nerability, which realistically a country that is that dependent on space has to face.

On the second part of your question, with respect the UAVs, the Department of Defense has fashioned the phrase "low density, high demand assets." What that means is that there is a lot of demand for them and we did not buy enough of them. It is kind of a euphemism for, "We did not have our priorities exactly right."

We are living in a period where that is a fact. We did not have our priorities quite right. We do not have enough of these aircraft. They have done a superb job, not just in Afghanistan, but in a variety of other intelligence-gathering activities. In this budget we have substantially increased the funding for unmanned vehicles and, life being what it is, it is going to take some time. Right now, not a week goes by that General Myers and I are not confronted by a combatant commander in some part of the world who is asking for additional unmanned aerial vehicles. We are in fact forced to deny them because there simply are not enough to go around.

We are building them as rapidly as possible. Dov, you may want to comment on the specific dollars here.

Mr. ZAKHEIM. Certainly, sir.

Senator, we are spending close to a billion dollars this year on unmanned vehicles, which is a significant ramp-up, as you well know, from where we were. For Global Hawk, which everyone has read about, the very long-range UAV, we will be spending in excess of $600 million. We are developing a new combat air vehicle, which essentially is a pilotless attack plane, but developed from the start that way. That is in excess of $140 million. Predator, which again. everyone has heard about, is the UAV workhorse of Afghanistan and is funded at $150 million alone.

So you have a major commitment that I think is unprecedented in the DOD.

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you.

Secretary RUMSFELD. It is not just for new aircraft, either. There is modernization taking place with respect to UAVs. We have lost a number of Predators because of weather and icing and we have lost a Global Hawk. We lost some because of control difficulties. We have some of these vehicles that are not armed, of course, and we are looking at different ways to improve their capabilities. We are also looking at some different sensors with respect to these aircraft. So it is an important area. It has been underlined by the Afghan situation and we are putting some beef behind it.

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. I think that is a good direction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Senator Sessions follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT BY SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing to receive the testimony of these two patriots about the future of our Armed Forces. I can't think of two more important people to testify during this critical time in our Nation's history, a time when we again find ourselves at war. Senator Warner, I appreciate your leadership as well and your insights on the many defense and national security issues facing our Nation during this war on terrorism.

Mr. Secretary and General Meyers, thank you both for your leadership. During this current crisis you each have shown vision and perseverance while also leading the transformation of the Department of Defense. I, along with all Americans, deeply appreciate your continued leadership during Operation Enduring Freedom.

The President's Fiscal Year 2003 Budget submission is based on his determination, and our's in Congress, to win the war on terrorism, and to protect the American people and our homeland from attack. It also includes a significant down payment on the transformation objectives which were articulated in the Quadrennial Defense Review. But, as you said during your remarks at the National Defense University last week, Mr. Secretary, transformation is as much a change in mindset, as it is acquiring new technology. The highly trained, professional members of our Armed Forces can and have innovatively employed older systems like B-52s which, coupled with our most advanced weapons and sensors, produced devastating results on the battlefield. These results can only be achieved by approaching our requirements and acquisition decisions with a capabilities-based mindset.

The Air Force, for instance, espoused a new organizational concept last week that calls for developing "ad-hoc task forces" which are tailored to provide specific effectsbased capabilities required by the warfighting CINCs. I am sure that the use of B52s loaded out with precision guided munitions as an on-call close air support weapon in Afghanistan was not something that was envisioned prior to the conflict. But the adoption of this tactic was driven by specific effects required by the CINC. I applaud this direct approach to solving problems and truly hope that this type of innovational thinking can be brought to bear not only on future battlefields, but also on other issues that the Department of Defense faces.

Our current world-wide war against terrorism has also served to highlight the efficacy of having Naval forces forward deployed and ready to strike on call from the Commander in Chief. Our Navy-Marine Corps team was able to decisively influence the war on the ground in a landlocked country from ships on station 800 miles

away.

On a trip I took early last month to Japan to visit the Seventh Fleet, I was briefed on the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk's unannounced and rapid deployment in support of Enduring Freedom. Kitty Hawk's ability to provide a mobile base for special operations forces is an example of the flexibility and transformation capability of naval forces at sea. While in Japan, I visited the U.S.S. O'Brien, a Spruance class destroyer. O'Brien is a 25-year-old ship that had just returned from combat operations. O'Brien was in excellent condition, completed all missions assigned to her and, according to her Commanding Officer and crew, has a lot of service life left. The Navy's plan to retire a significant number of these destroyers before the end of their planned service life causes me to be concerned that the Navy will be drawing its forces down below the QDR level. As we have heard in previous testimony, the burden of inadequate numbers of ships falls on the shoulders of our men and women in uniform. This brings me to one thing that concerns me about the President's Budget, and that is what appears to be the lack of funding in the shipbuilding ac

count.

