WITNESSES: DONALD RUMSFELD,
PRESIDENT-ELECT BUSH'S NOMINEE FOR SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
BODY: (Gavel is struck
repeatedly.)
SEN. JOHN WARNER (R-VA): The history of
this committee and the annals of the Senate reflect that we have achieved,
through successive chairman, the high degree of bipartisanship that our nation
is entitled from this committee.
I've been privileged
to serve 23 years on this committee with my distinguished colleague. We came
together 23 years ago. And it's been my privilege to serve as the chairman for
the past two years, and if the high water doesn't rise and flood us out, I will
return to that position in a week or so. But in the meantime, I am privileged
to, in the spirit of bipartisanship, pass the gavel to Senator Levin.
Senator Levin and I, and Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens,
and other members of the House went down to visit with President-elect Bush on
Monday, and we had a very good and thorough and searching examination of defense
issues. And that struck the note of bipartisanship so essential as we, the
collective members of our committee, represent this nation in national security.
So, Mr. Chairman -- (strikes the gavel) -- it's with a
privilege I pass the gavel to you.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank
you, Senator Warner. And I've been chairman of this committee for all of about a
week, and I can't tell you how many people have noted to me just how you have
thrived under my chairmanship already. (Laughter.)
The
committee meets today to -- and I want to thank you before I proceed. I want to
thank you for the years of friendship and the years of -- that we've -- the many
good years, the over two decades now that we've been in the Senate. And I will
have some more comments about your chairmanship and that of Senator Thurmond and
others in a moment, but just first this personal thank you to you.
The committee meets today to consider the nomination of
Donald Rumsfeld to serve as secretary of Defense. As the first order of
business, I want to welcome all of our members back to the committee and to
extend a special welcome to prospective new members. On our side, we're joined
by Senator Akaka, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Carnahan, and
Senator Dayton. On the Republican side, we're joined by Senators Collins and
Bunning.
This is a great committee you serve on.
And I know that Senator Warner and I and all the members
of this committee look forward to our new members joining us.
And on behalf of the entire committee, I extend a warm welcome to Mr.
Rumsfeld and his family. I understand that you are accompanied by your wife,
Joyce Rumsfeld; your daughter, Marcie (sp) Rumsfeld; your granddaughter, Kailey
(sp) Rumsfeld, if I'm pronouncing the name correctly.
MR. RUMSFELD: Yes, sir.
SEN. LEVIN: We know of
the sacrifices that your family will make while you are in this position, and we
want to thank them in advance for their support of you and those sacrifices
which they will make.
MR. RUMSFELD: Thank you.
We will be welcoming Senators Durbin and Fitzgerald in a
few moments, who are joining us today -- and I see Senator Fitzgerald is already
here -- to introduce Don Rumsfeld to us.
Mr. Rumsfeld
is well-known to this committee from his recent service as chairman of the U.S.
Ballistic Missile Threat Commission and his many other endeavors. A couple of
the senior members of the committee may also admit to their age -- (scattered
laughter) -- by remembering Mr. Rumsfeld's previous service as secretary of
defense in the Ford administration.
Don Rumsfeld was
the youngest secretary of defense in our history. After a few years of service
in the upcoming Bush administration, he will earn the distinction of being our
oldest secretary of defense as well; at least until Senator Thurmond is sworn in
as his successor sometime in the future. (Laughter.)
We
convene this hearing at a unique moment in the history of this country, and in
the history of the United States Senate. We have just concluded the closest
presidential election in our history. And for the first time ever, at the
beginning of a Congress the Senate is equally divided. A practical arrangement
to accommodate that unusual situation was worked out by our leaders and approved
by the Senate last week.
Times like these call out for
and necessitate bipartisanship and cooperation. Fortunately, this committee, as
Senator Warner has said, has a long tradition of working in a bipartisan manner
to address the national security challenges facing this country. Chairman Warner
has consistently led the committee in this spirit, as did chairmen before
him.
At times when the rest of Congress has suffered
from gridlock, this committee's legislative achievements, like
Goldwater-Nichols, like Nunn-Lugar, have been marked by bipartisanship. Even our
disagreements on issues have rarely been along partisan lines.
For instance, while debates on the withdrawal of troops from Kosovo and
the debate on additional rounds of base closures have divided this committee in
recent years, the division has not been on partisan lines. It is my hope that
the ease with which we hand the chairman's gavel back and forth in the course of
this month will symbolize the close working relationships on this committee over
the decades and help set the tone elsewhere.
Our new
secretary of defense will inherit the most dominant military force in the
history of the world. Over the last two decades our military has incorporated a
series of technological improvements that have revolutionized their military
capability from precision- guided munitions and stealth technology to satellite
reconnaissance and electronic warfare capabilities.
The
members of this committee, the Appropriations Committee, and our counterparts in
the House of Representatives, have played a key role in those changes. Today,
each of our military services is more lethal, more maneuverable, more versatile,
and has greater situational awareness on the battlefield than at any time in
history.
During the 1990's, Congress and the
administration worked together to enhance our national security by achieving a
balance between the needs of today's troops, including their current readiness,
with the need to develop and field weapons that will enable us to retain our
technological advantage in the future.
