Been publicly released. I have an investigation ongoing to figure out how that reporter got it. But the worse part of this is, the reporter did not know how to read the report, maam. So let me give you the actual facts. Today a pilot that weighs less than 136 pounds, if he steps to the airplane, he or she, has a 1 in 50,000 chance of hurting their neck from an ejection. A pilot between 136 pounds and 165 pounds has a 1 in 200,000 probability of having neck injury from ejection. The individual who reported on this is not an expert in system safety. Okay. Let me my time is running out. As i understand it, the test was done under ideal circumstances. Is there any reason to feel that the results would be any different in circumstances where it was going not at ideal speeds but and not going straight but going up . Your time has expired . Generals, i want to thank you for being here. You have continued to provide the information as required by this committee. And we will continue to hold this program accountable and provide oversight. Not just because there are issues or problems that have arisen, which there are, but because this program is so incredibly important. It needs to be safe for our pilots. It needs to be safe for our country. And it needs to be able to perform at the level that it has been asked to perform because the gap that this plane is going to fill is incredibly important. So with that, i thank you both for your service. I that you both know that we will continue to work both through the Hearing Committee structure and throughout the calendar year to both inquire and to work with you to ensure this plane can deliver. Thank you. Fridays washington journal will be dedicated entirely to your reaction to Hillary Clintons testimony before the house benghazi committee. Well have two hours of your phone call, tweets, and facebook posts beginning at 7 00 a. M. Eastern time on cspan. An update on fraud attempts that target the elderly friday morning from a house energy and commerce subcommittee. Well bring this to you live at 9 15 a. M. Eastern on cspan3. Cspan provides the best access for cover ran of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton testifying before the House Select Committee on benghazi. There was no credible actionable threat known to our Intelligence Community against our compound. Our hearing coverage without commercials or commentary will air in its entirety saturday and sunday at noon eastern on cspan. Former defense secretary robert gates testified before the Senate Armed Services committee on current u. S. Defense policy and strategic posture. He discussed budget challenges, Defense Department, Veterans Affairs coordination, troop morale and on going Missions Including those in the middle east. This is just under 2 hours and 30 minutes. Good morning. The Senate Armed ServicesCommittee Meets today to begin a major Oversight Initiative on the future of defense reform. This will be the first in a series of dozen hearings that will proceed from a consideration of the strategic context in global challenging challenges facing the United States to alternative Defense Strategies and the future of warfare to the civilian and military organizations of the department of defense, as well as its acquisition, personnel, and management systems, much of which is the legacy of the Goldwater Nichols reformed enacted in 1986. There is no one, in my view, in america that is better to help us begin this effort than our distinguished witness, the former secretary of defense robert gates. We welcome him back for his first testimony to Congress Since leaving the department. Dr. Gates, we know that you have eagerly awaited this day with all of the anticipation of a root canal. Few defense, in my few, none, defense leaders can match dr. Gates record as a reformer. He directed more than 100 billion in internal efficiencies in the department of defense. He eliminated dozens of failing or unnecessary acquisition programs. He held people accountable. He even fired a few. And yet by his own account dr. Gates left overwhelmed by the scope and scale of the problems at the Defense Department. This is the purpose of the Oversight Effort we are beginning today, to define these problems clearly and rigorously and only then to consider what reforms may be necessary. There is profound urgency to this effort. The worldwide threats confronting our nation now and in the future have never been more complex, uncertain, and counting. America will not succeed in the 21st century with anything less than the most innovative, agile, and efficient, and effect i Defense Organization. I have not met a senior civilian or military leader who thinks we have that today. In no way is this a criticism of the many patriotic missionfocused public servants, both in and out of uniform, who sacrifice every day and here at home and around the world to keep us safe. To the contrary, its because we have such outstanding people that we must strive to remove impediments in our Defense Organizations that would squander the talents of our troops and civil servants. And now some would argue that the main problems facing the department of defense come from the white house, National Security council staff, interagency, and, yes, the congress. You will find no argument here, especially about the dysfunction of congress. We must be find mul of these big bigger problems but addressing many of them is outside of this committees jurisdiction. Americans hold our military in the highest regard, as we should. At the same time, our