“Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to today’s hearing to review the budget request of the Department of Defense for Fiscal Year 2009.  We have with us the Secretary of Defense, the Honorable Robert M. Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael G. Mullen.  Gentlemen, welcome. 

  “I want to thank you both for the lifetime of service you have dedicated to the country and for the tremendous jobs you are doing now for the Department of Defense.  Whatever else we discuss today, I want to start by expressing the deep respect, admiration, and appreciation that this committee has for both of you.  And this sentiment extends equally to the millions of men and women serving in uniform, and to our defense civilians, whom you lead.
  
  “On Monday, the President submitted his budget request, which included $515.4 billion for the Department of Defense, an increase of 7.5 percent from last year, the 11th consecutive year that defense spending has increased and the 10th consecutive year it has increased faster than the rate of inflation.  Congress and the Department will not agree on every detail in the budget. 

  “I do, however, strongly support the decision to have a real increase in defense spending.  Even with this extra funding, DOD will have serious and compelling unmet needs, as I will discuss later at greater length.  Last year, the risk assessment given to Congress by General Pace indicated increased strategic risk to the country.  I do not see that that risk has in any way been reduced, so a real increase in our defense spending is necessary and appropriate.

  “I am pleased to see that you have provided funding for the Grow the Force initiative for the Army and the Marine Corps in the base budget, a measure I have advocated since 1995.  I am also pleased to see a 3.4% pay raise, although I’m concerned that this increase only matches the rising cost of living, and does not close the pay gap with the private sector.  I am disappointed that the Department actually proposes to widen the pay gap for its civilian employees by reducing their pay raise to 2.9%. 

  “I was also very disappointed that the budget again proposes increasing health care fees on military service members and their families, and that we have not been able to maintain funding for the shipbuilding plan that Admiral Mullen wrote when he was CNO.  And I am concerned that this budget defers hard choices on several large budget issues, like procurement of F-22s and C-17s to Congress and the next Administration.

  “On your request for war funding, I must give you a grade of incomplete.  That is not a passing grade.  This committee must understand the full magnitude of the Department’s needs, both so that we can provide the oversight required under the Constitution, and so we can communicate them to the American people.  We feel so strongly about this that we required it in law.  This budget request does not allow us to perform that duty, and I ask that you give us a full year funding estimate for war costs with as much detail and fidelity as possible very shortly.  Neither the President nor Congress should pass the buck on this decision to General Petraeus.  Providing adequate funding for the troops is our responsibility.

  “But if there is only one message that I hope you, Mr. Secretary, and you, Mr. Chairman, take away from today’s hearing, it is this.  There is a deep, deep concern among many of us on this committee about the risk facing the nation in two key areas of our responsibility.  I liken it to the Sword of Damocles, which hung suspended by a single thread over the head of Damocles, a citizen of the ancient Greek city of Syracuse, reminding him that catastrophe was just a hair’s breadth away.  Just so, we must act now to avoid failures with grave consequences.

  “First, I am deeply concerned about our current readiness posture, and in particular about the readiness of our ground forces.  The readiness shortfalls, which were alarming last year, have continued to expand and will now require a significant investment of time and money to restore full capability.  This is a special concern because in my 31 years in Congress we have been involved in 12 significant military conflicts, not one of which was predicted beforehand.  We are simply not prepared for the emergence of such a conflict today. 

  “I know that both of you are also concerned, and are deeply committed to addressing readiness shortfalls, both today’s problems with personnel, training, and equipment, and those that relate to modernization, which produces our readiness for tomorrow.  We must focus on our strategic priorities to find the right balance between near term needs and the long term health of our military, and straighten out the roles and missions of the Armed Forces.  Help us to help you.  You can start by moving quickly to appoint the Defense Materiel Readiness Board established in the FY08 National Defense Authorization Act.
 
  “Second, I am concerned about the possibility of a rapid deterioration of security and stability in Afghanistan.  History will judge us very harshly if our focus and effort in Afghanistan are insufficient to the task.  A failure of the mission there would not only damage our security, it would do serious damage to NATO.  We should do first things first, just as in World War II where we focused more of our resources on Germany and the war in Europe until that war was won.  Again, I know that both of you are mindful of Afghanistan as well, and I know that the situation there today shows some signs of progress as well as signs for concern.  We look forward to continuing to work with you on this difficult challenge.
 
  “On the issue of Iraq, we want to work with you to ensure the safest possible redeployment of our troops from that country, and to return control to the people of Iraq as soon as is reasonable.  Two issues stand out.  One is the plan to negotiate agreements with Iraq beyond the traditional Status of Forces agreement.  We understand that the administration’s plan is to bind the United States to the defense of Iraq.  Such defense agreements that commit us to fight on behalf of an ally have historically always been sent to Congress for approval, as with our agreements with South Korea and Japan.  It is my view that any such agreement with the government of Iraq must be brought before this Congress.

  “Similarly, the FY08 National Defense Authorization Act prohibits the use of any funding to permanently station U.S. forces in Iraq or to obtain economic control of Iraq’s oil resources.  The committee intends to provide oversight to ensure that this law is followed.

  “Lastly, I’d be remiss if I did not say a word about signing statements.  After a false start in December, the President signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 on January 28, 2008.  When he did so, he included a signing statement that identified four provisions of the law which the President said he would interpret consistent with his authority as commander in chief.  One of them is the law I just mentioned prohibiting the permanent stationing of U.S. forces in Iraq.  Gentlemen, these provisions do nothing to undermine the authority of the President or the executive branch.  We fully expect the Department to implement the law, all of the law, and we will be watching this issue very closely.

  “Now I turn to my friend and colleague, Duncan Hunter of California, the ranking member of this committee for his opening remarks.”