This effort led
to the enactment of comprehensive improvements to the military's health care
system, military pay and retirement systems, and the substantially increased
acquisition spending to recapitalize and modernize the force. We have also been
engaged in a constant struggle, however, to maintain funding for operations and
maintenance accounts that support current readiness, given the high rates of
deployment.
The terrorist attack on the USS Cole last
fall demonstrated once again that our enemies are most likely to use indirect,
asymmetric means to attack us. They realize it would be suicide to confront the
United States military directly. The most likely threats to our national
interest will come from regional conflicts due to ethnic, religious or cultural
conflicts, and from terrorists and terrorist states. If states are involved,
they will seek to hide their involvement because the retaliatory power of the
United States is so massive and survivable as to guarantee the destruction of
the principal goal of a totalitarian regime -- its own survival.
In the area of national missile defense, the outgoing administration
chose to aggressively pursue research and development, while stating a
determination to consider in any deployment decision not only the threat, but
also the system's operational effectiveness and affordability, and the impact
that deployment would have on our overall national security. This approach gives
appropriate weight not only to the effect that large expenditures on missile
defense would have on resources available to meet other vital defense needs, but
also to the negative impact that the unilateral deployment of a national missile
defense could have on our allies and on the proliferation of nuclear weapons,
given the likelihood that the Russian and Chinese response to such unilateral
deployment would be to increase or stop reducing the number of nuclear weapons
and the amount of nuclear material on their soil.
As
Senator Baker and Lloyd Cutler found in their report, released yesterday, the
most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States is that weapons
of mass destruction, or weapons-usable material located in Russia, could be
stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation states and used against
Americans abroad or at home.
We need to analyze the
extent to which we spend defense resources on threats that are the least likely
to occur. A ballistic missile attack from a terrorist state against the United
States is a threat, but it is one that we have successfully deterred, and
against which we have a continuing, overwhelming deterrent. And, of course,
there are cheaper and easier means of attacking the United States than an ICBM,
means such as truck bombs, poisoning of water systems, or infiltration of
computer networks, which may not open the unknown attacker to massive
destructive in return.
Those are just a few of the
issues which we will be grappling with as a committee, and you will be grappling
with as secretary of Defense.
We're blessed to live in
a nation whose political institutions and economy are respected throughout the
world. With the end of the Cold War, our core values of freedom, democracy and
human rights appear to be stronger than ever, with democratic revolutions
changing the history of nation after nation. Our military, when used wisely, at
once makes our nation secure and enables us to play a unique role in influencing
the course of events outside our borders in a peaceful and stable direction.
The ability to influence events does not necessarily mean
of course the ability to control them. Because we live in such a complex world,
we must deal with many interests that are contrary to our own. We should be
proud of all that we have achieved in the world, including the reversal of
ethnic cleansing in Europe for the first time in history, which also enabled
nearly a million refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes.
At the same time, we must be prepared to deal with new
threats, particularly the terrorist threat, with new technologies, more mobile
forces and improved intelligence capabilities. And Chairman Warner, with my
support, created a subcommittee that is specially aimed at addressing these new
threats. And in the most recent bill that we have adopted, we have paid special
attention to the need to address the new threats.
The
new administration will develop its own strategy for addressing these difficult
issues and for maintaining the superiority of America's military force. Today's
hearing provides an opportunity for all of us to begin the process of discussing
that strategy.
The nominee before us today has a strong
commitment to the national defense. He is well qualified to address the issues
facing the Department of Defense, and he a extremely well qualified nominee for
this position. And we congratulate him. We congratulate the president-elect for
this nomination. And we now call upon Senator Warner for his opening
statement.
SEN WARNER: Thank you very much, Chairman
Levin. And I join you in welcoming our new members. Historically, that puts this
committee at the highest member levelship (sic) in its history at 24. In years
past, I can recall we sort of recruited members, and now we have certainly an
indication of strength among our entire Senate membership as reflected by so
many wishing to join us. We welcome you.
And to you, my
dear friend, for over 30 years, we have had a friendship and a personal
relationship and indeed a professional one, having served together in the Ford
administration, I as secretary of the Navy and you as one of our troublemakers
over in the White House as a young -- (laughter).
And I
join in welcoming your lovely wife and family. Anyone taking on -- particularly
your responsibility as secretary of Defense, 24 hours a day, seven days a week,
and that phone is always by your side -- and, indeed, your family fully shares
the heavy responsibilities, and you are so fortunate to have such a wonderful
family to share that burden. And if I may say, Mrs. Rumsfeld, you will be an
integral part of reassuring the other families of the service persons throughout
the world by your strong support of your husband and, indeed, them. So we
welcome you as a team to the department.
I look back
over the hearing record from 1975, November 12th, 1975. It was a very short
hearing, I note, and perhaps not as well- attended. (Laughter.) But that
reflects the importance of the Senate advise and consent today, and this
committee, as do other committees of the Senate, take that responsibility very
seriously. So our hearing today will be lengthy and we will probe deeply into
many areas of our security relationships and your responsibility and how you
intend to full them.
First, I'd like to say that, based
on my good fortune to have known you, I say without any reservation you are
competent, you're experienced, you're trustworthy, and you have the character,
the honesty, to do this job second to none. And I was so pleased and, indeed, I
think the country should be grateful that you are willing to come back again and
sign on for a second hitch, as we say in the military, in this important
post.