witness will explain the problems that he encountered at the Defense Department are real and serious. Just consider chart one here. In constant dollars our nation is spending almost the same amount on defense as we were 30 years ago. But for this money today, we are getting 35 fewer combat brigades, 53 fewer ships, 63 fewer combat air squadrons, and significantly more overhead. How much is difficult to establish because the department of defense does not even have complete and reliable data as gao has repeatedly found. Of course our forces are more capable now than 30 years ago but our adversaries are also more capable. At the same time, many of the weapons in our arsenal today, our care craft, ship, tank shs and fighting vehicle, rifle, and missiles and Strategic Forces are the products of the military modernization of the 1980s. And no matter how much more capable our troops and weapons are today, they are not capable of being in two places at once. Our declining combat capacity cannot be divorced from the problems in our defense acquisition system which one high level study summed up as follows. Quote, the defense acquisition system has basic problems that must be corrected. These problems are deeply entrerchled and have developed over several decades from an increasingly bureaucratic and over regulated process. As a result, all too many of our Weapons Systems cost too much, take too long to develop, and by the time they are fielded, incorporate obsolete technology. Sounds right. But that was the packard in 1986. And since then, since 1986, as this chart shows, cost overruns and schedule delays on major defense acquisitions have only gotten worse. Defense programs are now nearly 50 over budget and, on average, over two years delayed. Its telling that perhaps the most significant defense procurement success story, the mrat which dr. Gates himself led was produced by going around the acquisition system, not through it. The rising cost of our defense personnel system is also part of the problem. As chart three show, over the past 30 years the average fully burden dned cost per service member, all of the pays and lifetime benefits that military service now entails has increased 270 . And yet all too often the department of defense has sought to control these personnel costs by cutting operating forces while civilian and military headquarter staff has not changed and even grown, indeed. Since 1985 the instrength of the joint force has decreased by 38 but the percentage of fourstar officers in that force has increased by 65 . These reductions in combat power have occurred while the departments overhead elements, especially its contractor workforce, have exploded. Nearly 1. 1 million personnel now perform overhead activities in the defense agencies, military departments and Service Staffs in Washington Headquarters services. An analysis by mckenzie and Company Found less than one quarter of active duty troops were in combat roles with majority instead performing overhead activities. Recent studies by the defense business board and others confirmed that little as changed in this regard. The u. S. Tooth detail ratio was well below the global ampl including such countries as russia, india, and ba zil. For years, decades in some wayses, gao identified the Administrative Functions of department of defense at being at high risk of waste, fraud, abuse, and duplication of effort. Perhaps none of this should be surprising when you consider the judgment of jim locker, the lead staffer on this committee during the defense reorganization efforts three decades ago, quote, the remedies applied by Goldwater Nichols to Defense Management in administration have largely been ineffective. They were never a priority for the drafters and troubling trends remain. The pentagon is choking on bureaucra bureaucracy. He wrote that 14 years ago and the problem has only gotten worse. Ultimately we must ask whether the Defense Department is succeeding in its development and execution of strategy policy and plans. The office of the secretary of defense, the Service Secretaries and Service Staffs, joint staff, and the combatant commands are all bigger than ever. But is the quality of civilian oversight and control of the military better . Has the quality of military advice to civilian leaders improved . Are the joint duty assignments or military officers must perform producing a more unified fighting force . In short, is the department of defense more successful at planning for war, waging war, and winning war . Goldwater nichols was perhaps the most consequential defense reform since the creation of the department of defense. And while the world has changed profoundly since 1986, the basic organization of the department of defense, as well as the roles and missions of its major civilian and military actors, has not changed all that much since Goldwater Nichols. It must be asked, is a 30yearold Defense Organization equal to our present and future National Security challenges . I want to be clear. This is a forward looking effort. Our task is to determine whether the department of defense and our armed forces are set up to be maximally successful and our current and future National Security challenges. We will be guided in this effort by the same principles that inspired past defense Reform Efforts including Goldwater Nichols, enhancing civilian control of the military, improving military advice, operational effectiveness, and joint officer management, and providing for a better use of defense resources among others. This