us in ñ[yç) why we are creating a fiscal commission, but we do not want to act too rapidly to bring down the deficit because that would activate -- exasperate the jobs deficit. we are trying to find this -- deficit. we're trying to find a smooth glide path. >> the president on friday said he has read paul ryan's budget proposal. i'm assuming you have read it and wanted to know if that's the
think is the plan, in your words, for the vision and your way forward? >> let me answer that first. one of the reasons we are creating a fiscal commission is to get the deficit over the has been stable debt to gdpsooqj ratio. it would also be reflected in a balanced budget excluding interest payments on the debt. i would note, however, that for right now in 2010, private borrowing has collapsed. security, soap the tenure of interest-rate remains below 4% -- so, the tenet here interest rate remains below 4%. that is exactly what should have
borrowing picks up, you want to make sure that you're getting ahead of the fiscal deficit program -- problem so that you're not crowding our productivity. with regard to representative ryan, i have a lot of respect for mr. ryan and i have read the plan he put forward. ñrit ist for a moment because it provides a contrast. his plan succeeds in addressing our long-term fiscal problems, which is a significant accomplishment. but let's examine how he does that. he takes the medicare progérñ turns it into a voucher program so that individuals are on their own in the health-care market and it does -- and the doctor does not keep pace with health care costs over time. if it is not surprising that if you shift dramatically both in terms of risk and expected cost,
you can reduce the projected cost. you reduces individual accounts -- he reduces individual accounts into private security. he changes the tax code that would provide large tax burdens ships it to lower income. it is worthy of pausing. he has put forward an interesting plan. there are many aspects that are worthy of further discussion and debate, but it is a dramatically different approach in which much ]jm> the president was supposed to receive tax reform recommendations in december and that was delayed indefinitely. is there a possibility that could be foldedl wlxlgue]lxco-ve
commission's fiscal review, or is it on the back burner? >> i would imagine it would be folded into the fiscal commission. the commission will be examining a variety of things, including tax reform. >> [inaudible] a dollar value for the improvement in the economy and how that will affect the deficit. from 10% to 5%, do you have a dollar figure for that? !÷ñc but to repeat, economic recovery moves the fiscal deficit from 10% of the economy to 5% of the economy. to scale it for the sake of argument, the economy is roughly $15 jillian, so the deficit would be about $750 billion.
the labour force. some jobs will be treated and some -- some jobs will be created and some will be saved. >> i do not have a seventh projections. we could perhaps get back to you on the underlying assumptions. ]cnktkrv&-ykw)-ioóo]mq>>ñqñjçña prominent woman scared, the department of veterans affairs, for example, will be areas that will be affected. "6 point, of any of mr. sikes is efforts to improve management within the federal government. and if not, when would you hope to start to see the results of his efforts in performance
the work of jeff science, who is the nation's first performance of chief officer and director of management at omb, in a variety of ways. there are huge improvements that can be made and are beingi÷ñ5doe in the management of those i.t. investments, including, for example, the i.t. dashboard where you can go online, click on individual i.t. projects and see you there are behind schedule or not. it is already leading the department of veterans affairs, it led them to exit -- to cancel some i.t. projects that were n another example, i already mentioned our acquisition work force in contracting. it is another thing that the ½8z has been working on lot on. 9].a federal personnel and hir, that team is working with the office of personnel management to streamline the hiring process and often -- and also
provide ways for people to check on line to see what is happening. tarting to see areas where the improvements have begun. with that, if you have questions or for additional details, those are available on .. ból%wmmóñççsjñrzr)sñ]5ç.gov. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] mdñ house budget director peter orszag on the fiscal year 2011 budget proposal. president obama's proposal he talked about that when he presented the proposal this morning at the white house.
sk m%çóñ >> good morning, everybody. this morning i sent a budget to congress for the coming year. !w31/3ud?]i÷b the serious challenges facing the country. but we are at war. our economy has lost 7 million jobs in the past two years and our government is deeply in debt after what can only be described of. 10 years ago we had a budget vñ+c-/zi1 +ñr 2 1/3 billion dollars with projected surpluses stretching out toward the horizon. -- of more than $200 billion with projected surpluses are
edging up toward the horizon. congress has crated and expensive new drug program, passed massive tax cuts for thes without paying for any of it. as a result, when i first walked through the door, the deficit stood at $1.3 trillion with projected deficits of $8 trillion in the next decade. if we had taken office during immediately. but one year ago, our country was in crisis. we were looting -- losing nearly 700,000 jobs each month, the economy was in a free-fall and the financial system was near collapse. many feared another great depression. so, we initiated;4akdak)ññme6[vd that was not without significant costs. it added to the deficit as well. one year later because of the steps we have taken, we are in a very different place.
we have gone through every department is spending line by line, item by item, looking for inefficiency, duplication, and programs that have outlived their usefulness. that isçó how we freeze discretionary spending. last year, we found $17 billion in cuts. this year we have already found $20 billion. some of these cuts are just common sense. for example, we cut $150 million from a program that pays states to clean up mines that have already been cleaned up. we are also cutting a forest service economic development program that strayed so far from its mission that it funded if music festival. and we are stopping $20,000 for refreshment of the department of energy science center that the department of energy does not want it to ferber's. the goals of the underlying programs are worthy.
we eliminate one program that provides grants to do cleanup of abandoned buildings. that is a mission that i support, but there are other public funds and private funds to achieve it. we also eliminated a $120 million program that allows folks to get their earned income tax credit in advance. i am a big supporter of the earned income tax credit. the problem is that 8% of people who got this advanced did not -- did not comply with one or more requirements of the program. i'm willing to reduce waste in programs i care about. i am asking congress to do the same. i'm asking republicans and democrats alike to take a fresh look at programs they support in the past to see what is working and trim back accordingly. like any business, we are also looking for ways to get more bang for our buck by promoting innovation and cutting red tape. to for example, we consolidate 38 separate educational programs
into 11, and the last fall we launched the state awards to solicit ideasxd from federal employees about how to make government more efficient and effective. i'm proud to say that a number of these ideas, like allowing social security appointments to be made online, made it into our budget. i also want to know even though the department of defense is exempt from the budget freeze, it is not exempt from budget common sense. it isñr not exempt from looking for savings. we save money by eliminating unnecessary defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe. one example is the $2.5 billion we are spending too build a c-17 transport. the department of defense decided to cease production because it had acquired the number requested, 180. yet every sphere -- every your sense congress has provided
funding for more seat-17 that -- more c-17's and it is wasteful. we are reforming the way contracts are awarded to save taxpayers billions of dollars and while we extend middle-class tax cut in this budget, we will not continue caught -- costly tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund manager -- investment fund managers and those making over $250,000 a year. we just cannot afford it. finally, changing requires changing politics as usual. that is why i have proposed a bipartisan fiscal commission, a panel of democrats and republicans, who would hammer out deficit proposals over the medium and long term, but would come up with those answers by a certain deadline. i should point out, by the way, that is an idea that had strong bipartisan support and was
originally introduced by senators greg on the republican side and conrad on the democrat side. it had a lot of republican co- sponsors to the idea. i hope the -- that despite the fact that it got voted down in the senate, that both the republican leader mitch mcconnell and and the republican leader in the house, john vader, can fully embrace what has been a bipartisan idea to get our arms around this budget. that is also why we are restored in pay as you go, a simple rule that says congress cannot spend a dime without cutting a dime elsewhere. this will help lead to the budget surpluses of the 1990's and is one of the most important steps we can take to restore fiscal discipline in washington. you can read more about the budget at budget.gov. but the bottom line is this, we
simply cannot continue to spend as of deficits do not have consequences, as if waste does not matter, as if the order and tax dollars of the american people can be treated like monopoly money, as if we can ignore the challenge for another generation. we cannot. in order to meet this challenge, i welcome any idea from democrats and republicans. what i will not welcome, what i reject is the same grandstanding when the cameras are on and the same irresponsible budget policies when the cameras are off. it is time to washington to the same standards families and businesses hold themselves. it is time to save what we can, spend what we must, and live within our means once again. thanks very much. >> the new budget proposal freezes spending for a large number of programs and put more
money into energy and infrastructure. more specifically, it would mean a three-year freeze on programs not including the military or home and security. an influx of $100 billion to support job creation in the middle class and promotion of energy and infrastructure projects. you can read the proposal overview on our website c- span.org. later we plan to have the complete -- complete proposal available. we continue with our day-long focus on the budget proposal. soon, the pentagon will talk about their share of the $1 -- of the $1.3 trillion proposal. the defense department will begin live at 1:00 p.m. eastern. the state department will also budget -- brief budget numbers. that will be on our companion network at 1:00 p.m. as well on
c-span3. >> for the first time in its history, the sec has an in-house scholar and resident to offer policy issues. t)up& spectrum to provide for broadband expansion. >> and a discussion now on top of a obesity from today's lou.hington journal" host: dr. jo thompson is the head of the center for drove of obesity in the night -- in the united states. will be taking your calls particularly about child obesity. if there were one personal habits, policy, or public law
that you could change that would have the most direct impact on travel and obesity what would it be? guest: this is one of the biggest challenges we are going to face because there is not a single action. over the past 30 years, the environment in which our kids go to school and live and learn and play each day has changed so that the calories they take in are far greater than the calories they burn off. we have seen a tripling in the obesity rate of our kids. we're about to take policy action at the local and state and federal level. host: some statistics among children aged 2 to 5, the prevalence of obesity increased.
also, one of seven low-income children is obese, but the obesity epidemic is stabilizing. should that not be seen as good news? guest: 1 in three kids is either applebees or overweight and one out of every two adults -- is either obese or overweight and one out of every two adults. we have got to reverse that or the health care costs and the damage to our communities and families is going to be a poor future. some suggest that this could be the first generation of children that cannot live as long as their parents so because of the diabetes and heart disease and hypertension that will be caused. host: the numbers are on your
screen. a lot of these statistics over the course of 25 years. what is the biggest reason for this increase in obesity? guest: this morning, 12 million families will wake up and send their kids to preschool and another 35 million will send their kids to school. the school environment, the lack of recess and physical activity, the inability of kids to walk and bicycle to a school like they used to do. when they come home, parents will let them go to play at the parks and burn off of the food they ate, so they sit. we have too many cows reason and not enough calories out and we see the manifestation in the obesity rates of our kids. host: michelle obama last week announcing initiatives to take on the issue. let me show you what she had to say.
>> as we have seen, the obesity rate in this country is nothing short of a public health crisis and is threatening our children. it is threatening our families and, more importantly, it is threatening the future of this natio@@@@@@@ it is affecting chronic illnesses by cancer and heart disease and diabetes. even though a small percentage have type ii diabetes, of those that do, three-quarters of them are obese. our children are trucked to be less healthy than we are. and there has never been a generation of young people who are on track to be healthier than their parents -- or, less healthy than their parents. host: the atlanta journal constitution reported that she
said her crusade against drugs of obesity began on a personal level after repute -- her pediatrician warned her that her two daughters were -- her two daughters' body mass index was getting out of balance. she started cutting back on certain foods. guest: every parent should know there body mass index so they can help attract children that are becoming at risk. we have instituted that in our schools. host: in arkansas? guest: yes, and across the nation is being implemented. it is critically important for parents to know. but also, we have to change the environment in which kids live every day. if the first lady is having to change things she is doing in
her arousal, many people need to be aware of what they can do to change things in their households. host: democratic line for dr. dobson. caller: i was wondering what the relationship is between -- when you first recording about this -- the importing corn syrup in our fruits and having all these kids eat it. everything you pick up now as corn syrup in it and i do not think that is good. i think we need to go back to plame sugars or whatever. guest: this is one of the important policy changes that will be faced with in this decade. 35 years ago we started a school breakfast and lunch program because we had hungry kids and we also serve the farm subsidy program because needed to stabilize our farm production. 35 years that we do have a preponderance of corn based products in the system. we need to take the school
breakfast and lunch programs and reshape what we are feeding our kids to draw on fruits and vegetables to be locally produced to balance the diet they are getting. host: and part of the reason you're here in washington this week is to try to move these policy changes forward in washington, correct? guest: we are trying to build a movement. i think there is a movement nationwide. local communities are looking at local farm to school programs. states are looking at what they can do to make changes to require physical activity. host: locally, what is the best program you have seen to deal with the issue guest: we have seen all communities take on their nutritional aspects of their guests -- cafeterias. some of our schools have done taste tests to see what friedan vegetables the kids like so they are not wasting resources. the other thing they're trying to make sure is that vending machines are closed during the
lunch time frame. and finally, some of the changes in the communities where we are reconnecting with parks and the play space so the kids can get outside and enjoy playing. host: paul, in greenwood, good morning. caller: and is wondering if that might be a reason why -- because when people get overweighed they are not as productive, energetic. that may be a reason why jobs are leaving going to other countries. if you and have people overweight, they will not be as energetic and as good a producer as they used to be. guest: in arkansas, we actually looked at our state employees to see how many were obese and how many were physically inactive. we found that their health-care
costs are higher, their productivity -- levels are lower, and we have concentrated our resources to make changes. host: missouri, good morning. caller: i've been concerned about the children of the boomer generation for some time. they do not seem to have the same work ethic that their parents had. i have lived here for 15 years and in that time when to college and high-school year. i have yet to have any young child or young person knock on my door and asked if i need more -- and need my snow shovel or the walks cleaned. it is just different than it once was. host: that goes back to a
previous caller talking about economically. guest: and i think a lot of parents are afraid to let their kids go out and walk the streets and knock and doors to do these jobs they used to do. i think that we need to work on safety insecurities about our kids can get out and be active once again. annapolis junction in maryland, good morning to go on the democrats line. caller: i believe the lady earlier that until we are able to get corporate money out of our election cycles -- because
they're the ones being paid to elect our elected officials and they have undue access. we do not have any way of combating obesity because of the food industry's control over elected officials, or water or air or energy, schools, we do not have any control over that. especially since the supreme court's ruling last week giving unfettered access -- unfettered control of our elections to corporations. guest: let me say on the health size at -- the health aside as opposed to the legal side of the supreme court, but i do not think any corporation would intentionally cause this obesity epidemic with our children. but it is open for corporations
to step forward and help us solve this issue. whether it is the soft drink industry or the article drew industry, we got to come together if we want to save our children. host: it may be tough in a tougher economic times for folks to buy food. i will play michelle obama's comments. >> in some cases it is access. parents have told me and i have seen it myself, they would love nothing more than to keep -- to feed their kids healthy foods, but if you do not live anywhere near a place that sells fresh produce, it is very hard to accomplish that goal in other cases, the issue is just convenience. you know, at the end of a long day, and more and more families are experiencing these long days with two parents working and busy schedules. you just, and retired in you pick up the phone and you order a pizza or you go to the
dresser. it is just easier. our modern-day life makes it very difficult for us to sit down and prepare the meal. and a lot of times it is affordability in these tough economic times. buying of the foods unfortunately, feels like a luxury for too many families. host: should talk about three things there, access, convenience, and affordability. guest: we have a real issue with food supply in our nation. we have the urban are green and the rural areas were the only place to get food is at the gas station. if firm in philadelphia has tried to help solve this by bringing a grocery companies back into places where there were no access point for fresh fruit and vegetables. we're expecting families to feed their kids out here, we have to make sure they have available at affordable food and not just what is at the local
gas station. host: erica on the independent line, go ahead. caller: i have two comments. one might take a position as a 43-year-old man who is uninsured in this country, verses my 73- year-old father gruba has been ill for years, but still healthy. i do not think the issue is just obesity, but the overall lack of health care. our jobs do not offer the same thing that my father's generation offered. another thing is that as a pizza shop owner, i cannot believe we are not talking more about cards as opposed to just corn syrup. guest: what we have seen as far as the cost data show from our
program with our kids and state employees, no matter what the fix is for health reform provide if we do not solve this obesity risk, it will sink the boat overturned. back to the carbohydrate question, there is no question that the total number of calories that kids are consuming is much more than they are burning off. the clear challenge is to get that balance back in place. you can have a piece and a set of french fries and a code -- and a coke, but you've got to have a balance. you cannot have those everyday and at most meals. host: michigan, richard on the republican line. caller: i want to address the issue of schools requiring physical fitness. i think i was among one of the last generations that the school
action required a passing grade in jim. -- in gym. i know a lot of parents were unhappy with their kids failing school. you have these bright, intelligent kid and they were not passing the muster on physical education. guest: this is another area where the policy change can make a difference. we have lost physical education and in some schools, even recess. we think that if we will demming clause longer they will learn more. i think we have evidence in the pipeline that says that a healthy, active child is better -- will learn better than an overweight child. but there is pressure on whether we have the academic solely or academics and health in our school system. host: would have the public
schools down for the physical education? guest: at one time we had 30 minutes required for every student, k through 12th grade. but we lost that overt pressure on new drug left behind ed decker the banks test scores. -- arnot no child left behind and academic test scores. host: is obesity the biggest medical issue in your state? guest: is next to some comments about health insurance and access that are key issues every day. we have new no, -- new evidence nationwide that obesity may become a more damaging health risk than tobacco in the coming decades. in the institute of medicine the right that the prevalence of obesity is so high that it may reduce the life expectancy of children, to manage the overall .