And I note behind you two old-timers who are not
paying any attention to what we're saying, Mr. Snyder and Mr. Korologos --
(laughter). I don't know why they are here, but we welcome them anyway.
(Laughter.)
We also commend you, Mr. Rumsfeld, for
keeping active and informed on defense and security issues since your last
Pentagon service. The committee is familiar with the excellent work you've done
in both the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat, which issued its
report in '98, and the ongoing Commission to Assess United States National
Security Space Management and Organization, which, coincidentally, the report
will be issued today. Senator Levin and I and others have received a briefing on
the work of this commission. It's a job well done.
MR.
RUMSFELD: Thank you.
SEN. WARNER: And it's another her
serious wake-up call to America about the threats directed at us.
Our committee played a central role in establishing both
of these commissions. I commend its membership, and we thank you again, and the
members of your committees, for your work.
We are
familiar with the findings and recommendations of the Ballistic Missile Threat
Commission and the influence that that report had. It came at a critical time, I
say to you. In many ways the Ballistic Missile Threat Report changed the entire
debate over national missile defense by convincing many in Congress and, I say,
respectfully, in the Clinton administration that the potential threat is more
serious and more imminent than previously understood throughout our nation.
I look forward to your comments on this subject. And my
dear friend and colleague here, I think quite appropriately, in his opening
statement indicated some of his strong views. We've not always agreed on it, but
it is a subject that is on the centerpiece of the new Bush administration. And
no one is better qualified than yourself to advise the president on the
directions to be taken.
We still have, as you well know
-- you're a former sailor, former naval aviator -- we still have the
best-trained, best-equipped military force in the world today. There are
certainly many areas in which we need to continue to make improvements. We're
not pleased at all with the retention levels, the difficulty of recruiting. You
know, when we recruit today, we recruit families. We recruit -- unlike when you
and I went in many years into the service, it's families today. And then when
that critical decision is made about retention, the wives are usually co-equal
partners. It's a family decision to stay or to go out and seek the lucrative
opportunities that these well-trained individuals have in the private sector.
Readiness and modernization has been the highest
priority of this committee. We've achieved some gains, but not enough.
Procurement. We've almost dropped to levels which are just totally unacceptable.
We've got to modernize and restore, best we can within the budget, a much higher
level of acquiring new and modern weapons. Just look at the truck inventory in
the United States Army. No civilian, no private sector would operate a truck
force like we're operating in the military. That's just one thing people can
understand all across America.
So therefore, Mr.
Secretary, we've got to increase defense spending. When we, Senator Levin and I
and others, had an opportunity to visit with President-elect Bush and
President-elect Cheney on Monday, we didn't talk about specific levels, but
bipartisan in that room was the clear consensus that we have to increase
substantially defense spending.
Now, this morning we
can't establish those levels with any precision, but I was heartened to see that
the president-elect wants to first task you to examine how the current budget
and those of past years being expended to determine whether or not you should
redirect funding, to determine whether there are efficiencies within which you
can gain some cash needed for other programs.
Then
after doing that, you can establish that level of increase in the context of not
only the other budget factors but, most importantly, the president-elect said,
the defense budget has got to have a direct relevance, if not in fact be driven
by the threats voiced against this nation today, threats quite different than
our generation of active service in the military, quite different.
Senator Levin expounded on terrorism and the work of this
committee. And I commend this committee for its work. We have constantly had to
push the current administration for higher levels of funding in a wide range of
areas to combat terrorism and the risks here in the United States, which I will
address momentarily. We call it "homeland defense." President-elect Bush used
that very phrase in his statement at the Citadel, which is sort of a foundation
document of his thinking.
Now, historically, the Joint
Chiefs of Staff have had, of course, a vital role in the planning in the
Department of Defense. But I commend them, especially for the past two years,
and indeed, the year before, under my distinguished predecessor Senator
Thurmond, for coming before this committee and testifying about the need for
additional funds over and above the recommendations and the submissions by the
commander-in-chief, the president of the United States, at that very table. The
past two years, we've taken that testimony, which has been essential as this
committee has gone to the floor of the United States Senate to get higher
authorization levels for spending. We've gotten what I regard as modest sums
but, nevertheless, very important increases in the past two fiscal years.
You will be faced early on with, first, a supplemental.
We've talked about that together -- you've talked with Senator Stevens and
Senator Inouye about it -- followed by a budget amendment to the current Clinton
administration budget, which is traditionally submitted to the Congress by the
out-going president. Those are some of the key things that you will have to
address immediately, and within both, we will have additional sums needed
desperately for our defense.
President-elect Bush has
articulated a vision for the U.S. military and has set three broad goals for
national defense.
First, to strengthen the bond of
trust between the president, which is so essential, from the four-star officer
down to the private or the seaman, that bond of trust between the
commander-in-chief and those in uniform and, indeed, their families.
Second, to defend the American people against missiles and
terror. Very few people in the United States recognize we're virtually
defenseless against missile attack. And that, of course, is a subject that my
colleague discussed, and we'll have further discussions on that.
And third, to begin creating the military of the next century. How well
you know, from your own study, the old slogan -- "They're always preparing to
fight the last battle." Well, that worked, maybe, in World War II when we had
the time to catch up because of the protection of the oceans, but those
protections are gone today. Warfare is instantaneous. It's the arsenal we have
of weapons and trained people in place that will be used.
