Mr. Secretary, we both understand that supplementals are used to cover unanticipated costs that arise after the budget documents are presented.

I do not think I am the only one who is alarmed at the significant costs associated with Afghanistan and Iraq that are not included in this budget.

Do you think that is the right approach, Mr. Secretary?

I just want your view, Mr. Secretary.

All these costs do not seem to be properly included within the budget going forward.

Then why do you not propose a budget that reflects accurately all the costs that you anticipate over the next year for Afghanistan and Iraq?

If this supplemental is delayed past September 30, say the end of November, or even delayed until the following year, which is customary nowadays, you will burn out all the money that is appropriated?

The most remarkable thing about this budget is what it leaves out, not what it includes.

If you could provide me a more specific written response----

It appears to me that we lost 10,000 soldiers, real boots on the ground, at a time we had stop-loss orders in effect.

I think it is a deceptive way to finance the operations of the military and I think it also has practical ramifications.

General Schoomaker was here a few weeks ago and said that at the current burn rate of spending on Iraq and Afghanistan he would be out of funds by October 1 unless there was a supplemental appropriation.