rochester, new york, on the line for bud. caller: -- caller: could you give a little bit more on how high fructose corn syrup was approved by the fda? and secondly, now that we know more about its metabolism, is there a chance to review it and start to restrict it legally? guest: i think we are increasingly understanding about what our food supply does and how it impacts us. just to go back, the u.s. department of agriculture runs two important farming programs. one is the farm subsidies and production of other crops, and the other is the school lunch and breakfast programs as well
as the supplemental nutritious -- and nutrition programs. these work hand-in-hand. they are frequently the source of the foods that we put into our school and our nutritional programs. we have got to reexamine that and those reports that you mention that have clinical recommendations and guidelines for caloric intake are incorporated into our federal programs that affect the subsidies that we spend money on and a lunch and breakfast and nutrition program that we pay for. programs. -- into our lunch programs. caller: in eastern europe, we all agree that the cost of obesity really about $1.5 trillion. everything goes to the food we eat.
we cannot wait 10 years to change the policy. the joke -- the policy needs to be changed immediately. my mother was in school and poland during socialism and she was able to buy fresh apples, fresh potatoes. besides the exercise and nutrition, the immune system [unintelligible] but today in america, it is exposed to all of those products. they go to 711 and drink the soda and the body cannot digest this. as a result of this, we have obesity. guest: one of the big changes in this movement will be development of vending corp. of locally grown fruits into our
food supply. we have lost that in the last few decades where they usually come from farms in california, texas or florida. we need to expand that to, which will expand jobs for the local economy. and i think it helps provide an economic stimulus for the local economy that will be well received and beneficial to our health goals. host: back to this chart, the rise of obesity amongst over from 1971 to 2006. of all the policy changes, plans more personal activity changes, how fast realistically can we expect these numbers to start coming down? guest: there robert wood johnson foundation committed four years ago half a billion dollars to this effort, which is what our senators trying to coordinate. i think in five years we should be able to demonstrate a reversal in the epidemic.
if we make the right policy changes at the state and local level, we will see that lower level. it affects low-income communities and communities of color more. we may have to make additional investments in to those communities. caller: thank you, dr. thompson so much for bringing this to the public's attention. i agree with you 100%. i think children learn their eating habits from adults and you are right -- and that we really need to increase the healthy eating habits -- you know, class is in our high schools and elementary schools, but we need to have them for adults also. the four biggest killers of americans are heart attacks, cancer, stroke, and diabetes.
they're all diet related. and a much processed fruits and heavy meats. this is something president obama could really take the lead on and maybe both republicans and democrats could cooperate on this and maybe we could save billions on the health care bill. start with the adults and children. thank you so much. guest: 01 to thank the caller for the comments and commendations. i would also like to challenge every employer across your viewership. see what you are selling to your employees and if they are not healthy snacks or healthy drinks, ask the vending company to change those. we have not played -- paid attention ito the environment that we are in every day and i think some small changes could
benefit the nation. host: there is a published report on food marketed to children. guest: let's face it, our bodies are fine-tuned and prepared to take cauvery's on and get ready for the next ice age. -- take calories' on and get ready for the next ice age. we really have not realised how influential that can be our children. some evidence shows that kids do not differentiate the commercial from the cartoon of until age
10, and yet we have commercials that market different food products. this is where the corporate sector could work -- could step up and help save for their children. host: mitchell, democratic collar. caller: i gather you grow up in the age where when sputnik was launched, there was a reversal of the system of how kids should progress. meaning that we had a system that was working. physical education was working. there were kids in the south that were far exceeding the health progress, meaning they became athletes, they were getting what they needed. but then what happened was there was a reversal to focus on that and science when the russians
exceeded us with the sputnik. so, we cut out programs, all of the fiscal education, our requirements for the kids and we made them sit in the cluster men did not let them remain out in the fields for fiscal education. a lot of us who grew up in this era of segregation knew what actually happened and therefore, we're coming back like a hawk mentality. we come back to roost and should have kept all along those of the patterns. we have a healthy of leads that have proven there was a problem. guest: i want to emphasize is a balance. we have got to reestablish our gods. we of lost our eye on the ball and to help the kids coming out
of the education system. parents want an educated, healthy child out of the plan that our students -- summerstage parents provide. host: in general, d.c. kids in your practice? guest: i see as many kids at probably out the back door as i do in my clinic. it is a problem and parents have to be increasingly aware, because it is a threat to their children. host: when did your radar start to go up on this? guest: in arkansas, we raised a summit in 2002 because we recognize it when you went to the mall, the baseball park, when you go to the schools. we recognize there had been a shift. in 2003 we started making the changes in schools and communities.
host: and your colleague, the u.s. surgeon general benjamin spoke about of last week outlining the need for a healthy and fit nation. here is where she had to say. >> for years we have been encouraging americans to eat more nutritious wheat, exercise regularly, and maintain healthy lifestyles. but for these things to happen, americans need to live and to work in environments that support their efforts. there is growing consensus that we as a nation need to create communities and in garments were as you ever come about the choices are the easy choices. my vision for a healthy and fit nation is an attempt to change the national conversation from a - 1 about obesity and illness to a positive conversation about being healthy and being fit. host: she talked about changing the conversation from obesity to
changing to a healthy and fit nation. specifically on policies, what is the most important policy that could be adopted by the federal government to address the issue? guest: i think dr. benjamin is going to be great and aita want to highlight something. -- and i want to highlight something. we ought to make the healthy choice be the easiest choice. right now that is not true. the k-12 organization could put p back in school. the transportation bill has 3% of its moneys that are guaranteed not to go for highways. we could spend that in the environment around schools of the kids can walk and by crown -- bike to school. these could come out of existing laws. host: for parents who do not want their kids going off to the neighborhood park because they're concerned about what is going on, how do we change that?
guest: here is an easy, low-cost solution. when gas prices go through the roof and local police department after figure out how to cut the time they are running, have them stop every 50 minutes they are out and the park will become safe and it will be a place for the kids can come back and the reintegrate our security with our communities and reiterates the safety of families. host: let's go to john on the independent line. caller: i just wanted to mention two great documentaries on food and nutrition and they are, a of a group food inc." -- they are "food inc." and "medic cowboy." those changed my life. host: what is the biggest change in your diet? caller: i cut out gary
completely, and that was the first thing. i kno@@@ @ m ds @ it is just a for to go vegetables and fruit, nuts and berries, and you know, eat a little bit more naturally. host: but kids have specific nutritional needs that have to be addressed. he said he gave up gary. guest: a good example, the -- he said he gave up dairy. guest: example is the women and infants program. for decades, that program provided whole milk, which was too caloric leverage and to fat laden -- to calorically rich and fat laden. indianapolis host:, paul, on the
republican line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a quick question for the doctor. wouldn't it be better for our schools to stop offering the alternative quick food lines like hamburgers and french fries? food lines like we have with the embers and french fries? you cannot expect children to make wise choices, even through high school. wouldn't it be better if we simply did not allow the kind of food in the schools? secondly, vegetables and fruits that are harvested -- that are harvested and then frozen and processed within eight hours are actually a healthier than those that were harvested a week ago and still on the farmer's market shelf. guest: the fresher the fruits and vegetables, the better they will be for those who consume them. the breakfast and lunch program governs only what is in the cafeterias right now.
would the hallway or sold anywhere else on campus is not governed by the federal school lunch program. what we need is to make sure that the same standard that the institute of medicine calls for in the cafeterias and is applied across the schoolyard, throughout all of the school buildings to make sure that kids are getting all the options, regardless of where they come from. they are held to the same standard. host: let's go to cindy in michigan. caller: i am happy to speak with you. this is a big issue for me. when i was a young child until about five or six when i started to grade school, i would say my appetite was normal. i do not remember ever binging or having problems. once i started school, my mother started working and i was home by myself pretty much unsupervised. a lot of the problem i see the
children -- and i did have an obesity problem as an adult and i see a lot of it now as out of context eating. eating when we are not hungry, eating what we do not even know what our appetite feels like. in context eating would be with the family at mealtime or having a sandwich at lunch or when you're actually hungry. the whole conversation hearing from different callers ca
>> after my opening statement, and the germans, and our questions, you will hear from the undersecretary of defense for policy who will discuss the qdr and the mdr in more depth. then, our controller will provide more detail on the budget request. the three requests are requests fy 11 request of $548 billion. in overseas contingency request of $159.3 billion which will fund military operations in iraq
and afghanistan next year. the fiscal year this supplemental request of $33 billion which covers the additional estimated costs of the president's new strategy for afghanistan. to make sure we have the resources we need to support our troops and -- who are applying to the theater, i will ask congress to enact these supplements by spring. for the next few minutes, it like to place into context the base budget requests which reflects the institutional party and associated strategy reviews. last year, we began a process of reshaping america's defense establishment and reforming this department of priorities, procedures, and institutional culture. the objectives were to reconfirm the command to take care of our all volunteer force, rebalance the programs to institutionalize and enhance the ability to fight the wars we are in today, while providing a hedge against
future and present risks and contingencies, and reform will we buy, a fundamental overhaul to our acquisition and contracting. to those ends, the fiscal year 10 budget increased programs were directly support those fighting america's wars and their families. it created institutional home for the war fighter by shifting many of these programs into the base budget so they would acquire a bureaucratic constituency and steady long- term funding. the fiscal year 10 budget proposal cut curtailed or ended a number of programs either performing poorly or in excess of real world needs. these programs, had been pursued to completion, would have cost the american taxpayer approximately $330 billion. conversely, future-oriented programs for the u.s. was relatively under invested or accelerated or received more funding.
the fiscal year 11 requests builds on the reforms in last year's budget, changes brought in and deepened by the analysis and conclusions contained in the qdr. these budget and strategy reviews are in use with three things -- first as continued reform. fundamentally changing the way this department does business. the priorities we said, the programs we fund, the weapons we buy, and how we buy them. the budget and reviews are shaped by embracing those of realism. realism with regard to risk, realism with regard to resources. we have in a sober and clear eyed way, says stress, set priorities, made tradeoffs, and identified plausible, real world threats and scenarios and potential adversaries. for one example, for years, u.s. defense planning and requirements were based on
preparing to fight two major conventional wars at the same time. a for sizing constructs that persisted long after it was overtaken by events. the department leadership recognizes we must prepare for a broader range of security challenges on the horizon. they range from use of sophisticated new technologies to deny our forces access to the global common of sea, air, space and cyberspace to the threat posed by non-state groups developing more cunning and destructive means to an attack and terrorize. scenarios that transcend the familiar contingencies that dominated u.s. planning after the cold war. we have learned through painful experience that the wars we find ourselves in the wars we plan. as a result, the united states need a broad portfolio of military capabilities with maximum versatility of crossbow widest possible spectrum of conflict.
this strategic reality has shaped the analysis and subsequent conclusions which directly informed the program decisions contained in the budget. it concluded the u.s. military must balance resources and risks among four major objectives. first is to prevail in today's wars. the first time this objective has appeared in a qdr. achieving our objectives in afghanistan top of the program priorities. we recognize america is the abilities to deal with threats for years to come will depend importantly on our success in the current conflicts. this budget takes additional steps aimed at persistence shortfalls that plague the recent military efforts, especially in afghanistan. they include enhancing intelligence, surveillance, and intel -- and other capacity.
it includes an increase in the number of combat air patrols by the most it -- number of combat air patrols by the most advanced units and procuring more helicopters, around $9 billion worth of all kinds of aircraft and adding to army combat aviation brigades. growing special operations systems and personnel was nearly 2800 people added to the u.s. special operations command in fiscal year 2011. the second major objective is to prevent and deter conflict by better deterrent -- i'd better -- should the sale, by possessing superior military capabilities and means it will to use them -- should those sales. to prevent the conditions of arising leading to conflicts, we support diplomacy and development provided for in the president's budget request. in a world where arguably the most likely in full frets will
emanate from failed or fractured states, building the security and capacity of partners has emerged as a key capability for this department. when there 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 its mission, the department will seek an increase in the global train and equip authority in the fiscal year 11 budget. authority that has now been extended to coalition activities. that increase will be from three under $50 million to $500 million. furthermore, we will work with allies and partners to stem the materials and maintain a reliable and credible nuclear deterrent which will be laid out in the upcoming nuclear posture review. deterring potential adversaries requires us to prepare for a wide range of contingencies,
including the destructive high- tech capabilities being developed by other nations. to me to potential threats before our military's ability to project power, deter aggression, and come to the aid of allies and partners, the qdr places more focus on an investment in a new air, sea, battle concept, long-range strike capabilities, space and cyberspace. the budget requests include nearly $11 billion for the f-35 strike fighter and a strategy to stabilize costs and schedules and a bite of 43 aircraft and possibly more, depending on contractor performance. more than $25 billion to support a realistic, sustainable shipbuilding program. more than $3 billion to modernize grand -- modernize ground forces and modernizing forces quickly, including development of a new ground combat vehicle. nearly $10 billion to support the development of a flexible,
scalable, and adaptive missile defense system that works. better cost-effective and address the real and growing threat of the united states and our allies. $4 billion over the next five fiscal years for a number of long-range strike programs to include the development of a conventional global strike capability and the upgrade and modernization of the bomber fleet. our fourth major objective is to preserve and enhance the all- volunteer force. america's single greatest strategic asset. the programs like these that directly supports war fighters and families on the battlefield, at the hospital, or at home, we have continued to ship funding for more appropriations to the base budget. this will help insure these critical programs receive an institutional home and long-term support. recognizing the strain that post 9/11 wars have put on so many troops and their families, the department will spend more than $2 billion for one did
warrior initiatives with a special focus on the signature elements of current conflicts like posttraumatic stress disorder and dramatic brain injury. we will sustain health benefits and enlarge the pool of medical professionals. we will broaden electronic information sharing between the department of defense and veterans affairs for wanted warriors, making the transition out of military service. we will increase the time span between the planets for ground forces with a goal of achieving a blow to deploy a ratio of two- one for the active component and 5-14 guard and reserve. -- 5-1 four guard and reserve. finally, we will expand assistance counseling, child care and education to support military families. some $8.8 billion total in the base budget and overseas contingency operations request. to achieve these objectives, the
department must continue to reform the way it does business. from developing and buying major weapons programs to managing our workforce. building on the reforms and the fiscal year 10 budget, when a number of access or poorly performing programs were cancelled, it was proposed that there are additional steps reflected in the fiscal year 2011 budget. it includes terminating the navy aircraft, and the third generation navy program, they -- canceling the next generation cgx cruiser, trying the command- and-control program, integrating the defense human-resources system due to cost overruns and performance concerns, completing the see-17 program and closing the production line as multiple studies show the air force already has more of these aircraft that needs.