Cyber-warfare -- no one envisioned that a decade ago, but today it's a
threat which I and others think is just as lethal as anything. I commend,
frankly, your predecessor, Secretary Cohen.
He has
recognized, I think, in large measure -- wouldn't you say, Mr. Chairman? -- the
oncoming and the changing threats in just the four years that he has been
present as secretary of Defense. And I want to say at this time -- and I think
the members of this committee would want to reflect -- our respect for the work
that Secretary Cohen and his team have done in his administration.
You understand these goals, and I want to go back to the
president's speech at the Citadel. He said, and I quote, "Those who want to lead
America accept two obligations. One is to use our military power wisely,
remembering the costs of war. The other is to honor our commitments to veterans
who have paid those costs -- people; it's one word -- those who have served in
the past, those who are serving today, and those we need to have come in and
serve for tomorrow."
I'm proud of the way this
committee, in its last bill, began to reach back and take care of those
veterans, particularly the career veterans, in terms of their medical needs.
This committee is very conscious of the fact that they're the best recruiters in
the world, those who have served once. And we have in the past, I think,
neglected them. That's come to an end with the work of this committee.
As a starting point, President-elect Bush has said that he
will recommend a substantial pay raise, a billion. This committee has worked on
two successive pay raises, and we're ready to accept that challenge of that
billion-dollar mark. Perhaps it has to be adjusted, maybe up or sideways, or
down a bit. We will back you in working through that very important thing,
because that is key, again, to retention and the care of the families. We all
know that most of the retention decisions, as I said, are made on a family
basis, and that pay is critical to care for those people.
Homeland defense will be a high priority for President-elect Bush and
yourself, if confirmed. The president-elect has said that he will deploy both
theater and national ABM systems to guard the United States, our allies and
troops deployed overseas against missile attack or the threat of attack. Defense
against domestic terrorism, including detecting and responding to such threats,
will also be a priority for the next administration, and you will be at the very
forefront.
We also need an immediate and comprehensive
review, as the president-elect advised us when we visited with him, of our
military today, its structure, its strategy, its capabilities, and its
modernization priorities. President-elect Bush has promised such a
review, and in my conversations with you, you're fully prepared to undertake
that the first day you arrive in the department. We must look beyond the modest
improvements we've had to our current systems and find ways to enhance and
strengthen our military in many, many areas.
I want to
include among that base closure. It's been a very contentious subject. In past
years, I was privileged to join with my friend the chairman in originating those
bills. Senator McCain has been very active on that front. And I urge you to take
a look at that at the earliest opportunity. There's infrastructure out there
that can be withdrawn, and I think, constructively and in many instances, we'll
help local communities to get that infrastructure back and put it to good use.
There will be a cost savings to the military, which -- those dollars can applied
elsewhere, and in most instances it will eventually help the local
communities.
These are some of the initiatives that you
must undertake.
So I support this nomination very
enthusiastically. My intention is to cast that vote for you, subject to the work
of this committee. And I wish to commend President-elect Bush for putting
together an absolutely outstanding team on the areas of national defense and
national security in international affairs.
Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you, Senator Warner.
Two of our dear colleagues and friends have joined us to
introduce Mr. Rumsfeld. And Senator Durbin, we'll call on you first and then
we'll call on Senator Fitzgerald.
RICHARD DURBIN
(D-IL): Thank you, Chairman Levin and the members of the committee. (Clears
throat.) Excuse me.
It is an honor to introduce to the
committee today, my distinguished colleague from the land of Lincoln. I know
that presidents have often complained about the Senate confirmation process.
Herbert Hoover, upon the birth of his granddaughter said, quote, "Thank God she
doesn't have to be confirmed by the Senate." (Laughter.) Donald Rumsfeld has so
much experience, I'm sure he'll have less trouble winning confirmation than
President Hoover's granddaughter would have had if she'd required the Senate's
blessing.
Don Rumsfeld's resume is impressive:
four-term congressman from Illinois, director of the Office of Economic
Opportunity, U.S. ambassador to NATO, White House chief of staff, the
youngest-ever secretary of defense, CEO of several major corporations, and a
special envoy for President Reagan.
We've heard a lot
about bipartisanship lately. When Don Rumsfeld came by my office to talk about
this hearing, he told me that when he served in Congress, before Baker vs. Carr,
that speaker Sam Rayburn had a congressional district of about 89,000. Is that
what you remember, Don? His congressional district was the largest in the nation
at 1.1 million. The Illinois district that Don Rumsfeld represented in the House
of Representatives was split in two in Congress after he departed -- one
district represented by a conservative Republican, and one by a liberal
Democrat. His ability to serve such a diverse district speaks well of his
ability to bridge Congress and a country almost equally divided.
While all senators may not agree with Mr. Rumsfeld on every issue, he
has certainly earned our respect. In fact, I want to warn my Senate colleagues
to be reluctant to "go to the mat" with Don Rumsfeld. Not only was he captain of
Princeton University's wrestling team, an all-Navy wrestling champion, he was
also inducted in the National Wrestling Hall of Fame and Museum. He joins
Speaker Hastert as another famous wrestler who hails from Illinois. I, for one,
plan to keep in mind that wrestling depends on strategy and making the right
move at the right time as much as it does on strength and power.