I think we may need to look at new ways to keep our ships forward in theater and supporting the CINCs. We can do this by swapping crews of ships already deployed, increasing the number of ships that are homeported overseas, or by pre-positioning warships in a minimally manned status in strategic areas much like we do with our pre-positioned logistical supplies in Diego Garcia and other areas.

Finally, the Army, particularly its Special Operations Forces, have performed superbly in the war against terrorism. We all can be very proud of them. I am excited about the transformational strides this service is considering. New equipment like the Interim Armored Vehicle, which will be rolled out in April at Anniston Army Depot in Alabama, and the Future Combat System will ensure that the Army continues to move towards a lighter, more lethal, force that is able to be deployed on short notice to support any of the warfighting CINCs. I am also immensely pleased with the progress that is being made at the home of Army Aviation, Fort Rucker, Alabama. Army Aviation will continue to play a key role in the war on terrorism, and the superb training that is being conducted at Fort Rucker will continue to be critical to the successful conduct of the war. One item I observed during a visit 2 weeks ago is a necessity for advanced simulators and advanced simulator technology. I can only wonder if more hours in advanced simulators could have helped mitigate the recent spate of aviation accidents which have occurred in Southwest Asia. I feel that more advanced simulators are vital for the professionals at Fort Rucker and I hope this fiscal year 2003 budget and those in the future will fund the simulators Army Aviation needs.

Once again, I'd like to thank you gentlemen for your comments today. I don't think the Nation could have asked for two more dedicated and talented professionals to lead us through the war on terrorism. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Senator Dayton.

Senator DAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, General, I want to join with the others in paying tribute to you, to the President, to your military commands, and to our men and women of the Armed Forces for the very successful prosecution of this war in Afghanistan.

Along with others in the Senate, I was in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and other countries in Central Asia in January. General Myers, I had the same kind of reaction as you expressed in your testimony to learning of Reservists with whom I had lunch who had volunteered for that duty and whose morale was extraordinarily high. I think their degree of professionalism and commitment is extraordinary. Obviously, as you both outlined, the superiority of the military operation and the advances that have been made even subsequent to the Gulf War have been very impressive. They have had the kind of devastating results that we want to demonstrate to the rest of the world as a consequence of the kind of heinous acts that were perpetrated on the United States in September.

It is not my purpose here to debate the past, but given that success, I think I would like the hearing record to not reflect, at least not without some questioning, the aspersions that have been cast upon the previous administration. Reference has been made to a procurement holiday in the 1990s, which, if I believe the record is accurate, Mr. Secretary, the procurement budget that your administration inherited for 2001 was in excess of $55 billion. If, as you say, we lived in the 1990s off of the investments made in the 1980s, then it seems to me that you have to give some recognition to the fact that whatever level of preparedness and effectiveness we have today is at least in some part a result of investments that were made during the 1990s.

That is not to say that more does not need to be done. I would not quarrel with your observation there. I think you and the President deserve due credit for both last year and this year sending that message loud and clear. As Senator Warner has indicated, there was bipartisan support last year and I believe there will be strong bipartisan support this year to doing whatever must be done.

But I think it would be unfair not to realize or acknowledge that some of this technological and coordinated superiority that we have seen demonstrated is a result of the previous administration.

I also think it is important in a context that does pertain to the future because, as Senator Byrd and others have noted, we and the administration also have to make some very critical choices in terms of our allocation of resources that are going to have real and long-term consequences for this Nation. President Clinton perhaps can be faulted, as was said here, for overshooting the mark in terms of reducing defense expenditures overall. But he also succeeded in reversing years of deficit spending and bequeathed to the Nation 4 years of budget surpluses.

I give President Bush credit because from what I can tell the 10year budget is presented very forthrightly in terms of its assumptions and its dollars. I think he has done a service because he has set forth clearly the critical choices that he has made and that this Congress is going to stand to review.

The military increases that are being proposed, while they are necessary, essential, and unavoidable in the context of what occurred to this Nation on September 11, also have very real consequences for our Nation's financial security. I think it is in that context that this committee will have to be making its own decisions about this budget request.