and ending the alternate engine for the f-35 joint strike fighter. whatever benefits might accrue or more than offset by excess costs, complexity, and associated risks. i am fully aware of the political pressure to continue building the c-17 and proceed with an alternate engine for the as-35. let me be clear. i will strongly recommend a president veto any legislation that sustains the necessary continuation of these two programs. reforming how and what we buy continues to be an urgent priority. as there qdr says, the state, the department, and nation can no longer have a quixotic pursuit and encourage acceptable costs and risks. no longer can the department have schists and maintain a program threat the life cycle. fundamentally changing these practices requires a full-time professionals with enough skills and training.
the department's budget plan includes an increase of more than 20,000 such positions to supervise or replace contractors by 2015. fundamentally reforming acquisitions above all calls on us to foster a culture and practice of accountability. accountability with regard to industry and within the walls of this building as well. this is especially important when dealing with the most costly and critically important programs. programs such as the f-35 joint strike fighter. as i mentioned earlier, we have restructured the f-35 program and agree it's on track to become the backbone of u.s. air superiority for the next generation. nonetheless, the progress and performance of the f-35 over the past two years has not been what it should. as a number of key goals and benchmarks were not met. as a result, i will withhold $640 million in performance fees from the lead contractor since
the tax payers should not have to bear the entire burden of getting the program back on track. this step is being taken agreement of the contractor and i appreciate their responsiveness to finding the best solution. accountability is not just about holding contractors responsible. the department of defense also bears responsibility for the troubling performance record. accordingly, i have directed a change in leadership of the joint strike fighter program. in addition, given the importance of this program to the future of military aviation, i am elevating the level of the program manager to that of a three-star officer. in summary, cumulative effect of this and last year's budget, along with the recommendation of the qdr is to make sure this department is doing everything we can and more to prevail in the wars we are in and while preparing our military to
convert the most likely a lethal threat to of the future. in closing, as i said last year, we must remember every defense dollar spent on a program access to real world military needs is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, when the wars we are in and improve capabilities in areas where we are under invested and potentially vulnerable. that's our is the president and i are not prepared to take. making these tough decisions and trade offs is especially important in a constrained budget environment we face today and almost certainly will face in the future. i would like to thank the members of the department, both military and civilian, along with our interagency and international partners for their hard work over the past year on these important documents. admiral. >> thank you, mr. secretary. good afternoon. let me state up front that the cheese and i fully support the president's 200010 budget -- to
death 11 budget submission and the 2007 quadrennial review and ballistic missile defense review. i would add we support and appreciate the process the process -- a point -- a process through which the secretary derided these documents. the process has been inclusive of all uniformed leadership and across all disciplines. every service chiefs and every come back and commander had a result in the hand you see before you and everyone shared by enthusiasm for the way ahead. the secretary as what you to the context in details of the budget and the qdr. i would like to only reiterate that the submissions represent the right balance of capabilities to deal with threats to our national security across a broad spectrum of potential military operations. i have said before, but we must be ready for challenges big and small near and far, for the wars we may need to fight in the future even as we when the sh50xt9!nbii applaud the sec'e
to fund the operations through the base budget and we're getting there. but because this year and next, we are looking as a measure of contingency funding, i would like to direct my attention to those specific allocations. in short, i'm confident that the fiscal year 2010 supplemental in the fiscal year 2011 overseas requests and provides trips we need to complete a responsible drawdown in iraq and execute the president's strategy in afghanistan and pakistan. by the end of this year, the remaining 10 combat brigades in iraq will be reduced to six advisory and this is brigades and all troops will be withdrawn by december, 2011. a key element of this transition is is to maintain of resources to outfit, train, and sustain iraqi security forces. while the government of iraq is funding a significant part of this effort, budget constraints and prices make reestablishing
security in iraq a priority. $1 billion in fiscal year 10 and $2 billion in fiscal year 11 will provide the general the resources he has requested to assist iraqis in establishing security structure to restore -- to support responsible drawdown and allows us to transition both to our civilians side as well as to the iraqi security forces. in afghanistan, likewise, the key is developing a common afghan security force. our requests make that reality. accelerating afghan police growth, and the structure, training, and equipment. as for our own and the structure and equipment, i'm delighted to see we have kept faith with the secretary's desire to place a premium on force protection by procuring and fielding more mrap vehicles. the fiscal year 10 budget calls for $10 million to complete the program. the fiscal year 11 request includes $3.4 billion to sustain
it. as we have seen first hand through eight years of war, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets are absolutely critical enablers to the war fighter. with this funding, we will increase the unmanned predator or its up to 65 while enhancing our ability to process, exploit, and disseminate information gathered by this game changing technology. commanders emergency response fund also is proving to be game changers in as much as they give troops more flexibility to truly make things happen for the local populace wherever we are. as one junior officer noted, in counterinsurgency fight, dollars are faster, more precise, and more impact all -- more impact fall. our quest for this year and next will devote more than a billion dollars to the program, the majority of which is to be spent in afghanistan. frankly, i would like to see even more flexibility in the
rules governing the use of these funds. what are accountability remains a must be treated but i have seen with my own eyes the huge difference it can make one is applied to the greatest need and with the greatest speed. our coalition support funding and powers are partners in building capacity. ultimately, it gives them the tools they need to help us all defeat common enemies around the world. these funds account for $2 billion of the fiscal year 11 request and could possibly be some of the most important expenditures we will make. let me close by conveying my continue thoughts and condolences to the people of haiti. at the request of the haitian government and in partnership with the united nations and the international community, we will continue to do all that is required to alleviate suffering there. as usa id and non-governmental organization progress -- programs of all, there will be, over time, less need for the u.s. military.
indeed, u.s. southern command is assessing and redeploying their assets accordingly. as you know, just this morning, the general released the aircraft carrier and other units. that said, we will remain in haiti just as long as we're needed. i could not be more proud of the way in which our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen have stepped up to perform this important mission of mercy. they and their colleagues overseas in iraq and afghanistan prove every day the great strength of our nation and the great flexibility of our armed forces. thank you. >> i don't know how you can possibly have any unanswered questions, but -- >> are you abandoning some adjusting, work beat 16 because truck or deemphasizing it in favor of a broader a look on the world? i have a follow up on a bomb shell you drop of the joint strike fighter. >> if i gave one of the spheres
-- one of this year's i gave to the folks working on the qdr was that i felt for some time that the two major theater of operations construct was out of date. we are already in two major operations. what if we should have a homeland disaster? what if we should have another encounter? what if we have another haiti? the world is very much more complex than 12 -- when be concept came together in the early 1990's. what i want to convey is a much more complex and are meant in which you may have to do not just two major conflicts, but a broad range of other things as well. or, perhaps in the future, whether those conflicts and a number of other contingencies. i felt that construct was too
confining and did not represent the real world our country and military forces are going to face in the future. >> in august, you were in four words and gave a sanguine assessment of the joint strike fighter program based on what you do at that time. what happened today to force you to take this relatively drastic move of removing the program manager and slapping lockheed and the management around? >> during the interval of the last several months, the undersecretary for at &l has emerged himself in this program. -- immersed himself in this program. we have had a number of teams like this program and it was clear there were more problems than we were aware of.
the restructuring program dr. carter put in place will work. it is realistic. the cost estimates are in accord with what joy as the bidding teams are predicting rather than with the program is predicting. i would say there are no insurmountable problems. technological or other. the measures dr. carter is taking will mitigate significantly some of the more pessimistic conclusions of the jets, the joint estimating teams, so i believe we are in a position to move forward with this program in a realistic way. but by the same token, one cannot absorb the additional cost that we have in this program and the delays without people being held accountable.
if i have set one town here at the department defense, it is that when things go wrong, people will be held accountable. >> mr. secretary, you talk about weapons of mass destruction with emphasis on pterosaur failed straight -- or fail states, you talk about tracking lethal agents and defeating the agents themselves. what does through what you hope to see the force lookalike -- walk us through what you hope to see the forces look-alike. are you talking about the nuclear emergency support teams? >> in a lot of areas, we're talking about is support for the president's program proposals in terms of a global lockdown of nuclear material. what ever we can do to support the program, a lot of this technological in terms of markers and being able to track things. some of it is better
intelligence. i would say it is a broader array of policy, intelligence, and technologies rather than new capabilities. >> the qdr says as china rises and in the reshapes the international system, china said this weekend that it is reducing contact military to military with the united states in certain strategic dialogue over the taiwan arms sales. does this affect your plans to go to china this year? more generally, how do you respond to china's complaints over the arms sales? >> first of all, i don't know whether i will be delayed or not. i have not heard anything and so my current plan is to continue to plan on that trip.
the united states, as you are well aware, the taiwan relations act commits the united states to providing a certain level of support to taiwan so it is able to defend itself. we went through this downturn in the last year of the bush administration when there was an arms sale to taiwan and we saw a reduction in military to military relationships. they have clearly announce that they intend to reduce this content -- those contacts again. one of the points i made to the vice chairman of the military commission when he was here was that i hope in the future we could shield the military to military relationship from the political ups and downs in the relationship.
we have a lot to learn from each other. i think stability is enhanced by contact between our military and a greater understanding of each other's strategies, so i hope there is a downturn, it will be a temporary one and we can get back to strength in this relationship. >> what's your response to the chinese threat to sanction u.s. companies involved in taiwan arms sales? >> we will have to wait and see. >> the follow-up of the question about weapons of mass destruction? it calls for the establishment of a joint task force headquarters to train, plan for, and execute operations to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. what does that refer to and why is there a need to establish this? >> that is one of the
recommendations of the qdr. it's a recommendation and will take under and buys and see whether we followed through on it or not. >> completing the mrap program, are you planning on buying more, and if so how many? >> we have now 15,000 regular ones in afghanistan. the additional requirements that has been levied by cent of bill -- that has been whether aid by centcom -- 6600 would be the all terrain vehicles version. they ask for about 4000 of the original ones in various forms. so, we have the funding for that and we will try to be responsive to the requirement.
>> two years ago, when you issued a national defense strategy, you asked service chief suit assess risk in their conventional -- to assess risks and to deal with threats. how far does this qdr go towards moving this in the direction you wanted and how close are they to be in balance as you when your guests that you wanted? >> let me answer that and then turned to the chairman. i think again that its import to keep this rebalancing in perspective. as was the case last year, of our research and development and procurement budget, roughly half of that goes for could the original modernization and
related to the current wars. 50%. this year, roughly speaking, the current war fight funding if you will of transferring programs or funding programs represents somewhere between 7% and 10% of the budget. dual capability such as the c-17 and other quebec count for 40%. my problem when i arrived here, those fighting the current war had the seat at the budget table at all. for example, most of special operations command funding has been in supplementals. my goal is to move those capabilities which we need long- term and to the base budget.
same thing with caring for military families, caring for our wounded, helicopters, and these other things. relative to the entire defense budget, half is going to modernization. in terms of risk, a year-and-a- half or two years ago, our level of highest risk was actually in the current fight. not in terms of our future capabilities. i believe we have now, by taking a little rest on the high-end capabilities, -- a little risk on the high-end capabilities, have significantly reduced the risk in the current fight. >> this budget is 1.8% real growth. if you have been through the details, you can see in particular that each of the service's budget has grown. i would just pick one area of great focus for us for the last several years -- helicopters. the number in this budget is on
the order of 170 helicopters which have what i called dole used across with secretary just described. as i have said, is about rebalancing and the ability to swing the pendulum hard in a direction. it almost doesn't exist. we continue to move to seek that balance and in fact, funding these wars as the secretary as described as a priority, has become a top priority in my view as it should be. i also think that is a significantly important investment for the future as well. it does both things. these kinds of capabilities, special forces, they will be with us in the future in a matter what our fights are or what our engagements are. i think the balance, we are moving in that direction, and the risk shift is minimal with respect to or services are. >> have a question about japan.
it says japan will continue to implement the bilateral agreement. that's slightly different from previous language that says we will continue working with japan to implement the bilateral agreement. why is it different and does it mean a rollback is the only way for japan lacks i think you have -- only way out for japan? >> we are still committed to the agreement we have reached with the japanese. we understand there are reviewing it. i'm comfortable with that. we have a new government in japan. they have some very high priorities they're trying to deal with. i would say that right now, the watchword for us to patients.
>> you will continue working with japan? >> sure. but let's not misunderstand. we just celebrated the 50th anniversary of our alliance with japanese. that alliance is very important to both japan and the guided states. >> could you talk a little bit more about the isr and creditors in this budget. you mentioned combat patrols going from 37 but to 65. talk all of more about purpose of the shift and how quickly expect to see gains or advantages in afghanistan. >> i think we've already seen what the game is. -- with the game it is. the reaper has some capabilities the predator does
not. we are buying both, but we are buying as many reapers as we possibly can. to the chairman's point at minute ago, we have, to a considerable extent, stripped the other combat and command of much of their isr capability to put in a fight in iraq and afghanistan. the reality is, there is huge demand all over the world for these capabilities. in the drug fight here in this hemisphere, in a variety of places around the world caught they are useful in natural disasters and obviously, in a combat situation like we face, they carry armaments. this is a capability where we will continue to see significant
growth for some years into the future, even as the wars in iraq and afghanistan winds down. just because the more we have used them in away, the more we have identified their potential in a broader and broader set of circumstances. everybody here has had everything to do it this season it as a terrific capability. >> starting in the early 2000's, we talked about having the characteristic of persistence over a target or in an area. there is no platform in the world that gives us better persistence, longer staying time than these platforms. to speak to the needs and desires, using them very specifically in haiti to look at population migration and to do it in real time.
back to 2000 or 2001 -- while we knew what constituted isr, we did not know what it was. we have learned in these fights what is and how many platforms and centers we need and what to do with it. that speaks volumes about our ability to succeed in these wars but also how we will use the in the future. the 37-65 is a best estimate right now. but i suspect it will continue to grow. >> when i was director of central intelligence of 1992, i tried to interest this building in uav's and was unsuccessful. [laughter] >> this budget will include budgeting for fiscal year 11.