Some of his critics have complained that Mr. Rumsfeld's experience with
defense is from a by-gone Cold War ear. Those critics ignore the obvious, Mr.
Rumsfeld's valuable contributions: chairing several commissions, including the
Ballistic Missile Threat Commission and the obvious experience that he's had in
managing major corporations in a new economy. Mr. Rumsfeld has kept up, and I
would challenge his critics to try to keep up with him.
In 1775, in our revolutionary era, Patrick Henry said, "I have but one
lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no
way of judging the future but by the past." It is only because the United States
was so steadfast in fighting for freedom and democracy that the world enjoys an
unprecedented era of freedom and prosperity today.
Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Rumsfeld carries the lamp of experience. I wish him, for our
country's sake, every success as he travels by that light. It is with pride that
I present to you one of Illinois' favorite and most distinguished sons.
SEN. LEVIN: Senator Durbin, thank you.
Senator Fitzgerald.
SEN. PETER FITZGERALD
(R-IL): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of this distinguished
committee. It's a great honor and privilege for me to join with my colleague,
Senator Durbin, to present to this committee one of Illinois' most distinguished
residents, Donald Rumsfeld.
The day after
President-elect Bush announced his selection of Donald Rumsfeld, I noted that in
the New York Times the reporter had asked Dr. Henry Kissinger his opinion of the
defense secretary- designate. And Dr. Kissinger said, and I quote, "I literally
cannot think of a better person for the post." And that was exactly my
impression, and I believe it was the impression of many of the members of this
body, and certainly of many of the newspaper editorial boards around the
country.
It's kind of an irony, Don. You were actually
my congressman when I was growing up! (Laughter.) I was one of those 1.1 million
constituents Senator Durbin referred to. Now, lest this committee conclude
either that I'm too young to be in the United States, or that he's too old to
serve as the Defense secretary, I would point out that he was a very young
member of Congress, one of the youngest members of Congress at the time, in his
early 30s. And I would note that in one of life's unfair ironies, he has more
hair than I do today. (Laughter.) And as Senator Durbin said, I wouldn't
recommend that anybody try to wrestle with Don Rumsfeld.
Shortly after I got sworn-in, I was very familiar with Donald
Rumsfeld's record in business and in government. I knew of his impressive
resume. But what I would urge you to reflect upon is not -- this man is not
simply a resume who has held all these impressive posts; he's someone who has
collected a lot of wisdom from his years of experience. And he shared with me,
shortly after I was sworn-in, a little pamphlet that he's put together and
compiled over the years, known as "Rumsfeld's Rules." And if any of you haven't
seen that, I would recommend that you get a copy of it. It has many of his words
of wisdom and advice to members of Congress or those in the administration. And
I read that carefully after I got sworn-in, and I remember certain pearls and
chestnuts that you had, such as, "No member of Congress is here by accident."
And if you get to know your fellow colleagues in this body, you will see that
there's some special reason each one of them is here, and in getting to know
that special reason, you'll come to respect that member, and you'll also learn a
lot about America. So I commend that "Rumsfeld Rules" to all of you. It has a
great deal of wisdom in it.
As Senator Durbin said, he
was a graduate of Princeton University, and a captain of the wrestling team, I
believe; captain of the football team. He went on to be a Naval aviator; was the
Navy wrestling champion; four terms in Congress; White House chief of staff;
Defense secretary. He was regarded as having a wonderful record and having been
an outstanding secretary of Defense the first time around. I can only imagine
him being better this time around.
Now, there's a lot
of talk about investment opportunities these days, with the market having gone
up so much the last few years and then coming down.
A
good investment strategy over the last 20 years would have been to invest in
companies that were chaired or the CEO was Donald Rumsfeld. GD Searle Company, a
major Illinois pharmaceutical company, was in dire straights back in 1977, when
Don Rumsfeld took over. By the time he left in 1985 and the company was sold,
the stock had quadrupled.
There was a similar success
story with General Instruments Corporation. Many of you are familiar and are
friends with Ted Forseman, who runs a fund that invests in corporations. And Ted
Forseman of course is known for his philanthropy and his generosity in creating
scholarships for young children all over the country. That philanthropy might
not have been possible had not his fund bought General Instruments, put Donald
Rumsfeld in charge, who within three years had tripled the stock of that
corporation, they took it public.
He's continued on in
advisory roles to this body and to the executive. He's stayed in touch with
defense issues. This is a rare individual who has literally succeeded at almost
everything he's done in life. And I think I can only say -- I can only conclude,
as some of you have already concluded, that we are simply fortunate to have a
person of this caliber who's willing to re-enter public service and to assist
our company (sic) -- country. (Laughs.)
Mr. Chairman, I
would ask leave to introduce into the record prepared remarks that I have. And I
want to thank you all for your consideration. And I recommend Donald Rumsfeld
with whole-hearted enthusiasm and confidence.
Thank
you.
SEN. LEVIN: It will be made part of the record,
and we thank you for your presence, and we thank both of your for coming. It
makes a real difference to the nominee, I'm sure, and to this committee.
Mr. Rumsfeld, now you've got to live up to all of that.
MR. RUMSFELD: Wow.
SEN. LEVIN:
And some investment advice while you're at it.
MR.