Last year, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) projected on-budget surpluses every year for the next 10 years totaling $841 billion. Now, 1 year later, OMB is projecting on-budget deficits for the next 10 years of almost $1.5 trillion.

The unified budget including the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, which I think is somewhat disingenuous, what I call sort of the Federal Government's version of Enron accounting, even there the total unified surplus has dropped by $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years, down to a $1 trillion level. This means that the Social Security and Medicare trust fund surpluses are funding these on-budget expenditures, which include defense along with all of our other functions of government, to the amount of $1.5 trillion over this decade. That means $1.5 trillion that is not going to pay down our national debt. It means arguably that in 10 years we will be less financially secure as a Nation as a result of these critical choices.

As we have learned today, what you are proposing to spend is not enough to do everything that needs to be done. I just want to emphasize what I believe is the need to make some very critical choices in terms of how much money can we afford to spend on the military and still have that level of preparedness that we need. We must recognize that every dollar spent there is going to be one dollar less somewhere. It is going to be less either for other domestic programs or in drawing down our Social Security and Medicare trust fund surpluses which are going to impact our long-term security.

So I guess my preamble here has exhausted my time, and I will be respectful of my time. But I do want to just conclude with one question. It picks up on something that Senator Inhofe said about Reservists and National Guard. I am very concerned, since_Minnesota has a large contingent of Reservists and National Guard participating, in the inequities in the treatment of their pay and benefits to the active services.

I want to just ask, in general, can we be assured that these pay and other benefit improvements, which I commend you for in your recommendations, will include also the Reserves and National Guard to the same degree as the Active Forces?

Secretary RUMSFELD. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to make a brief comment. What you say, Senator Dayton, is of course correct. The weapons systems that are invested in in one period take years to be procured, acquired, developed, built, tested, and deployed. When I was Secretary of Defense in the 1970s, I was involved in the rollout for the F-16. We still have it. I approved the M-1 tank. We still have one. The B-1 bomber was in its earliest days.

Every administration, every president, and every congress has available to them to contribute to peace and stability in the world not what they do during their time in office, but only what was

done by their predecessors, and not simply their predecessors of 4 years or 8 years, but their predecessors of 20 and 25, and in the case of B-52s, 30 or 35 years. That is a truth.

I would add that there is practically nothing that this administration will ask Congress to invest in that will benefit this President during this term. The lags are too long, the times are too great. The legacy forces we are living with and we are dealing with were the result of decisions made by Congresses and presidents that go back up to four decades. I agree with that. I do not think anyone can contest it.

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much.

Senator Bunning.

Senator BUNNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to associate myself with Senator Sessions' remarks. I am sorry he is gone. But I also would like to go back to our success in Afghanistan. We combined our forces with the in-country forces, the Northern Alliance and the Southern Alliance, in assisting to run out the Taliban, which we did successfully. I would say that is a major accomplishment for the U.S. military. The U.S. military is capable of doing a heck of a lot more than just that.

But I look at the al Qaeda results, the terrorist results other than the destruction of training camps, and the main people that are in charge, and you cannot tell me today whether they are alive or dead or where they are at. If we are going to spend a billion plus dollars a month, we ought to be able to do that. We ought to know one way or the other if Osama bin Laden is in Somalia or if he is in Iraq. We ought to know where his second of command is.

Most, it seems like, al Qaeda leadership have escaped and nowyou are shaking your head no, that is not true. Maybe you know more than I do?

Secretary RUMSFELD. Who is shaking?

Senator BUNNING. No? Well, most of them seem to have escaped and left Afghanistan and are in other countries planning destruction again. We ought to be able to centralize our forces with others to make sure that that does not happen.

You have come to us to ask approval of almost $380 billion worth of expenditures. I would like to have a little more assurance that you are going to finish the job that you started after September 11. Let me just give you one example that is in the budget that I have difficulty with. You said you are going to centralize aircraft and the F-22 was going to be an aircraft that the Army, Navy, and any other forces could use. Now, you have requested in your budget additional aircraft for each and every service. Maybe you can help me out. Is it because it is available? Is it because the F-22 is down the road too far? When we were going to go and get a unified aircraft that all the services could use, why are you requesting money for additional planes, as you just discussed, even the unarmed or unmanned planes? You just talked about that.

In spite of the fact that we were successful with the Taliban, tell us more? Where are we going?

Secretary RUMSFELD. Thank you, Senator. I will take a stab at it. I think it may be a little early to describe the situation in Afghanistan as a success, in this sense. You are quite right, the Taliban is no longer governing that country, but there are still