1 -- allied >> the war funding itself will be in the 11 overseas contingency operations. but it is submitted with the budget. >> one of the concerns in a war funding is that this building has not been rigorous enough in setting aside what truly is war funding, directly related to the fight and what is on the margins. what is your direction going forward in the next few years for making sure the war funding is indeed directly related to the cost of fighting the wars and the building doesn't have the opportunity to throw other things in there perhaps? >> i would say one of the changes that came about with the advent of the obama administration was a much more rigorous approach by omb as to
what was allowed. those in the 2010 budget and in this budget, there have been several billion dollars of things we submitted as part of the oco's that we have ended up absorbing into the base budget. the guidelines have become much more rigorous in this administration to get at just the problem you describe. >> you mentioned it several months back that you want to find a more humane way of implementing the don't ask don't tell policy. have you found a way to do that and as his budget address that policy or an alternative way forward? >> the budget does not address it. stay tuned tomorrow. >> did you have concerns that cost overruns potentially might trigger [unintelligible]
and is it [inaudible] >> i do not think there is a need to go on with the at-22. -- the f-22. i'm not sure about mccurdy. >> [inaudible] are you asking congress to increase copays? if not, how the up to maintain the cost in the future? >> i'm glad you asked that question. there has not been an increase in the premiums for try care since the program was founded in 1995. i ask anybody to point me to a
health insurance program that has not had a premium increase in 15 years. the benefits are generous, as they should be for our men and women in uniform. but the reality is, for a family of three, the out of pocket costs per year in try care is about $12. the out of pocket costs for a family of three -- is about $1,200. the out-of-pocket cost for those of the federal employees' program is about $3,300. we see a lot people coming back in to try care because are so good and the costs are so low. for at least two or three fiscal years running, we proposed a very modest increase in the premium. each of those years, that was
voted down in congress. both for fiscal year to an end this year, we have fully funded health care, rather than making the assumption about premium increase. but we would certainly like to work with congress in figuring out a way to try to bring some modest control to this program. this program, the military health-care program in 2001 was $19 billion. in 2010, it is $50.7 billion. it is going to go -- it is only going to go up. it is an absorbing an increasing percentage of our budget. we absolutely what to take care of our men and women in uniform
and our retirees. but at some point, there has to be some reasonable trade-off between reasonable cost increases or premium increases or copays or something and the cost of the program. >> in your opening statement, you made reference to building security capacity of partners. i wonder how much of that relates to the threat from iran? we have heard a lot of talk about the u.s. is doing to help allies in the region. i wonder that a change in strategy at all? >> part of it is in that region, but a good example of building partner capacity is yet, where we have worked with them on counter-terrorism capabilities and building their border capabilities. -- part her capacity is in yemen. helping them build up a little of having to have u.s. forces
present of the ground in substantial numbers or doing it ourselves, that is clearly much cheaper and much better for us. we see a lot of opportunity here around the world and it is an opportunity for a whole of government effort. you improve the indigenous security capabilities that you are dealing with the state department and terms of government and i think we had state see this as an opportunity to try to prevent wars from happening rather than having to deal with them once they have already started. >> i would just echo with the secretary has said. this kind of investment and partnership with state, usa id, and others is absolutely critical. the example he used is one so that we have a relationship that as long standing long before we get to the point where
any kind of conflict breaks out. that given the capacity to other factories to take care of their own problems is absolutely critical. some of the programs that have been ongoing in the middle east and persian gulf have been ongoing for several years. this is not something that just came up the other day. we have invested fairly substantially over time. >> i'm curious about this space posturing. we have seen embargoes on a ballistic missile defense. çóthere was talk that there are not pleased with the original version coming from the pentagon boss space posture. what is the status of that? >> i'm not certain. but michelle is going to be appear in a few minutes and she can tell you straight up. >> who is the new p.m.? >> i don't think we have
announced that yet. that should be out within a day or two. >> does this mark the beginning of the end of his involvement in haiti? to what extent has to define which are able to do in haiti for the long term. >> we will both take a crack at this. the answer to your first question is that it is not the beginning of the end of our engagement. one of the principal assets that the vinson brought was helicopters. nearly all of those helicopters are remaining in haiti. as the chairman indicated in his opening statement, we anticipate being in haiti for as long as we're needed. as long as the president wants us to be there. and the haitians want this to be there. what we're getting into now is what balance ask.
i would say that at this point, the operations in haiti have had virtually no impact on the first blow to afghanistan or our forces in afghanistan or iraq. >> if i look out to the future, i don't see that becoming a significant problem. i think the than some is a reflection of the reality on the ground. -- i think the vinson is a reaction to the reality of the ground. it has had the great capability and that helicopter capability is still there. this operation goes into phases. she and one or two other ships are no longer required want to release them. as i look into the future for the other units that are there, i just don't see it having a big impact on afghanistan or iraq. >> last question. >> it's like to have come up
with our recommendation for a beat up. last year coveted to be a caveat that she did what the program to be disrupted. if so, there would be a veto. is there a difference or will you again have a caveat on disruption? >> i was very concerned about the program last year. that was the reason the veto threat was focused on destruction of the program. we think the level of costs is such now that -- and the fact that this is unnecessary, it is important to take a final stand. thank you very much.
please? i'm assuming they're going to catch up with us. the first slide is the best that the strategic reviews in context. these just to 04 department will reduce we have under way. this is the fourth congressional a mandated qdr and the department's first ballistic missile review. together with the missile review eds base posture of you, these documents offer did part of a strategic agenda for the next several years. we have also been working very closely and collaborative way with other u.s. government agencies on their views as well with the white house of our national security strategy. these are based on a common vision. the result is both our internal department reviews and our government-wider views on national security are more integrated than ever before. before going into the details of each of our views, let me just
give you a couple highlights. the qdr has its roots in the president's and secretary's common vision to rebalance defense capabilities and reform of the department operates. if this were to have a bumper sticker, it would be "rebalance and reform." use of this first expressed in the fiscal year 2010 budget. this bill on the momentum of framework for dealing with today's wars and possible future challenges. as secretary highlighted, we but top priority on prevailing in today's conflicts. we l our people in harm's way nothing less. we also struck -- we owe our people in harm's way nothing less. we're also focusing on deterrence and this also elevates the need to preserve and enhance the all-volunteer
force to a strategic imperative. this is arguably the most important pillar of america's defense. rebalancing our forces along with the strategic priorities means forces must be flexible and adaptable to confront the full range of possible challenges. one of the most critical insights from our force planning is that to underwrite this flexibility in the year to mid term, we need more and better enabling capabilities. dave's the secretary mentioned like intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, rotary-wing aircraft, language skills and so forth. improvement in these and other enablers will expand our ability to prevail and prevent in the future. i will now speak to the other bullets. before i turned to the details, let me give a few highlights. in parallel, we conducted this review to evaluate ballistic missile defense policies,
strategies, plans and programs. the review a wide our missile defense posture with near-term regional missile threats while sustaining and enhancing the ability to defend the american homeland against limited long- range missile attacks. this review identified six major priorities that will shape our missile defense approach. these are first, to sustain and hence our ability to defend the homeland against limited missile -- limited missile attacks. second, to defend against greg regional threats. third, to test new systems under realistic conditions before they are deployed. fourth, to develop new capabilities that are physically sustainable over time. fifth, to develop flexible capabilities that can adapt as threats of all. and finally, to lead expanded international cooperation on missile defense. we believe this approach will provide reassurance to our allies that the united states will stand by our security
commitments to them and hope to negate the course of potential regional actors attending to limit actions in key regions and strengthen regional deterrence architecture's against states acquiring weapons of mass destruction. through strength in international cooperation with allies and partners in europe, east asia, and the middle east, the united states seeks to create an apartment in which the development, acquisition, and use of missiles can be determined. in addition to expanding -- can be deterred. in addition, the u.s. will seek to engage russia and china on missile defense in its strategic dialogue. next slide please. i would like to step back out and describe the security environment we assessed going in to both of these reviews and provide a foundation. our view of the security environment begins with the wars we are in, which we see not as
aberrations but as harbingers of a dynamic and complex future landscape. the rise of new powers, the growing influence of non-state actors, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and a series of global trends continue to pose a profound challenges to international security. these strategic trends will create very challenging operating in part for the u.s. military. first, as the secretary alluded to it, or fare is becoming increasingly difficult to categorize along the traditional spectrum of conflict. adversaries will employ innovative and asymmetric methods to offset our strengths. this could involve proxy forces got a terrorism, cyber attacks and other forms of coercion, anti-access capabilities at boot operational concepts. second, trends highlight the forage national cooperation, to maintain stability and access tropical comments. that is the connective tissue of
the international system. -- across global commons. they're challenging things like piracy, the development of anti- satellite capabilities, cyber attacks and so on. as we have seen all too clearly over the past decade, weakness can create as many challenges for our forces as strength. week states pilot sectarian strike, -- weak states highlight sectarian strife etc. this links the defense strategy to planning and force planning is a process we used to determine the overall size a mix of capabilities for the fourth period.
it underscores the importance of maximum versatility across the spectrum of conflict. the forces will still be able to fight and win the two large- scale regional conflicts, but they will also have the size and shape to succeed in operations other than major theater wars. in the -- in the near term, the plan emphasizes today, and even today we will defer to ensure
preparedness to defend the homeland and defeat potential aggressors while reducing the strain on our forces. over time as the operational environment allows, we expect more forces to be available for intervention. the examples provided are simply demonstrating the range of plausible futures against which we tested our forces in the qdr. planning also highlighted the need to sustain -- return our forces to a sustainable rate in the near term. next slide. the six mission areas on the slide certainly do not encompass the totality of ways in which our armed forces serve, but they do serve particular areas of focus. both today and in the future. in each of these areas, we tried to connect the dots between strategy programs and resources, taking initiatives to improve
capability in these areas. for example, building a homeland response force -- we will be able to provide a more flexible response and type of support to civilian authorities in the event of a homeland defense crisis. similarly, increasing the availability of our rotary wing assets and improving our capabilities will improve our counter-terrorism capabilities. we will be speaking to linguistics, regional and cultural expertise and it will help prevent conflict and reduced demand for the armed forces long term. demand for the air and sea battle concept will ensure our protection in the face of challenges. assuring access to space and our use of space assets will remain a critical area, as well enhancing our capabilities to
counter wmd proliferation . we're also devoting resources to cyberspace expertise and military resources. turning to the bmdr tell it shaped the force -- the key objectives are to maintain defense of the homeland against limited ballistic missile attacks, and mounting efforts to combat immediate regional effects. we will continue to be protected against ballistic attacks for the foreseeable future. we will invest in this capability and hedge against the possibility of new threats emerging. it is important to note the u.s., and missile defense efforts are focused on regional actors such as north korea and iran and not intended to balance conflict with russia and china. united states will place
increased focus on regional missile defenses. we've made significant progress in short and medium-range missile defense capabilities, but those only exist in a modest numbers. it is important to think strategically about how to develop and deploy a missile defense capabilities, and so we plan to work with partners to strengthen regional architecture is built on foundations of cooperation. we plan to pursue a face- adaptive approach to missile planning, -- jhase-adaptive approach to missile planning. next slide. the qdr lays out an important reform agenda, and i know under- secretary hale will go line -- will go in more detail.
first among these efforts is taking care of our people. we must over time reduced deployment time. the the forces remain incredibly resilience over eight years of work, we must sustain that resiliency with targeted investments for service members and their families. again, bob hill will talk you through our initiatives in this regard. -- bob hale will talk you through our initiatives in this regard. overseas, we will build on our existing network of alliances and partnerships and expand cooperation across the board. we will also refrain -- refine our approach to global posture, and we will tune our military to military relationships to the dynamics of the regions. at home, we will have a reinforced cadre of security professionals for overseas contingencies, and we fully
support initiatives to strengthen the capabilities of these organizations. performing internal processes is probably the most difficult challenge. our processes and institutions have often lag behind our needs. we have a balance our capabilities only so far without further reform to these processes. there are many important missions and the all are entitled to review unto themselves, but i would like to highlight only a couple of these. first -- security reform. there is an emphasis on capacity-building in the past few years. our efforts are constrained by a complex patchwork of authorities, shortfalls in resources, and review processes, and the inability to sustain such undertakings beyond a short time period. the dod make the adjustments to
implementing the sales of foreign military more efficient and ensure we meet requirements. we will also work with interagency partners to develop new approaches to providing security systems. the president has drafted a review to better reflect the globalized economy and our food security environment. the current system cannot impede cooperation and technology sharing with our partners. at the same time, it does not always provide adequate resources mechanisms for violations. we will need a close partnership with congress to fix this. finally, let me highlight climate change and the environment. this is the first qdr to address climate and energy issues, which are both significant factors in
the future security environment. climate change can affect a new operating environment in the arctic and our transportation facilities and systems. this makes our operation vulnerable to disruptions in energy flows. dod aims to be leader in the government's to improve sustainability, restores efficiency, increased renewable energy supplies, and production of energy demands to improve operational effectiveness. let me close -- next slide -- by again underlining that the qdr and the bmdr really build on the reform agenda in the fy 2010 budget. these together a set of clear outline for the fy 11 budget.
we believe this qdr connects the dots between our defense strategy, our program, and our budget. and it also will allow the department to meet the complex challenges of today and tomorrow. that, let me stop and take questions. yes? >> again, with countering weapons of mass destruction, as far as shaping the force to achieve that -- the qdr talks about positioning forces, material relevant to defeating the agents themselves. are we looking at fy 14 to have capabilities to do these kinds of things? >> the countering of wmd's was a significant part of the qdr. we tried to keep a systems approach to this analysis. should weapons or materials be
an existing, how we identify them, and eliminate them? we looked at this across a range of possible scenarios and contingencies. and we made substantial investments in a number of areas, including isr and intelligence, including our special operations capabilities, the headquarters playing a coordinating function in a contingency involving the use or proliferating wmd's. there also investments in forensics, bio-terrorism reduction. there is a very broad range laid out. i do not know if you want to add anything? >> i think that is pretty much debt. there is no large research and
development investment. we will continue to develop our capabilities. >> use a "enhanced domestic counter ied capabilities." do you think it is a possibility we could have roadside bombs in the united states? >> i think our investment in counter-ied capabilities is primarily due to threats overseas. yes? >> [unintelligible] [laughter] >> right here. >> ma'am, yes to a curious. -- i am curious. what is the overview? [unintelligible] when do you expect a final report to go to congress? what were the issues holding up the report? >> the departmental effort --
the state posture review -- was being conducted with a presidential review of our national space policy. we came to believe it is important to discuss the parameters of that first, before firming up our own conclusions on the state -- on the space posture review. we decided to look at a little bit more and allow the interagency review to be completed. and in the meantime, we will offer congress an interim report the details of our current posture and programs, but then we will aim to turn in our new space posture review in the june timeframe. yes? >> secretary gates mentioned new efforts concerning a global strike. i am wondering what you are really looking at exactly? and when and in what mode are
you looking at ultimately [unintelligible] >> so how did it fit in? it will basically the terror a section of the quadrennial review. it is basically about deterrence. one of the tenants is strong conventional forces. another is a prompt global strike. nuclear weapons play a role still. our ability to defeat ballistic missile defense capabilities plays a role in deterrence. all of these things taken together give a deterrent posture. that is the idea. >> [inaudible] >> basically, these would be planned-based. we're considering whether or not a submarine conventional strike would be appropriate.