RUMSFELD: (Laughs.) Well, I must say, I thank Senator Fitzgerald, Senator Durbin
for those very generous words. I will try to live up to them.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, members of the committee, it is a
privilege and an honor to appear before you today as the nominee for the post of
secretary of Defense. I am certainly grateful to President-elect George W. Bush
for his confidence that he's placed in me. I thank the committee and you, Mr.
Chairman, for your courtesy in arranging this hearing so promptly.
I'd like, with your permission, to make some remarks off
my prepared statement and have the statement made a part of the record.
SEN. LEVIN: It will be made part of the record in full.
MR. RUMSFELD: As has been said, it was 25 years ago that I
had the privilege of appearing for the first time before this committee as
President Ford's nominee for secretary of Defense. Certainly we lived in a very
different world then. And in the intervening quarter of a century, the world has
changed in ways that once we could really only have dreamed of.erica was locked
in a nuclear and ideological standoff with the Soviet Union. Today, the Soviet
Union is no more. And the world superpower standoff has given way to a world of
expanding freedom and, I would add, expanding opportunity. The last time I
appeared for a confirmation hearing here, the armed forces and those of our NATO
allies stood toe to toe, facing the militaries of the Warsaw Pact, ready to
clash at a moment's notice on a battlefield of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia
and East Germany.
Today the Warsaw Pact is no more.
Berlin is again the capital of a unified Germany, and Warsaw, Prague, Budapest
are now capitals of our new NATO allies. As one who served as U.S. ambassador to
NATO, I must say I find those changes breathtaking and fundamental.
When I appeared previously, American industry was facing
industrial challenge from Japan. You'll recall the productivity and
competitiveness made American industry look fat in overhead, excessively layered
in management, sluggish in confronting change and innovation. Today U.S.
industry has shaken off those handicaps, in a process that I've had the
privilege to witness firsthand, and become a leader and a model for the rest of
the world.
The end of the Cold War and the collapse of
Soviet military power have brought the 20th century, possibly the most violent
and destructive century in human history, to a remarkably peaceful close. U.S.
and allied military power was the indispensable instrument that contained the
Soviet Union, confronted Soviet power and its surrogates at the geographic
extremities of its advance, and provided the shield within which democratic
order and economic prosperity could evolve and develop.
When the great struggle that was World War II had passed, this country
found itself facing new challenges with the advent of the Cold War and the
development of nuclear weapons. Today the Cold War era is history and we find
ourselves facing a new era, often called the post- Cold War period or, possibly
more properly, the era of globalization. It's an extraordinarily hopeful time,
one that's full of promise but also full of challenges. One of those challenges,
one that, if confirmed, I look forward to working with President-elect Bush and
this committee and the Congress to meet, is the challenge of bringing the
American military successfully into the 21st century so that it can continue to
play its truly vital role in preserving and extending peace as far into the
future as is possible.
As President-elect Bush has
said, after the hard but clear struggle against an evil empire, the challenge
that we face today is not as obvious, but just as noble, to turn these years of
influence into decades of peace. And the foundation of that peace is a strong,
capable, modern military. Let there be no doubt.
The
end of the Cold War did not bring about an end to armed conflict or the end of
challenges and threats to U.S. interests. We know that. Indeed, the centrifugal
forces in world politics have created a more diverse and less predictable set of
potential adversaries whose aspirations for regional influence and whose
willingness to use military force will produce challenges to important U.S.
interests and to those of our friends and allies, as Chairman Levin
mentioned.
President-elect Bush has outlined three
over-arching goals for bringing U.S. armed forces into the 21st century. First,
we must strengthen the bond of trust with the American military. The brave and
dedicated men and women who serve in our country's uniform -- active, Guard and
Reserve -- must get the best support their country can possibly provide them so
that we can continue to call on the best people in the decades to come.
Second, we must develop the capabilities to defend against
missiles, terrorism, the newer threats, against space assets and information
systems, as members of the committee have mentioned. The American people, our
forces abroad and our friends and allies must be protected against the threats
which modern technology and its proliferation confront us.
And third, we must take advantage of the new possibilities that the
ongoing technological revolution offers to create the military of the next
century.
Meeting these challenges will require a
cooperative effort between Congress and the executive branch and with industry
and our allies as well. If confirmed, I look forward to developing a close
working relationship with this committee and with the counterpart committees in
the House of Representatives to achieve these goals and to fashion steps to help
to transform our defense posture to address those new challenges.
We must work together if we are to be able to address the
problems of inadequate funding, which has been the case; unreliable funding,
perturbations in funding; and resistance to change. Change is hard, and
institutions are difficult to move. With cooperation we can make real progress
and, without cooperation, we will surely fail.
President-elect Bush is committed to a strong national defense and if
confirmed, one of our first tasks will be to undertake a comprehensive review of
U.S. defense policy that Senator Warner mentioned. This review will be aimed at
making certain that we have a sound understanding of the state of the U.S.
forces and their readiness to meet the 21st century security environment. We
need to ensure that we will be able to develop and deploy and operate and
support a highly effective force capable of deterring and defending against new
threats. This will require a refashioning of deterrence and defense
capabilities. The old deterrence of the Cold War era is imperfect for dissuading
the threats of the new century and for maintaining stability in our new national
security environment.