Oversight Initiative is not a set of solutions in search of problems. We will neither jump to conclusions nor tilt at the symptoms of problems. We will take the time to look deeply for the incentive and root causes that drive behavior. And we will always, always be guided by that all important principle, first do no harm. Finally, this must and will be a bipartisan endeavor. Defense reform is not a republican or democratic issue. And we will keep it that way. These are vital National Security issues and we must seek to build a consensus about how to improve the organization, operation of the department and defense that can and will be advanced by whomever wins next years elections. That is in keeping with the best traditions of this committee. And it is how dr. Gates has always approached this important work across administrations of both parties. We thank dr. Gates for his decades of service to our nation, for generousry offering us the benefit of your insights and experiences today. And id like to apologize for the long statement, dr. Gates. But i take i believe that this hearing must set the predicate for a number of future hearings that we will be having in order to carry out, achieve the objectives that i just outlined. Senator reid . Thank you very much, mr. Chairman, and dr. Gates, welcome back to the Senate Armed Services committee. Let me join the chairman in thanking you for your willingness to testify today. And also underscore how thoughtful and how appropriate the chairmans remarks are with respect to the need for a careful bipartisan review of policy and Defense Department and change in the defense party. I must also apologize as ive told you before, i have 200 or so rhode island Business Leaders that i must inform all day long today so i wont be here for the whole hearing. I apologize to the chairman, also. Its no accident that the chairman has asked you, dr. Gates, to testify today on as the first witness in a major effort to look at the department of defense. You have more than 1500 days as secretary of defense, decades serving the United States government, roles that range of National Security council to Central Intelligence agency and then, of course, the department of defense. In your vast experience with dod and interagency process, especially in post september 11th context, will be important to the committees study of these issues as we go forward. And while you are secretary of defense you were an outspoken critic of your own department and its ability to manage critical competing priority, funding military modernization and ensuring forces are supported appropriately. In a speech before the American Enterprise institute you said the department is, in your words, a semi futile system, amall gor, allocate resource, track expenditures and manage as a result of departments overall priorities. As a policy making in the legislative branch, this kind of assessment is deeply concerning but also very helpful in terms of giving us a direction if i look forward to hearing your ideas and thinking about the changes that you recommend to us for addressing these issues. Congress has tried to help address some of these problems as you have rightly noted in creating the deputy chief management officer, but one person is not enough to create a compel systemic change in the Largest Organization on earth. And during your tenure you created two ad hoc entities in the department, the chairman mentioned, to address rapidly dangerous issues to our troops. The mine ambush protected, mrat and Intelligence Surveillance reconnaissance. Both of these endeavors were very successful but they are just an indication of the kind of more holistic and comprehensive change that we need to undertake in the department of defense. Also in your American Enterprise institute speech you made a critical point. Since 2001 we have seen a near doubling of the pentagons modernization accounts that has resulted in relatively modest gains and actual military capability. This should be of a concern to all of us. And we welcome your recommendations on how to bring changes necessary to ensure that were getting what were paying for. In fact, getting more, we hope, bang for our buck. Youve also spoken about the need for defense to be stable and predictable in the importance of the role of congress in ensuring that such stability is provided. Former dod comptroller bob heal who served with you in the pentagon wrote recently about the budget turmoil he experienced during his tenure, including sequestration, a Government Shutdown and continued resolutions. Specifically he wrote this budget turmoil imposed a high price on the dod and the nation it serves. The price is not measured on dollars since dod certainly didnt get any extra findings to pay the cost but rather the price at the efficiency and effectiveness of the departments issues and we are still confronting those issues today. Finally, during your tenure, dr. Galts, you were strong advocate not only for our military but also funding the soft power, tools of state craft, our diplomacy, developmental efforts and our ability to communicate, goals and values that rest of the world. As we consider steps to making d of,d more effective i would also be interested in your thoughts and porngs of our National Security in enhancing civilian elements of National Power and also the impact that sequestration has on these elements. Again, thank you, dr. Gates, for your service. I look forward to your testimony. Dr. Gates . Chairman mccain, senator reed, probably the least sincere senten