>> i spoke with secretary gates awhile about that, headquarters of eliminating -- he said that was just a recommendation. i am uncertain. is everything in the qdr a recommendation? amusing? >> these are theaters that already exist. that is endorsed in the qdr. and there's money in the budget for the headquarters to continue operational capabilities. i understand that. there are following discussions to be had about what additional capabilities to stand up in support. and this is something you will see, frankly -- we took one bite out of this apple in this year's review. this will continue to be a priority in coming years.
you will see additional growth in the counter-wmd capability area over time and. >> [unintelligible] i know you and secretary gates talked about the importance. do you see a disconnect between concrete institutions being set up, cyber command and all that, and so there is a complete lack of definition. what is an attack? the inability to determine where it is coming from. what is being done to bridge this gap so that cyber is not just shadowboxing and billions of dollars are being spent on it. >> i think it ministration might want to take the command question. this is an issue. the challenges we face in space. this is something we are grappling with on an interagency bases. this is not just a dod mission.
this is being borne by several other departments. there are some threats we're experiencing even today. we have to better organize ourselves to deal with that. and so, whether it is exploitation, offense, defense, we are working through those issues conceptually, but i need time, we have to better organize ourselves to do with the challenges on our doorstep. >> i would add that the first step is to decide who is in charge. that is what cyber command does. we will then take the direction from the commander through the combat commander, in this case strategic command, to define what we have. there is a lot of ongoing activity. we are establishing defenses. we are involved in exploitation
activities. we're positioning ourselves to be able to conduct attack. all of these different areas are ongoing. the cyber command focuses its and establishes the structure we will use in the future. >> yes? >> you mentioned this report elevates the volunteer force to a strategic imperative. how does that translate into action or something new in the new budget? for the force planning session, he mentioned having to resize and reshape forces other than in the other two theaters. again, how? what is the reality of the suggestions? >> i think bob hale will give you a lot of the budgetary details underlying the a taking care of people prior to. it does include substantial initiatives in health care
written large, family support, and efforts to reduce operational deployment over time. but i will let him put the meat on those bones during his budget brief. yes in the back? in the red tide? -- tie? >> secretary, i want to know where the way forward is on the next generation bomber that has been put back. they want to ban long-range strike capabilities. has the capability differ from the last time it was articulated in the last two qdr's? what does it look like? >> i cannot really speak to the programmatic issues. one of the issues that came out of the qdr was that we needed to take a much more in-depth look
at the full capabilities for long-range isr and precision strike, and the strategic bomber. one of the things that we decided in the qdr was that we were not yet ready to make it defend -- to make definitive decisions. we want to keep some of these technological opportunities going, but we wanted to take time to get this right. you will see the study ongoing this coming year with the aim of putting dollars into the program starting in 12. >> this is the policy needs program. that is exactly what we have done. we have to define policy. we have to evaluate the threat. we have to decide what is reasonably achievable. it is a portfolio-like approach to execute those capabilities, what we are envisioning right now.
that is ongoing next year. >> yes? >> [unintelligible] >> i wanted to ask you by your reference to missile defense and getting russia and china involved. the administration has talked often about getting russia more involved. where are you on that? what is your idea about how to get china involved? and the backlash if your plans fail? >> with regards to russia, -- with regard to russia, after the european phase approach decision was made, we did reach them on what the program will look like. we invited them to begin a dialogue. russia has a number of radar systems that would be very helpful in a more cooperative approach to the defense of that region. so we have invited them to have
that discussion, and we're hopeful that will take us up on that invitation. with regard to china, it has been more an invitation to have more strategic dialogue. that covers not only missile defenses, but nuclear forces, just how ec security environments and a response to it -- just how you see security environment and our response to it. it speaks to what each country is doing with regard to its military capabilities. yes? >> secretary, you talked in the qdr about a topic of discussion for the last several years. now we have ended dates and sites in iraq. at least the beginning of a drawdown in afghanistan.
what about these 21 and 521 ratios with highly skilled people? >> [unintelligible] >> the real answer is you should discuss that with the army and marine corps. the timing of the drawdown -- we are down to 50,000 by the end of august and out of iraq by december 2011. we think when that becomes real in two years' time, the deployed forces, the forces that would be deployed -- is to start. i said that incorrectly. the forces that will have to return from deployment will start eight two-year time period. i recommend you talk to the army. >> again? >> i have a question on the space posture review.
is mine understanding one of the sticking points was the gps system. can you comment on that possibility? >> i would be surprised if that were a sticking point because we're not quite that far along yet. we are really -- this is the delay was not so much that there were disagreements we could not solve as much as wanting to make sure the posture review was really driven by national -- by new national space strategy that has not been revised in many, many years. >> the qdr calls for a whole different set of operations. what missions are we talking about? >> i am sure you will want to join in on this one, michele -- join in on this one. what is the last time we were very good at predicting the next
floor? the truth as we see an increasingly complex in mind that with a multiplicity of challenges. we cannot afford to ignore any of them. as we do concept development work, we will have to be broken out of the canonical to conventional wars and a challenge ourselves to look not only across the spectrum to individual types of operations, but how do they challenge us to go to different combinations? that is really the analytical work that began in this qdr. it will continue afterwards. >> i will give you two comma's. he enhanced capability of our operating forces -- the enhanced capability of our operating forces and the idea that our ground forces need to be engaged, just as we've come to expect of maritime and aviation
>> r d long live coverage of the fiscal 2011 defense budget proposal. we will to continue to -- we will of a five-minute break. after this, we will hear from the undersecretary of defense, roberts hale. this entire thing is expected to last until 6:30 today, and we will have it here on c-span. earlier today, this was the scene at the government's printing office. we will follow that with the budget been delivered tv senate budget committee on capitol hill. -- to the senate budget committee on capitol hill.
what i want to do today is to give you a sense of the dollars, a quick overview, and then with admiral stanley's help, we will give you examples of the major policy changes assisted with each team. next slide. what you see here is the defense budget back to 2001. focus first on the top of those bars. 2008 and 2009, we spent 6000 billion dollars on the department of defense. it will go up to $693 billion. that will be driven by supplemental request to fund the extra 30,000 troops the president has ordered for afghanistan and rise to $708 billion in our fiscal year 2011 request. beyond is a place holder in our budget, but we will have to wait and see how much we will need in the way of wartime funding.
you get a better sense of the long-term picture of this budget if you look at the base budget, excluding wartime funding. those are the blue bars on your right. we had $31,000 to provide bike congress in fiscal year 2010. we have 1% real growth. if you adjust for inflation over the entire time, the average annual growth is 1%. we are well aware that we have a freeze on domestic spending, and we will be one of the relatively small number of agencies that will get real growth in the budget. we think the department needs modest real growth to a quick and sustain a military award. we also want to point out as a percentage -- next slide -- of the total resources of the country, it is about flat. roughly 4.7% of our gdp 2011.
that is more than before 9/11. it was around 2.9%, but less than our past wars, particularly korea and vietnam. just very brief on the total dollars -- 1% annual growth over five-year time period. next slide. i want to return to the themes. these of the same themes we use to describe the fiscal year 2010 budget. this is a budget that continues a reform agenda. our highest priority is taking care people. we need to rebalance this to continue to make a substantial investment in preparing for future conflicts. we need to support our troops in the field. admiral stanley and i will talk about each one to give you a sense of the specifics. next slide. taking care of the people is not
only the secretaries highest priority, but it is the highest priority of the chairman. >> just to highlight back to the qdr, you all heard the importance placed on our personnel programs. the way we think about it, these programs are the foundation literally on which all key capabilities are built. without strong personnel, personnel who were not distracted by family problems, child care concerns, medical concerns, our capabilities are lacking. this supports the idea. we recognize there are strategic -- they are a strategic asset to our nation. also, it is enduring commitment. not only two are men and women in uniform today. it is a commitment to our wounded warriors, our fallen heroes and their families, and the families of our men and women in uniform. what you see here are various different components of this
national commitment to our people. i like keeping became rich consistent. very few -- 1.4% -- full employment cost funding for our military personnel. also highlight the health care is fully funded and. also the idea that this is an $9.5 million. that is not something you often think about. the number of people eligible for defense help. our family support funding -- again, a critical piece of this. the last one i would highlight here is the dod schools. a number of our schools are very significantly in need of meanness. this adds considerable funding to find about half of them over the next five-year time period. this is very important for our children. >> taking care of people is the highest priority. next slide.
a key element of the reform agenda is rebalancing the focus on today's wars. you have heard discussions on the number of initiatives here. we will continue to increase our rotary wing capability. we sometimes have helicopters without available crews. last year, we increase funding for air crew training. it will go up another 9%. that is to say, the training. we expect to be training 1500 crews a year, a 20% increase. two combat aviation brigades added, reducing the number of spare helicopters and aircraft. an increase in the predator- class aircraft patrols. we will double the production of the reapers, one of are more sophisticated av's. the will be 48 in fiscal year 12 and beyond.
another key element of reforming the military -- buying additional 18 aeg's and using them to recapitalize of four of the boulder squadrons. next slide. in the same thing, we have a 6% increase in the operational command budget. we will have 10,000 military and civilian personnel who special ops commanding -- you will see the types of people added on the slide. we will institutionalize this budget, that is a portion of it, a little bit more than a third of it is funded in the wartime portion of our budget. we will move that back of the next five years so that it is all in the base budget. significant changes in homeland defense -- we will fully fund a consequence management's response force and established
two more of them and established him more of homeland response forces out of the existing national guard assets seven closer to the scene of possible disasters. i have a list of favorite akron ms in the department. -- acronyms are in the apartment. i'll not go into a lot of detail. we will spend $74 million on the president's initiative to lockdown hon. nuclear material over the next four years, and we will stand up to cyber command, releasing additional space for added people. next slide. we need to focus on today's wars, but as the secretary said, we're not good about figuring out where we have to fight and in the future, so we need a broad base of capability. we're making investment in a variety areas. in the tactical area, the joint strike fighter -- we will add 18
months to its development, buying 10 more aircraft so we can proceed. we will buy 42 aircraft and in the base budget, one in our wartime budget, and we will spend $11 million on this program. we have planned a sustainable shipbuilding plant for -- plan for 74 $4 million to, pro -- to buy 10 ships. the ruby 10 for the navy and two for the army. we will accelerate forces modernization, spending $10.2 billion on the combat system that was restructured last year and also developing a new ground vehicle for the army will end its production -- its army production of humvees. fiscal year 10 will be the last
one. we will enhance our launch capability and capacity. it is a portfolio that focuses first on a bomber and what kind of bomber to we need. is it unmanned? should it be penetrating? the ruby studies as it moves through development funding, -- there will be studies as a minister development funding. we talked about this before. it is in the portfolio changes. we need to modernize the nuclear weapons. much of it is in the budget of the national nuclear security administration which has a 13% increase in its budget from fiscal year 10 and fiscal year 11. the metallurgy lab there, chemicals, the accentor program
for the 61 bond. other programs as well. next slide. as part of his overall effort to invest in broader capabilities, i think this has been discussed a lot. we will spend $9.1 billion on this a defense in the missile defense agencies budget. we need a new tanker. we have for several years. we hope for an award in the summer. we have budgeted $864 million of rdp for that his tanker program. we will structure the national polar orbiting satellite system which we have done jointly with n.o.a. four years. we will continue to closely cordoning with them on this program. -- coordinate with them on this program. we will increase in particular
the so-called global train and equip funds to $350 million. we need to rebalance the focus on today's wars but maintain a substantial capability or capacity for future conflicts. here is a curve ball here. i tried to stop earlier. >> what i would emphasize -- it gets back to the qdr. one of the most significant changes is the recognition that our department planning has a temporal aspect to it. it is not just focused on a single time just beyond the setup, where we're building capabilities to establish common you know, what we need for a given set of scenarios. it is now this -- prevail in today's war, prepare for an uncertain future. there is a whole expanded time frame. that is the philosophy. it is part of it now.
secretary gates, you have heard him say -- hey, if you do not have the capability to win today's wars, go do something about it." that is where the focus on isr, new vehicles is coming from. the asian invested $20 million for new -- the agency invested $20 million for new vehicles. that is a huge investment for this uncertain future. ground combat vehicles, the joint strike fighter programs. all of these taken together hearken back to the direction that is in the qdr. >> next slide. we need to reform what we buy and how we buy it. this is critical. we send out an $800 billion request to the american public, they need to know we have scrubbed this budget and look for programs we can do without. you've heard this list discussed before. we have to under 23 of these
aircraft in the slide. -- the of 223 of these aircraft and the slide. we have a enough for now. a enough, as far as we can see, for the future. the alternate engine will be a contentious decision to be sure, but we looked carefully at it. we decided there were management problems. there are logistic problems. you have to have two separate support capabilities for the two engines. the organization involved does not want to buy engines. navy only wants one engine. they do not want planes with two engines on aircraft carriers. most of our allies will not be buying enough. finally, there is cost. it will add to $0.5 billion to our five-year plan if we pursue development and procurement -- it will add $2.5 billion to our five-year plan if we pursue development and procurement.
for all these reasons, we propose not going forward with the alternate engine. as you heard secretary gates say, if the congress does pursue the alternate engine, he would represent -- he would recommend the president veto the bill. i think we need to talk about how we buy and operate. acquisition reform remains a centerpiece. we are implementing a weapons system acquisition reform act was passed last year, including adding about 20,000 people to our government acquisition work force, trying to get a handle on this early, which is key to preventing unanticipated cost growth. we're continuing our in sourcing initiative -- insourcing initiative. one thing we will ask congress not to do, had 0.5% to the
military pay raise. -- add 0.5% to the military pay raise. it is cumulative as a dozen to the base, and we need the money to train and equip the force. we urge them to enact the full 1.4% raise which will keep military pay at pace with the increases in the private sector but not to add to that increase. reforming what and how we buy, a key element of the reform agenda. the last thing i want to talk about is supporting actress in the field. this brings us to the wartime contingency operations. it is critically dependent on the deployment of forces. let me say a few words. >> what we're talking about is the iraq's security situation which continues to show positive outcomes. it may be a good idea that the iraq's security forces are showing their readiness to deal
with the situation in iraq. it is very positive. it allows us to actually see that we're going to continue this responsible drawdown. one of the key enablers that was in the overseas contingency request for iraq was the establishment of a security fund which will provide $1 billion in f y 10 and $2 billion in fyi 11 -- fy 11, which we believe will allow our forces to continue to leave. conducting the drawdown in iraq also allows us to shift forces to afghanistan. our forces are moving quickly into afghanistan. there's another 3000 increase that the president talked about. 5000 have flown. we intend to have the entire 30,000 in by late august.
so the fy 10 formal request supports that flow. it is very important to us. both general petraeus and general mike krystle are talking about what they are doing in afghanistan, the counterinsurgency strategy. what is critical to that strategy? one of the pieces that is critical is a strong afghan security force. this request has the resources necessary to grow the size of the afghan national security force, both army and police. it establishes funding for counterinsurgency operations. you heard the general talk about junior officers being quoted as service personnel been more important and bullets in this operation. -- being more important than bullets in this operation.
all important to this mission. >> next slide, please. i think you discussed most of these admiral stanley. just one more -- the president's decision on closing guantanamo. there is no funding in fiscal 10 for closing guantanamo or building a new facility in constant, in illinois. in fiscal year 11 there is a transfer fine that could be used for every aspect of these operations -- transfer funds that could be used for every aspect of these operations. it would permit us to transfer funds to accounts that would let us open the thompson, illinois site, and it would provide for the team facilities at either location. >> just one more word about wartime funding before i leave -- this is total dollars. it was pretty flat and in the last couple of years.
people say, what is going on? you're getting out of iraq. why is this not coming down? it is coming down. $94 billion in fiscal year 2009. it is coming down in fiscal year 2011. it is not always coming down proportionally. there is a lag. for example, we have a lag -- there are fixed costs that will not go until you're fully out of iraq. it is definitely going down. but afghanistan is going up. it is a very expensive place to operate and fight. you have to fly in everything or truck hit in over a long, dangerous route. we are in vesting -- we're investing heavily in enablers which is pushing our afghanistan costs. last slide. and you summarize for you and leave a few key points. we believe dod needs modest growth to train, equip, and
sustain a military at war. we have to focus that grows on today's wars -- the regular wars in afghanistan and iraq -- continuing a reform agenda, which means we will have recommendations and enforce them. finally, we need the congress to help us with timely enactment of the supplement by spring so we can meet the needs of the troops. overall, this is an effort to rid -- to continue the reform agenda. with that, we will stop and answer questions. >> last year, changes were proposed in concurrent receipt with live service disabilities. is there any similar proposal this year? or did you decide not to pursue it because you do not have funding last year? >> is the office of management and budget estimates that. it is called a management portion of the budget.
it is an entitlement. we manage the discretionary portion. probably more than you want to know. it has been submitted again in the same form. it will have some of the same issues. it is subject to the so-called pay lemons. there were have to be offsets in other entitlements or taxes. i think it will be a struggle on the hill. but it has been. >> what about your increased focus strategically? is there a budget increase associated with that? >> overall, there is a program called cooperative threat reduction, which does go up about $100 million between fiscal 10 and fiscal 11. their number programs. i mentioned the $74 million related to the president's lockdown of nuclear facilities -- not facilities, weapons.
yes, there has been an increase. >> the money in fiscal 11 4 next generation bombers. what are you buying with that money? >> we will use it for studies and analyses of what the bomber should be, including preliminary engineering studies. your problem gone to the death of my knowledge on the specifics. admiral? >> it is the industrial base, a lot of it involved with stealth. >> very quickly -- homemade gun ships to you plan -- how many gunships' you plan to have? " there are 16 -- >> there are 16. that is not a request. >> 33. >> three additional packs there may be some reallocation going
on here. >> we shifted 16 and are retiring 8. >> yes, sir. i have a comment from the navy side. the request was for a 22 airplanes. that will double been unable years. what is to take away from nine? -- what is to take away from that? >> bayh 34 total -- by 34 total f-18's, the 22 reflects the focus. >> specifically -- >> 34 total? >> 34 f's and 12 g's?