If confirmed as secretary, I plan
to pursue five key objectives needed to support and make progress on the
president's goals. First, we need to fashion and sustain deterrence appropriate
to the new national security environment. The proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and their means of delivery are a fact of life that first must be
acknowledged and recognized for what it is, and then must be managed. While
striving to slow proliferation remains essential, a determined state may
nonetheless succeed in acquiring weapons of mass destruction and increasingly
capable weapons, missiles. And as a consequence, a decisive change in policy
should be aimed at devaluing investment in weapons of mass destruction and their
delivery systems by potential adversaries.
Credible
deterrence no longer can be based solely on the prospect of punishment through
massive retaliation. It must be based on a combination of offensive nuclear and
non-nuclear defensive capabilities working together to deny potential
adversaries the opportunity and the benefits that come from the threat or the
use of weapons of mass destruction against our forces, our homeland, as well as
those of our allies.
Second, the readiness and
sustainability of deployed forces must be assured. The price of inadequate
readiness is paid in unnecessary risks to American interests and in unnecessary
risks to the lives of American servicemen and -women. But inadequate readiness
exacts a further price in the future quality of the force.
Our armed forces today are all volunteers. Whether active duty, Reserve
or National Guard, they are men and women who have willingly answered the call
to serve our country and accept the burdens and dangers that go with that
service. As President Bush has said, even the highest morale is eventually
undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and
equipment, and declining readiness.
A volunteer
military really has only two paths it can travel. One is to lower standards to
fill the ranks, or it can inspire the best and brightest to join and stay. And
if confirmed, I look forward to working with the president, and this committee
that has been so interested in the subject, to make sure that our country's
service is able to attract and retain the best of our country.
Third, U.S. command, control, communications, intelligence, and space
capabilities must be modernized to support our 21st century needs. A modern
command, control, communication, and intelligence infrastructure is the
foundation upon which U.S. military power is employed. The development and
deployment of a truly modern, effective command, control, communication, and
intelligence system is fundamental to the transformation of U.S. military
forces, and it's indispensable to our ability to conduct effective diplomacy.
I'm committed to strengthening our intelligence, to serve
both our short-term and our long-term national security needs. I will personally
make establishing a strong spirit of cooperation between the Department of
Defense and the rest of the intelligence community, under the leadership of a
DCI, one of my top priorities. We simply must strengthen our intelligence
capabilities and our space capabilities, along with the ability to protect those
assets against various forms of attack.
Fourth, the
U.S. defense establishment must be transformed to address our new circumstance.
The need to swiftly introduce new weapons systems is clear. The transformation
of U.S. military power to take full advantage of commercially created
information technology may require undertaking near-term investment to acquire
modern capabilities derived from U.S. scientific and industrial preeminence,
rather than simply upgrading some existing systems.
The
present weapons system acquisition process was designed in an environment that's
very different from the one -- exists today. In my view, it's not well suited to
meet the demands posed by an expansion of unconventional and asymmetrical
threats in a -- rapid technological advances in a period of pervasive
proliferation.
The cycle time from program start to
initial operational capability for major acquisition programs conducted over the
past several decades has, I am told, generally been between eight and nine
years. Some efforts, obviously, have taken far longer. But such processes are
not capable of harnessing the remarkable genius and productivity of the modern
information-based commercial and industrial sectors that have done so much to
revolutionize our civilian economy.
Fifth, reform of
DOD structures, processes, and organization. The legacy of obsolete
institutional structures and processes and organizations does not merely create
unnecessary cost, which of course it does; it also imposes an unacceptable
burden on national defense. In certain respects, it could be said that we are in
a sense disarming or underarming by our failure to reform the acquisition
process and to shed unneeded organization and facilities. If confirmed, we will
examine, in consultation with the Congress, omnibus approaches to changing the
statutory and regulatory basis for the most significant obstacles to reform.
This agenda for the new security environment is admittedly
ambitious. It's an achievable one if the legislative and the executive branches
work together. If confirmed, I will work closely with the committee and with the
other appropriate committees of the Congress to develop, fund, implement an
overall defense program that can achieve our goals for the future and for the
future of our children.
I again want to express my
appreciation to the president-elect for his confidence, and to you, Mr.
Chairman, and the members of the committee, for inviting me here today. Thank
you, sir.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you, Mr. Rumsfeld.
In accordance with the practice of the committee, without
objection, your responses to our pre-hearing policy questions, and your response
to the committee questionnaire will be made part of the record of this
hearing.
We have not yet received all of the paperwork
on Mr. Rumsfeld's nomination. That paperwork, which may be lengthy, will be
reviewed by the committee, and it could require additional discussion between
the committee and the nominee.
Before we begin our
first round of questions, there are several standard questions which we ask
every nominee who comes before the committee. In your response to advance policy
questions, you agreed, Mr. Rumsfeld, to appear as a witness before congressional
committees when called, and to ensure that briefings, testimony and other
communications are provided to Congress. And here are the standard questions.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflict of interest?
MR. RUMSFELD: I don't
know. (Laughter.) First of all, the laws and regulations and rules are different
from the various entities to which I have submitted this massive amount of
information -- the Pentagon, the Office of Public Ethics, the committee. I don't
know that they all agree among themselves, but they're reviewing it. And I think
probably one of the reasons for the delay in getting the stack of hundreds of
pages of materials to you is because it's still down in the Office of Public
Ethics.