24 and 12. i do not think it represents a change, but it recognizes we have shortfalls in need the air. we will keep the line open through 2013. >> we empathize with the electronic attack. we added brawlers. 26. secretary scale -- secretary hale has already discussed this. these will not be commission before the squadron had planned. we extended the 86b's, and we added the crawlers. we pushed the growlers to the left. to the right action. the line goes through fy 13 now. >> just to follow up -- are you engineering any agreements with boeing? >> the navy is looking to multi-
year agreements. the navy prices the mouth with procurements. they may decide to request multi year commitments. i urge you to ask them. >> is there another $6 billion in supplementals for 2010. when you need that money? >> there is never an easy answer. actually, when you run out of money. it is like driving 60 miles an hour toward upper wall. you've really got to trust your brakes. we need this by memorial day. we may be able to go beyond that. questions? yes, ma'am. >> you have a significant amount of procurements in 2011 funding. [unintelligible]
what is the change? >> there are a series of rules we have agreed to. they do allow for procurement funding. we have been allowed to replace combat losses and we are allowed to replace weapons systems that are fully were announced, rather than try to be have them. it does not make sense to do that. i think we're in full compliance with these new guidelines. i think i actually said today's you referred to with regard to procurement. >> secretary gates in may told congress that the department needed to% real growth across the program -- 2% real growth across the program to justify the program. you have 1%. where have you had to take from to squeeze everything into -- >> first, we can accommodate 1% annual growth in the short term
and maintain current forces. we are doing it, frankly, to be mindful of the serious economic problem and make our contribution to that by holding down our growth. in terms of risk, i would describe risk abroad. i think we are finding ways to mitigate it. one of the risks we face is whether we have gone far enough with emphasizing today's wars. i think we're moving in the right direction. there are certainly some risks with the overall stress on the force. with more funding we might be able to do more. i think he and i would both say we can absorb or handle 1% real growth and accommodate current forces. in the long run, i think we will have to look at it again. >> did you have to squeeze anything out of the budget?
>> we always have to squeeze things out of the budget. >> as a result of not getting that -- >> >sure. i think we have a balanced program that provides a reasonable level that recognizes our national security needs. >> one question for admiral stanley. the summer, the partner in of the defense review recommended the services make investments of $60 billion worth of new capabilities. thus the final qdr reflect those recommendations -- does the final qdr reflect those recommendations? >> i think the answer is yes, generally. there are specifics at work. that was guidance. guidance is never perfect up front. . .
sustain current forces without continued growth. >> there will be a lot of focus on discretionary spending. is it about 42 cents on the dollar at the base budget? but it sounds like you have done the calculation. i tried to do it. i think you are right. it is about 55 cents, including wartime spending. >> i have a question on cybercom. could you talk about how about funding is going to work? are you confining funding from other places to set up command? >> we will use a lot of existing resources and adweek -- and add funding from other areas. >> we are moving them in and
hope to put them at an essay in line with the mission there. -- at nsa, in line with the mission there. >> do you have funding totals? >> i think it is $100 million to $200 million. $104 million. this is all part of the operation budget. it is relative to where we were before we made a decision on cybercom. we can isolate leasing space. there are reallocations of personnel that will focus more on cyber warfare. >> when you add the $104 million, what amount to you get?
>> i cannot give you a simple based because i do not know how to define that. we're adding it to the funding prior to the decision on cybercom. >> you are adding to combat aviation brigade. 2800 special operations. folks from cyber command, the task force on wmd, and the air force talked about adding to the nuclear force. where are those people coming from? are you asking for permanent increases? >> the 22,000 is not permanent. it is funded in the wartime budget. it is maybe of mentees -- navy augmentees. there is a small increase of 7000 people.
it is hard to separate that out. the large increase is associated with an initiative. there may be some minor added people. we are looking to reallocate resources to higher priority areas. >> the combat aviation brigades -- how many aircraft do those require? >> the first brigade was financed last year in the r&d. the second one is $5 billion over a several year. . period. >> do you have a projection of the annual rate of increase? >> it is 4% to 5%. the private sector is more like 6%. >> what is going to happen
eventually? >> you are missing -- mixing apples and oranges. it is not the right trend. we need to look for ways to provide high-quality care and hold down the growth in health care costs. it is hard to do as they're being driven by the trends as a whole. >> the pay raise increase --what is the net? >> for those drawing those allowances, it would add -- >> makes the perret's 2.9%? -- makes the pay raise 2.9%?
>> it will keep military and civilian personnel -- their wages will stay on pace with those in the private sector. they will get a little more of a total rays. it will not be 2.9%. >> you spoke about increasing the number of predator class crafts. are there plans for other increases? >> there are some increases and i do not know them off hand. can you direct that question to the army? who have i not called on? >> i am with the air force magazine. one of your items says terminate the new personnel system. how much will that be and is it going to be carried out within this fiscal year, or is that based in? >> we hope to have everybody out
of this -- we did this in response to congressional direction. we hope to have them out by the end of this year. it is a sizable undertaking. it is about to a hundred $60 million added cost. most of that -- it is about $263 million added cost. that is driving most of the cost increases. >> will there be some bonds in this budget for treaty implementation? how much are you allocating? >> i do not know i would say it was directly for that. we do have a a strongly supportive budget for the nsa which will improve nuclear infrastructure in a variety of ways. we think that is an important step toward ratification.
i would not put a price tag on it. >> when we are doing something which dod budgeting, there are several increases. >> tickets -- it is not a small program. we are sustaining the sense of continuing to operate in modernization. >> after the treaty is ratified, will be funding -- will there be funding? >> i do not think i have a good answer for that until we see the treaty itself. i would rather not try to estimate. say again. >> one more question. anybody i have not called on? let me be fair. i called on you, tony. >> how much money are you allocating? >> there are $3.2 billion for all ground forces modernization.
there are a whole series of initiatives to field centers and other spin ounce -- spin outs. >> the loan is $1 billion? >> i think so. take that and double check with the army. i think that was our last question. >> thank you. [no audio] >> the army will be in here. we're going to set up. they will be briefing the army budget.
>> ladies and gentlemen we're going to continue. i would like to ask you to speak louder when you ask your questions. do not be afraid to speak loudly. continue to state your names and your outlets. we will go ahead and start. >> ladies and gentlemen, we are from the army public affairs. [unintelligible] our next speakers are from the army. [unintelligible] he is the military deputy for
budget. and we have the acting director for army budget. they will present some slides. we will have a few minutes for questions. thank you very much. >> welcome to the army's presentation of our fy 11 budget. we have in the back of the room and hopefully you have before you a copy of our budget highlights. there is also a copy of the charts. included in that package was one chart that was about the supplemental request for fiscal year 2010. i will address that chart quickly and then we will go through the base appropriations. for the 2010 supplemental, the army's request is $20 billion.
essentially, what this does is bond two brigade combat teams and a training brigade, as well as a combat team in the surge, in terms of the support the army provides. the request is predominantly operational maintenance, almost $12 million. this funds that appointments -- the deployment. it also pays for demobilizing -- the mobilizing in-theater. covers the cost of procurement and recapitalization of equipment and force protection.
when we get to the question and answers section, we will be happy to address your questions. i would like to begin with the army fiscal year 2011 priorities. this is unchanged from last year. the army leadership focus is on caring for our people. we have the intent of sustaining the military force. we focus on training and the quipping soldiers for the current fight and revitalizing our people, our soldiers and civilians, for whatever the next continued fight might be. we want to pay for training and professional development of our soldiers in leaders. lastly, we transform and modernize that which we do not
know about for the future. according to the next chart, the fy 2011, you see before you two pie charts. the first address as the president paused based requests -- president's base requests. we are requesting over $133 billion. it is a modest increase in the base request. we characterize as those for you, in terms of the parts of the budget, military personnel are requesting millions more. $3.7 billion more. procurement is at $2 billion.
rdte and brac are down. the net is, as compared to the enacted increase in 2010, is $2.5 billion or one. %. -- 1.8%. we are very heavy in terms of military personnel. operation corresponds to all we do to operate. these make up about 22% of the budget, much smaller in the army budget than in the navy or air force. we are heavier in the military personnel.
the chart below reflects the request -- and you can see that it is operational maintain thme, transportation to and within the theater, those costs associated with operations and logistics. you see what is included in the request for that iraq security forces and afghan security forces -- as well as ied defeat. that makes up a fairly high percentage of the request. we will address the details. coming to the next chart, army- based budget request. this reflects the army's appropriations and serves as a
good outline for the terms. the director of the army but it is now going to address this. this is the army-based budget request. >> if we can go to the next chart, let me give you a short orientation. most other charts will follow this format. starting on the right-hand side, there is a big yellow box which shows the appropriation total for whatever categories we are discussing. in this case, it is military personnel and you see the accounts their four active army, army national guard, army reserve, and medicare retiree health care. our contributions to retiree health care after their service is complete. there is also an information box with the army end strength. there is no change from 2010 to 2011. we have completed growth which
will grow to 206,000 by the end of 2020. -- by the end of 2012. as you move down the chart, you will see an 11-year history of budget requests for this is -- for the specific appropriations group. you also seeing the dollars compared to this year's request. on the right hand side, there are bullets of key pertinent information about this appropriation. let me tell you about our military personnel request. the army is the strength of our nation and its people are the strength of the army. sustaining the quality of our all volunteer force is our first imperative. military personnel budget request for the u.s. army is $59.1 million and it goes to fulfil the imperative. the budget request funds the total and strength of about 1.1
million military personnel. you will find additional funding for 22,000 of a temporary strength increase. the military pay has been discussed earlier today. it is set at 1.4%, equal to the eci. included are estimates for the basic allowance of housing of 3.9% increase and up 3.4% estimated increase for the basic allowance. we will go to the operations and maintenance overview. the operations and maintenance accounts, from the operation of bases, training of personnel, maintenance of equipment, and provision of support services for fiscal year 2011, it totals $43.8 billion. within that, we have 544 million
for recruiting and advertising as well as funding for training. we sustain the force through programs funded at $1.7 billion and added comprehensive soldier fitness as a program at $42.5 million. within our structure, operations and maintenance, we funded 73 brigades. it funds and the administrative and service-wide activities to support our personnel, including $580 million for information, security, and support. in addition, it includes operation, training and funding for a total of 59 brigade combat teams. it supports 24 rotations, through the army past combined trained scenarist -- through the
army's combined training facilities. we have a one time increase request for $219 million in all pm -- in oem and another $78 million to help fund a conversion for our civilian work force. we will move on to the procurements accounts. this chart summarizes some of the investment decisions that we will cover in more detail on the next couple of charts. let's move onto aircraft permit. our request reflects the department's increase in investments in manned and unmanned aviation platforms. it supports development of a full combat aviation repair -- aviation brigade.
some of the quantities and amounts involved in the new air platforms -- we are perk -- we're procuring 26 skype order platforms to add reconnaissance capabilities for $459 million. we're adding 72 blackhawk helicopters, 48 and 24 of various models to meet our requirements. we're sending conversions of apache aircraft and upgrades, funding lakota light utility helicopters for are active and reserve components. we are buying modifications to the shadow and plan to modify 46 cents. we are going to continue our
transition within the helicopter program, buying new models and converting existing models, a total of 40 conditions on this platform. moving on, missiles and ammunition. these preparations total $3.9 billion in fiscal year 2011 and sustain our ongoing programs to replenish stocks of missiles and ammunition across the army. examples of these replenishment include funding ongoing missile programs for the patriot capabilities. we plan to procure 78 misfiles. within the javelin program at $164 million -- we also have a guided multiple launch broker at -- rocket system where we
plan to procure $291 worth of missiles. we also had restructured the launched advanced medium range air-to-air missiles. this is based on our families and a need for vehicles. we plan to procure six of these. we continue to procure site launchers, 23 sets for a total of $350 million. our critical ammunition request, especially for small arms training, the total funding is $1.1 billion. finally, we are investing $144 billion in production of ammunition, including $87 million to a plant in tennessee. under wheeled and track
vehicles, are were flat -- our request reflects modernizing in extending the life of our primary contact for that. major components of this $1.7 billion request include $300 million for striper vehicles -- stryker vehicles. we are funding 87 abrams kits and 58 ods bradley kits. additionally, within our tank program we're funding 21 m1a2's, and for strykers we are continuing with enhancements for $147 million. we're buying howitzers, machine guns, and armored breaching of
vehicles at $78 million. moving on to our other procurement accounts, the request continues to upgrade and modernize our combat support structure as well as introducing equipment into our modular force. one primary investment is in our families of medium attack today -- family of medium tactical vehicles and heavy tactical vehicles. the total is $918 million. we will add heavy tactical vehicles and associated trailers' for about $549 million. we will be buying a wide range of support equipment including
petroleum and water distribution systems. there will be maintenance and training devices. we will by three-fourths providers. the total in that category is $673 million. we will increase our ability to communicate by buying equipment to support the joint communications effort and combat communications. we will continue to procure and begin to procure upgrades at a low rate initial production amount, $421 million. we plan to buy to a hundred 98 mobile radios -- to buy 298 mobile radios and a number of hand-held radios. we will continue our procurement and investment in tactical
surveillance equipment, $248 million for night visions of thermal weapons into leonard's $65 billion for a long range -- and 245 billion for long-range equipment. appropriation focuses on modernization efforts. it includes funding for the ground vehicles, as well as continued development of capability packages and networks initially started with the fcs program. the total amount funded is $2.5 billion, with $934 million going toward the ground combat vehicles. we will continue the patriot in a national system rdte effort with about 400th $67 million in
that program. we continue to develop -- with about $467 million in that program. we continue to develop our programs developing capabilities for communications and movement towards networking on the move. we have a number of investments in aviation intelligence and combat vehicle programs, totaling $1.8 billion. examples include air survivability in equipment. missiles at $132 million. stryker survivability modifications. we fund are vital technology programs with $109 billion --
with $109 million. the next chart is our facilities chart. this request reflects changes brought about by brac. those efforts are coming to a fruition in fiscal year 2011 and allow us to begin to shift toward cross level needs within the army. you can see that our brac has dropped down to $1.1 billion. the decrease also reflects privatization. milcon, a budget of $5.3 billion includes an investment of $1.1 billion in training barracks. the family housing project includes 56 units at carlisle
barracks and 125 units. there are $16.5 million in the request to help assist individuals sustain -- who sustained economic loss due to brac. this concludes our portion and we will move to this the year 2011. >> you can see the army requests are $102 billion, almost $17 billion which is for iraq security forces. the 2011 request funds 83 active and 47,000 reserve
components of soldiers deployed. the bct's in iraq will decrease to 4 by the last quarter of 2011. it will be 35 by the end of the fiscal year and zero by december. we still expect to be on that plan. that is subject to the enemy and what goes on in iraq through the elections. right now, we believe the drawdown is on target to be out by december. the money -- the request in 2010 is about 50/50 between iraq and afghanistan. i think in 2011 is about 70% in
afghanistan in 30% in iraq. the b ct - - bct's in afghanistan will be deployed. we deployed 23,000 this year. we're going to talk about the few parts of the request. >> we will turn to military personnel summary charts. it is about $11.9 billion for military personnel support. this funds mobilizing 81,500 reservists for fiscal year
2011, 28,740 army reserve and 52,000 from the army national guard. this represents our best estimate on how many guardsmen or reservists will be mobilized to support the force in fiscal year 2011. this estimate would be adjusted for in-theater chains. it funds special pay and assistance in kind for are deployed forces, and covers pay for are reservists, prior to mobilization while they are going through pre-deployment training, the offenses for phasing out of stop-loss, and the 20 -- the components for fiscal year 2011. operations and maintenance chart is next. the request across the army totals $63.4 billion. it funds theater operations,
transportation to, from, and within the theater. if funds base camp --pre- mobilization and pre-deployment training for our guard and reserve forces, as well as funding for mobilization stations and platforms support here in the continental united states. it includes $7.8 billion for equipment. research development and acquisition is next. we are going to use this page for our discussion. there are two more charts in your packet that breakdown the appropriations in more detail. for the sake of time, we will not cover those. our procurement request for the oco replaces the bad losses, equipment used or washed out in
support of the fight, or provides for security and counter measures in force protection platforms. we chart some of the major platforms that we fund with $516 million for fmtv with a number of those going to the reserve component. $199 million for modifications to the apache. $187 million to replace other vehicles. we have funding in this request to replace chinook and black hawk helicopters. we plan to spend $989 million and we are replacing 1200 missiles and buying 56 other
kits for that particular w eapon system. we're funding countermeasures including direct detection systems -- threat detection systems. we are replacing inanition. one example is $129 million. we will go to pages to the facilities slide. the last piece of our fiscal year 2011 request is $930 million to fund facilities in afghanistan including airfields', force protection, medical infrastructure, operational infrastructure, utilities, and various support facilities across the bases in afghanistan. >> we will stop there and attempt to answer your questions.
>> your request about $3.3 billion in comparison with about $1.5 billion from fiscal year 2010. why is it such a drastic increase? >> it is multi-year money. if you went back another year, it would be higher as executed. year-to-year, we can get you the numbers. >> i want to know why there is such an increase. is it because of afghanistan? you are asking for a lot less in the base budget. why? >> they are operating -- the headquarters are operational. >> we execute the funds.
>> we are the banker. we do not execute them. >> how will that money be spent? >> is that the reagan? -- the raven? [unintelligible] >> could i ask another helicopter question? can you break down details on dollars, personnel, and helicopters that will be procured or paid for? >> i can speak to the composition in terms of aircraft. we are working to fund the aircraft.
>> will it be procured for that this year? >> no. there is preferment of that aircraft, how we will end up disc -- distributing backed -- distributing that is yet to be determined. >> one more related question. you have $900 million more for aircraft procurement. what explains that? >> it is most of the things on the aircraft procurement chart in your package. but for under $59 million -- $459 million for modifications. there is another bigg add-in.
-- big add-in. >> if that is useful, we can get you the actual numbers. >> i am with bloomberg news. the brigade combat team modernization --do you expect to stop this and fy 2011? >> the plan is still being developed. when our program was terminated we went back and came forward with our analysis. we still do not have the capability -- it is still working. >> what will this money fund? >> development. research.
>> i do not know when the competition -- there will be a competition. i think we are still looking through the time line. -- timeline. >> you are terminating the humvee production lines. are you going to survive on the current inventory for a while? >> the army was not buying more, but other people were. one will remain open. we have other prior-year humvee procurement. the line is not terminating. we have reached the army acquisition objective. we have had fewer losses and
washouts in iraq, and with the mwrap variants, we have less use for the humvees. we envision it to be an enduring part of the army. >> [unintelligible] is there pushback on that? >> i would leave the resolution -- because we were not able to speak to them, we have not briefed the members of the congress about it. >> what is the cost of going from heavy combat brigade teams to the stryker?
are there other costs associated? what's the final number? >> stryker brigade is $1.6 billion. i will have to get back to you on the totals. >> the army has been talking about competition to replace the m4 and put out a market survey to possibly upgrade them. is there money in the budget for small arms development? >> i do not know about development. we're still procuring. >> i see that your budget indicates a 30% drop in the wheeled and combat vehicles
spending, going down from $2.4 billion from $3.6 billion. is that because of the delay in programs? >> i do not have those numbers. it is a combination of base and oco. when the program was terminated, the procurement line -- we have an increase across the program for the manned ground vehicles. >> is that just for the program? >> it is an increase for the ground combat vehicles.
>> i want to clarify on the ground combat vehicles. you say you do not expect a bomb -- contract in fiscal year 2011. what are you doing with the development money and where does it go without a contractor? what are you developing? >> combat design and development of what the vehicle would look like. it is back to the beginning. >> but it will not be the contractor level? >> right. >> you spoke in your budget about using $136 million for isr platforms. can you go into detail about that? is that unmanned aircraft? >> that number were first to
ground surveillance sensors. there are other capabilities. >> what about the smaller uab's? >> the raven and the shadow? we are buying both of them. >> we're not buying any shadows, but we are modifying existing classes. >> do you have estimates on what is planned for srb's in 2011? how much will be spent on incentives to phase out the others? >> 400-some million, about the same level we had.
>> $400 billion for fiscal year 2011. stop loss related incentives -- do you have that? i can add them up. i have them on a different paper. >> we have time for two more questions. >> i want to ask abou arh. what alternatives does the army have? is there no money anywhere for redirecting that effort? >> the alternatives you're discussing is not going to be
complete until april, 2011. until then, we do not know what the solution will be in regards to requirements. i anticipate that other than the money in the program now to complete the analysis of alternatives, there will not be money in the budget for arh until the 2012 budget. >> in the back. >> my question is about relocation in japan. [unintelligible] will you appropriate for relocation in fy 2011? >> i do not know anything about that. >> i am not familiar with the
>> are represent and -- are representative of the navy is next. president obama is asking for an infusion of pentagon funding, continuing his predecessor's pattern of escalating military spending. the administration is requesting $741 billion in military spending. the representative of the navy will give an update on the proposed budget for that black branch of the service -- for that branch of the service.
let me know who you are interrelation --and your relation. you have heard a lot about the qdr. the three words that come to mind are continuity, with of focus on the ships. suppliance with the qdr. we have reorganized our forces. also imagination -- how do we use the forces we have to bring to bear integration with a wide variety of missions and platforms? our joint force depends upon the navy and marine corps to prevail. we are significant part of the prevention and deterrence with
arriving in the city. most of them have to be broken down, remember. the marines were out in the southern area, using the equipment and training that we have, day in and day out. the marine corps, on the right, you will see a drawdown in iraq. early next week we expect to be down to 1300 marines. numbers in afghanistan are going up. next slide. here is the standpoint chart, some of which you saw. let's take your attention to the middle, fiscal year 2011, $100.6 billion. this is 3% growth over 5% real growth. this works out to 0.6% real
growth for the department of the navy. a couple of points to make, that is our supplemental for the afghanistan operations, fuel and navy operations, moving up to 18.5 in the tax budget. breakdown of the budget, next slide. as enacted last year, starting in the upper left for each of these slides in terms of development, navy base strength , with base pay, medical, and the various pay and allowances. de $46.6 billion, the balance is estimated for a wide variety of
types. 50 ships and a series of smaller procurement accounts. on the bottom right, it is actually going down, that is a transition for continuity, many items proceeding into procurement accounts. the kind of changes where the aircraft are moving on with larger items reflected in reserves that. infrastructure is stable at $5 billion, the biggest chunk is the marine corps are around the country. lastly, o an m, 46.2 has allowed us to prevail in the current conflicts, supporting the big accounts of shipments, air maintenance, as well as marine corps ground operations and a wide variety of other accounts. next slide.
military personnel. you can see the army and navy were on different paths over the past few years. the navy was downsized as we look at the mix of people at sea and ashore and the mix of ships that we have, stabilizing at a small support with a large number of navy ia's on an individual basis supplying an outer rate, assisting the army and marine corps on the ground and in afghanistan. they are provincial reconstruction teams with marine cheats and officers -- chiefs- and officers. some of those officers are supported in the ia account to allow us to have the force of people to manage. the marine corps is growing, slightly over shooting in stabilizing, 202,100.
civilian personnel, there is a growth that reflects in sourcing, contractor personnel, part of which is acquisition work force. defense, health, and medical increases, the marine corps has seen a stamp -- substantial increase in terms of the security force moving back into government and base support for the large amount of growth later and a series of smaller changes to personnel. this completes our leg of the reserve, active, and civilian personnel. next slide. breaking into these six major areas, the upper left is the ship operation. 58 days deployed, 24 non-
deployed, maintain that t245 for marine corps 2.0. consisting of 27 active that out -- battalions, the reduction that you see isçó a larger numbr of marines coming out, more than what is going to afghanistan, even though it costs more, the actual mix of marine corps is going down. 99%, shipmates funded, aircraft depot maintenance at 100% for deployed squadron unions. the base support is at 92% of the sustainment model and designated capability levels. next slide. shipbuilding. it weighs out as the plan being modified by 50 ships, drawing
your attention to a couple of those, once again a compliance issue, fy13, a few years to set up. we continue to remain in production of the three halls, completing that class. dg 51 class, starting in 2010 with a profile of 2, 1, 2, 1, we are continuing to build these ships, primarily for missile defense, laid out for the president's initiatives, they provide amazing capability across the board on a wide variety of missions. supporting the new acquisition strategies presented by the admiral and the secretary, following the congress in delineating that we expect one contractor in the spring for 10 ships, which is what you want by
the summertime, this revised structure. the first 10 ships would go to this contractor, the next five to the second contractor. the opening is funded in 10, 12, and 11, and the mlp is a newly designed ship as modified, not listed, going with the mixmi modifyx ron m -- with the mix ron plan that will allow us to float on or float off equipment, stepping ahead for the mix ron of the ship. lastly. hsv, -- leslie, hsv, producing
this ship -- lastly, hsv, producing the ship demanded by commanders. next slide. aviation quantity, a total of 1006, joint strike fighters are split between the navy and marine corps as delineated. yet 18 profile has changed because of a modification in terms of adding the growler, 24 and 12 in 2011. this is a multipronged attack to provide jamming electronic warfare, converting the four navy squadrons to be decommissioned, rapidly bringing it forward, creating añr nationl force for jamming, and those would not exist without
airplanes in the wings. to route this purchase -- throughout this purchase, attend carrier squadrons -- 10 carrier squadrons. enhanced for chairman of that last year was a result of congress and an aircraft across the d2d bringing capability forward and advanced airplane capabilities, as well as a new system. highly important, mainly for the isr submarine warfare. as the secretary of defense said this morning, they're realistic is important and the navy and marine corps are also purchasing that, attack helicopters for the navy. at the bottom, the navy has a number of smaller programs, like
a critical launches, ramped up in procurement. next slide. this is in the mission, we can purchase the right mix of aviation, with all of the rapid -- weapons above the msr, the only one that is not is the mark torpedo, which is had reliability and growth issues, so the contract will be coming in the spring. they will be building it into a ramp. next slide. marine corps ground equipment. a program in, -- in transition, at the top you see the ability for the marines to operate over the horizon, this is based upon
the commandant's desire for capability. but he is not ready to move forward with production at this time, he is committed to getting it right. as we wrap up the last procurement, the small amount was maintaining field changes in equipment. that vehicle is another one in r and dd, which will be a variation on the palm v -- humvee. i am sure that you will hear more about that use. next slide. research and development. as i indicated, this program is down. the actual base of science and technology is not. we have maintained levels for base funding in six-one, six- two, giving us the basic
knowledge and desires, would you are seeing is a change in the significant amount of trade-off for items in the joint strength fighters and items moving to procurement, r &d levels have dropped off, we are continuing to work for the advanced submarine and other items, as well as the ddg 1000. next slide. military construction, this account is relatively large for them navy marine corps team -- relatively large for the navy and marine corps team. i call it the snake moving through the force. as you can see in the upper left, significant procurement for construction for growing the force and other initiatives, the navy is typically around $1 billion. the end of the construction is
in red. on the lower right, family housing, while it looks like the downside, on the program for private partner ventures, having lived with it before i came here, it was an outstanding initiative, looking at the housing 10 years ago, ready to go to command, there were a series of older homes, but what we currently have are very modern programs that are tremendous, and what you are seeing here is just the fund to maintain the 14,000 homes around the world, a slight increase from 10 to 11 represents thousands of homes being picked up in guam, primarily, but other places as well. some of the small amounts are transfers in housing. next slide, looking at the 13th year portfolio, you can see that
we had a base program of a billion dollars, there was a program with significant growth in the middle, as they tried to update their base and facilities, housing as required to support young marines, there was a significant ramp in construction, primarily from the relocation of marines to guam with $1 billion for the marine corps training initiative, a study in the area following on the building's training our joint force, starting with marines. next slide. overseas contingencies. i have laid out a number of columns to try to make it clear. $17 billion, stepping over, you have the 10 that had the authority for $14 billion, as well as the supplemental, going
over in the budget that was indicated by mr. haley, needed for the forces that were operating. what this reflects is a couple of items. one, the increase in fuel prices, being significant. two, afghanistan. 3, ships in the middle east that artful -- flying tremendously on two aircraft carriers. trading on the matrix, sustained during deployment routinely since 2002, operating 125%, over 100% because you are flying missions. now that we are back in afghanistan, we are flying in have been since last year in hawaii, going upstairs to 205%. many of you may have remembered seeing a slide six years ago
that showed at 18th flying from chicago to minneapolis to support the army and marines. we got out of that business and started flying flights to iraq and arkansas, the other direction. aircraft carriers are in great demand, and it is tapped for four days, adjusting schedules to overlap directly in the north arabian sea, not in the red sea, because we need that presents. that reflects the demands being placed on our forces to carry the fight, as well as the ground swell over there in the marines want. in the last column, you can see the same force carried forward, following up in neighboring formation. the navy has not seen a change. we have ia's in iraq and afghanistan and the demands have not changed based on the budget
flux. next and last slide. the navy and marine corps were created as expeditionary forces, sailing all over the atlantic, barbary pirates were in the mediterranean. even a small nation with a navy had a big heart, it was that way then and it will be that way in the future. we are a robust force around the world and we will be engaged in operations from haiti to a specific partnership of combat, we are engaged in exercises and training around the world. that completes my read. yes, ma'am? >> talking about the f-18. >> specifically, congress authorized multi-year to $108 million, but without public funding. the navy is evaluating the
opportunity, now that it has been purchased, down to 13, presenting an opportunity. there is nothing that i could talk about today in the acquisition world, as there is no money for multi-year right now. that door has been opened by congress. >> do you expect there to be a decision in the next month or so? >> i do not know, but i would be happy to take the question to the lead tenant on that one. i do not know if there has been a change in the budget, but there are some what confidential discussions. yes, sir? >> talking about virginia class, what kind of trade-off if you have to make? >> i would say that there have been tremendous trade-offs in this budget. i got here in may as a programmer.
if i had to account for how many funds had been developed since the eighth, when i was in the program, it would be taller than 5 new york city phone books. everything has been in flux. valuation came back to being two things. one, tremendous value for the dollar. that program is a hallmark for the navy and the department of defense. i will tell you, having been on one, the last one was five years, the cost of delivering the ships right away, the in hansard, which was just sent into commission last year, from the day it was commission, the next day it went to florida under the commanding officer ended was one of the most difficult operations with multiple weapons in the water. that was a new construction submarine in its first year. a highly capable submarine with a very capable crew. the virginia class, because of the missions they were in, they
were not allowed to talk about it. there were a lot of idea of people around the world, and this submarine force was fully engaged, not as reported as a cold war relic, they are extremely well-designed with advanced electronics, welling gauge around the world. so, that was the trade out in the playoff, a great ship with a joint force. >> the requirement being 55, the ship building plan after 2019, you are building one every year. when you get to 55? >> the ship building plan is developed by a different part of the navy. i cannot say that i remember looking at the data table. i remember that they had a 25 year life. we will continue to purchase more and replace them, steadily
ramping up in procurement. there is an end in sight, i will have to get back to you on the exact year, out of the shipyards that we want, the number that we want is not rapid. >> when will you go from two contractors to eventually be going back to one? >> i do not know. right now we have two sources. there is an issue, if it is purchased rapidly and retired quickly, they are blocked off to the chance that you could not change them again. there are many competing factors. the bottom line is to have two sources with a tremendous poll for the ships, and having operated in my previous job in egypt, frequently, that style of ship would provide a lot of options to go into places that we wanted to go, carrying
partnership stations. right now we are taking asr to limited ports, they will not go to cambodia. we need to go there to send in the small ships, assets that can deploy for resources and training. this is a significant asset to prepare and to deter the area. yes, sir? >> many of the ships are still down there in haiti. from your perspective, do you have any indication on costs for that operation or whether the navy will need additional funds from congress to pay for the flyovers? >> right now we are burning $3 million every day, and we are in constant negotiation. we are looking at that. right now what is going on is a mix of ships changing, one of them showed up down there, the cornhuskers. a grain ship, not a sexy ship,
but when you have people on the bottom of the ocean, which indeed is a crane ship. -- what you need is a grain shipped. not so much alleviated as transitioning. what you need is a ship that does not need to be refueled and can provide an airfield when you have nowhere else in the country to land. an unusual circumstance. after a while, an aircraft carrier is a large asset. once you have stabilized the country, you can find air bases where you can redeploy. there are other solutions. the other one is to bring as many ships as you need. we are in constant negotiations, supplemental, to a quarter of a million dollars, four committees in congress last week, with stop-gap funds to pay for the
army, navy, and marine forces. beyond that i have seen no other construction. that is a good question for the comptroller. right now we are happy to be engaged with bringing those assets as requested by the country, bringing wide ranging assets. over here, with the tie. >> admiral, [unintelligible] is dead now? are the ships keeping the current positioning forces alive? ship to shore connectors, they are transported? >> couple of questions there -- ship to shore connection is the son of the lkax, building a new but similar design. the navy is constructing the first one, basically a modernized lkax.
reviewing what is required for forcible entry, a squadron could go through and maintain, over time modifying them to consist of various elements, have you ever seen one of the very large class ship's bell on massive in court, you could drop 1 onto a different ship, a ship that is alongside, delivered, driving ashore. it is somewhat of an experiment. we are developing the concept. this would be similar to the blue heron, where it is above board and can pick up heavy items. it could drive in or position things. >> [unintelligible] >> that is the navy power asset,
converting it into tools running on lights for 33 years that have substantial left trained personnel in the navy. the older ones in charleston will be replaced by 2 688's. they will go to the shipyard, removing part of the weapons system in training, active plans being attacked, operating at lower power, training on the navy nukes. sir, in the front. >> how much did you stand by canceling in the five-year plan? >> i do not have that number, it wound up being transitional perio. i do not have a number for your and that. that plan was harvested out,
some of it in terms of radar transmissions didn't -- radar transmissions were leveled off into the plan. >> what is the research into the bill? $6 billion? >> the set up his -- let me see -- what is that number? it is about -- yes, it is. well, no. between three and four? pretty close to 6 billion, in terms of parts. reactor components, and other components. >> squeezing out a lot of surface ships. there is a concern. >> when it comes to the production, there is a total of reach that is a matter of being well laid out, going over this
week early to congress, looking at it as early, mid, and late term plans. >> mentioning the cost of air operations in afghanistan, if that increases, would be entirely covered in this budget? or would you expect the community to be making that up in terms of decrees operations for flight hours? >> the goal in fiscal year 11 is that it will be fully funded. in fiscal year 10, they are taking a crew looked at the costs we have in total fuel -- they are taking a prudent look at a cost we have in total fuel. if it is fully funded at the full amount, in fiscal year 10
we are adjusting to the supplemental as it comes through. >> the navy secretary laid out a lot of plans for the energy office to be created but it has not been funded. >> there is a small energy office that we created in the fiscal year 2011 budget, they have changed some of the staff, and i know that in fiscal year 11 we have $174 million added in the budget for a variety of sea, air, and shore, with the secretary adding more, 1.3 $9 billion for the energy plan. so, there is an energy office in transition, funded later on with substantial steps ahead. >> [inaudible]
>> i will get back to you, i do not know. when i am the budget officer, the only column that i can address is the current and it will be fixed next year in execution. >> admiral, can you tell me about the cost increases of air operations? as the navy's share of those operations increased and is that a part of the reason you are seeing a cost increase? >> i do not know about the total, we are still maintaining 40% of the operations, but the cost for delivery has gone up because of the flight. i do not think it is a change, they just do not want us to go down. when you do not want to go down, you think about delivery around the country with bombs in afghanistan, requiring a lot
more planes to keep the passion level of. >> you have a little bit of money in fiscal year 10 for smaller amounts with modernizing, how quickly are you going to lay that down? >> the desire would be to move faster. remember, the secretary talked about being beware of expedients systems. the current money they uc goes through 13 and into 14, a test that is continuing on to the ground taxi, eventually landing with aircraft carrier tanks. that is really just a test that one contractor wants to apply for. ramping up from $3 billion to $6 billion, moving steadily on the
exact emissions and what it would take, next generation of players in the mix, that is how i imagined it would be, substantially ramping up, shifting from one company demonstrator to a competitor in the navy. i think we wind up being a little bit slower than the other services because of greater demand. when you think about that uav following on to operating airplanes, they get bigger and complex compared to the ones that have now moved and the ones that are moving in the ocean at 22 knots, pitching over programming that goes in to make something capable of landing there, there's quite a difference in terms of stability in landing. rather than trying to bite off two -- too much at one time, we think it is a significant ramp.
yes, sir? >> how would you characterize cancellation of upx? not affordable bella >> if you encapsulate it, that would be faster than any multiple briefing. an expensive option that brought a lot of people to bear on an airplane, looking at where we are going with architecture, in terms of information dominance, rather than it being cookie cutter, the inference was to find a better solution. we think that for short -- that for a short delay, it might be more like it to bring linguistics and signal to inning with electronic operations, moving ahead with different solutions out there. we shut down an office and opened another study. >> the navy is expected to release its updated master plan
for an unmanned underwater vehicles later this year. any idea in his article on the effect of the change in progress and what that will be? >> primarily in my hunting, there is a specific issue of 11, adding $99 million in terms of energy and unmanned control. as to where they will put that money in the institution, there is an interest in the navy under tremendous platforms. the maritime world that we live in is a host to many more technological solutions and you could easily spend much more money than you could want to when you try to operate within city under the way, looking at plans to lay out their with
undersea vehicles. yes, ma'am? >> in terms of ramped up operations in afghanistan, one concern regarding equipment, how has that been addressed? >> if you look in terms of procurement for the marines, you will see a significant amounts, 2.3 $6 billion, expecting a drop down, with more and more people coming down, 9/11 goes back up, a significant part of that being preparation for $5 billion provided to the marine corps, with $4 billion on the ground for aviation. the expectation is more will follow. that is more equipment than required for those individuals
in deployment. we are sending equipment out with purchase agreements for past service lives. $4 billion over the last 2.5 years, we are demonstrating the need to see the level of use over there. >> in the shipbuilding procurement, you have additional categories that are not defined. oceanographic ships, is that the entire ship? >> yes, sir? >> why is there not ship building? >> it comes down to the rules. you could, but if it serves that particular function, it is considered in the other count. this is purely bookkeeping. >> how much is that ship? >> i will have to get back to
you. looking at this, your ship to shore connector, one of the ships fundings comes out of different categories. four of them, -- >> there are a significant cost completions and in terms of ship out voting, 2009 and 2008, where it adds up. a detailed breakdown of the account in the budget. >> anything else that is not here? a tremendous number of cats and dogs. are these right? or is this a modified design? >> this is the straight ddg 51
in this line. the other portion laid out as part of the study rhetoric called the radar study, if you look at the total options, including the ddg 51, 1000, radar, 1000, and the advanced capabilities of stealth, it was as if they were reviewed by a senior group for the future to be able to attract different, saying that they would be cheaper, producing more and be telling, and that first shift
>> this defense briefing is going to all branches of the military. next, a representative of the air force will talk about spending for the next fiscal year. in the budget the white house has requested a pay raise for military personnel and $8.8 billion for programs to support families of troops serving overseas. during this break we will watch the scene today as the budget proposal arrived on capitol hill.
>> copies of the proposed 2011 budget arriving on capitol hill. we will return to the defense department budget announcement. >> the form in acquisition and supporting the joint team. the next slide focuses on the air force. next, please. over the last two years we have worked hard to strengthen. to continue with ensuring the enterprise being safe, secure, and reliable. we continue to partner with the joined team to end the fight, remaining focus on our greatest asset, airmen, families, and
their civilian work force, modernizing as we organize, train, and balance reflections. we must excel as stewards of taxpayer resources. therefore we continue to aggressively press ahead with our efforts to recapture acquisition ever. next slide, please. this highlights the service core functions in describing the unique capabilities available to the combative commanders. we have prepared a balanced portfolio across the core functions in terms of air force priorities, the basis for developing resources that rely on resource core functions, the budget rollout is best understood when discussed through appropriation.
next. this chart represents the air force budget to include contingency operations, the blue part of the budget includes defense health, special operations, and intelligence programs. the focus for today's brief is the air force blue baseline portion and the overseas contingency operations peace. before we proceed to the major highlights, let me draw your attention to major in a and m and for chairman. the $6 billion increase in o van m -- o and m, where prices increased by an oil from $118 per barrel at 2 $127 per barrel.
another $1.5 billion increase, but additional civilian influx making about $400 million of it, communications activities $300 million, and u.s. command, $100 million. representing the programs from development to procurement, such as 35 and the b-2 modernization programs. procurement tel tuck, 1.5 billion -- procurement del tucl 1.5 billion. including light mobility aircraft. from this point forward, this reading is geared towards the blue baseline air force corp. and overseas contingency operations.
as previously mentioned, the baseline does not include defense health, special operations, ngo, and overseas contingency operations. i would like to draw your attention to the fact that 63% of the budget supports day to day operations, such as military pay, civilian pay, flying hours, and daily facilities in the supports. procurement represents 24% of the budget, with appropriation 20% funded through modifications and upgrades to the latest systems, allowing us to meet today's demands. 15% of the total budget, allowing us to invest in emerging technologies for future requirements. next, the total force in strength is 510,100 personnel,
and active duty in strength is 330,200 in this budget, representing an increase in personnel for fiscal year 2009. fiscal year 2011 continues to balance skills sets for air force core functions while supporting increases in war fighter demands, information, and command and control. isr programs increased to 50 by the end of fiscal year 2011. therefore reserve, the strength of 71,000 personnel, representing an increase of 1700 personnel for isr, 196 people, 297, and the nuclear mission.
the regards in strength remains constant. we continue to take care of our airmen and families with increased allowances, such as the 1.4% increase in base pay, 3.4% and subsistence. next. o and m is the bread and butter in this day to day budget, focusing on new and emerging requirements. focusing on increased demands from isr to increase to 50 combat air patrols by the end of 11. continuing implementation with air force leads in six out of 12 basis. mcgwire, andrews, eleanor, laughing, randolph, optimized to
fly the program to continue execution, with 1.2 flying hours -- 1.2 million flying hours in the budget. support for air force priorities, sustaining 5500 aircraft, as well as the space in nuclear enterprises. this budget also supports a 20 -- total of 24 space launches. taking care of the civilian work force and pay raise and 1.4%, consistent with the military, continuing contractors, in sourcing from contractors to civilians, 7726 positions in his budget. supporting the operations of major operations, including $1 billion for supporting air force families, such as child care,
centers, spousal support, and quality of life activities. next. the military construction appropriations are $37 million over what we ask for in fiscal year 2010, representing a 2.8% increase. the 2009 american recovery and reinvestment act, assisting in some of the most critical programs, the budget allows completion of new construction projects with a weapons system deliveries, supporting the f-22 fighters and f-35 projects. we have made significant investments in replacements at mcguire, and other bases. funding the basic training in troop housing complexes, no. 3,
at the air force base. running in error university library update, at the maxwell air force base, and air force academy leadership facilities. continuing to house privatization, we have 53,000 houses and family quarters, by the end of fiscal year 2010, 39,000 of the 53,000 will be privatized, or 73%, with a goal of 100% by the end of fiscal year 2011, continuing to support families and meeting demands. the current round is moving through completion on schedule, in fiscal year 2011, continuing until training with legacy remaining $130 million for requirements for cleanup, the caretaker responsibilities at 28
locations. continuing to decrease as we move towards 100% privatisation, we are continuing to enter family housing, $74 million in renovations and upgrades to 400 million units in the budget. the next slide, please. the decrease reflects programs moving from development into procurement, let me highlight some of the programs. our number one priority in acquisition is the tanker replacement. the planning to release the request in the summer of 2010 during contract awards. we have awarded contract coloration -- exploration, found
that 12% of the r&d budget. -- funded at 12% of the r&d budget. the f-16 study tests as well. continuing the cps 3a development and the hh2 element and testing, including do 1 and 2, rtdne is balanced across the near-term and future grades. next. in procurement, we continue to meet war fighter demands while developing costs for the future, purchasing 97 manned and 52 unmanned aircraft for a total of 149. in the isr portfolio we have procured radars and mobile hawks, investing in a fifth generation fighters with 22
advance procurements for production. my bill -- mobility procurement includes eight c130 j's, nine hc130 j's, 15 light attack mobility. the special office for cheering 5 c b-2s. we have procured 10 cb5 upgrades and six c130 upgrades. we do reliability on engine for 65'7 c5's. in the space portfolio we included satellite four and five. unman global satcom satellites
7, advancing 2 procurements satellite 8. in the missions we continue through the fiscal year 2010 start, purchasing 171 pods in the budget, as well as am rams. next, please. efforts in major procurement for the future, as you can see a significant number of weapons systems, 69% in fiscal year 2011, including base line and overseas contingency operations are focused on the demands of today. such as the m29 raiders, global hawks, see 27 light mobility, tv 22 is, mercury's, xc 130 j's, and hh 60 pay talks.
-- hawks. we are dancing for german for continued buys. last, -- we are advancing procurement for continued abies. -- buys. this chart addresses the fiscal year 2010 supplemental for increased afghanistan operations and local request included as part of the fiscal year 2011 submission, addressing fiscal year 2010 first. supplementals support an increase in operations in afghanistan, and we can see that the counter fund was $4.7 billion, providing assets for 3000 additional personnel, supporting data today ops