I have a large number of investments and
activities that would have to be characterized as "conflicts", were they to be
maintained during service as secretary of Defense. I have, however, indicated in
my response to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the other organizations, that I am
ready and able, I believe able, but certainly ready, to take whatever steps are
appropriate to eliminate anything that anyone of the various entities might feel
would be inappropriate, both with respect to investments and with respect to
relationships and boards and associations and that type of thing.
SEN. LEVIN: Well, then, we'll rephrase the tense of the
verb: Will you adhere to applicable laws and regulations governing conflict of
interest?
MR. RUMSFELD: Yes, sir, of that you can be
certain.
SEN. LEVIN: Have you assumed any duties or
undertaken any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
MR. RUMSFELD: No, I have not. I
have talked to two people about -- on a contingency basis, that in the event
that I am confirmed, they are individuals I would like to have join me in the
department. And -- but it has been purely on a contingency basis.
I might just say that because the outcome of the election
was delayed so long, the process is delayed. And I hope that when we do get to
the point of my recommending to the president-elect names to join me in the
Pentagon, that the committee will move as promptly as possible with
consideration of those people, because when I think of the massive review you
characterized in your opening remarks that is facing the Pentagon, it's not
something I would look forward to doing alone. (Laughter.) I will need all the
help I can get.
SEN. LEVIN: I'm sure that our next
chairman will have the support of this full committee in trying to expedite
nominees for those positions.
MR. RUMSFELD: Thank you,
sir.
SEN. LEVIN: Will you ensure that the department
complies with deadlines established for requested communications, including
prepared testimony and questions for the record in hearings?
MR. RUMSFELD: I will certainly try to. I have been told that the number
of requests for studies, and responses to questions from various elements of the
committees of interest to the executive branch, to the Department of Defense is
enormous.
And I would have to look at it and see how we
can manage that process in a way that's satisfactory to both the Congress and to
the executive branch. But I certainly would make every effort in the world to do
so.
SEN. LEVIN: Will you cooperate in providing
witnesses and briefers in response to congressional requests?
MR. RUMSFELD: Yes, sir.
SEN. LEVIN: Will those
witnesses be protected from reprisal for their testimony?
MR. RUMSFELD: Well, if it's accurate and honest, certainly. If some
witness came before a committee and said something that was inaccurate, I
certainly would want to visit with them. (Laughter.)
SEN. LEVIN: I think we would, too.
MR.
RUMSFELD (?): I do, too.
SEN. LEVIN: I think maybe the
Justice Department would, too.
MR. RUMSFELD: Yes.
SEN. LEVIN: But other than that qualification, you will
take steps to make sure that there is no reprisal against witnesses who intend
to honestly present testimony and their opinions?
MR.
RUMSFELD: Yes, sir, I would certainly want to see that witnesses were honest and
forthright with the committees of the Congress.
SEN.
LEVIN: Now, we're going to proceed to a first round of questions, which, because
of the number of members who are here, we're going to limit to eight minutes for
each senator. First we will do that on an alternating basis between the two
sides, and then, following the "early bird" rule, we will recognize current
members of the committee first, followed by our newly designated members. That's
a bit of an awkward way to go at this, but I hope that our designated members
who are not yet formally members of the committee will understand that. And if
there's a difficulty with that, we can try to adjust within us to accommodate
schedules. But I didn't know any other way to proceed until our new members are
actually members of the committee, which will not occur, apparently, till next
week.
The second round and any subsequent rounds will
be limited to six minutes for each senator. And it's my intent to recess the
committee for lunch at about 1:00 and to resume the hearing at 2:00, and if
necessary, we will schedule additional hearings.
First,
relative to missile defense, Mr. Rumsfeld. Press reports have occasionally
suggested that the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, which you chaired,
advocated the deployment of a national missile defense system. Am I correct in
stating that the mandate of the commission was limited to examining the
ballistic missile threat to the United States, and that you and your committee
did not take any position whether we should deploy a national missile defense
system?
MR. RUMSFELD: That is correct.
SEN. LEVIN: It has also been suggested that the incoming administration
has already made decisions about the architecture of a national missile defense
system should it seek to deploy such a system. It's been stated by, I believe,
one of our colleagues that you will see -- in other words, that a decision
presumably has been made already -- a phased layered plan and a reconfigured
plan for the ground-based program, including land, sea and space components. Do
you know whether or not the incoming administration has made any decisions
relative to the architecture of a national missile defense system if in fact a
decision is made to recommend such a system?
MR.
RUMSFELD: Well, we know that the president-elect -- and I suppose that in terms
of trying to characterize an administration that doesn't exist yet and where the
prospective participants have really not had opportunities to meet and discuss
these things -- the president-elect has indicated that it is his intention to
deploy a missile defense system. I know of no decisions that have been made by
him or by me with respect to exactly what form that might take.
SEN. LEVIN: The National Missile Defense Act, which was adopted by
Congress, signed by the president, contains two equal statements of U.S. policy.
The first statement: That it's the policy of the United States to deploy as soon
as technologically possible an effective national missile defense system to
defend against limited ballistic missile attacks; and two, that it is the policy
of the United States to seek continued negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear
weapons.
Do you believe that we should consider the
possible negative impact that the deployment of a national missile defense
system could have on our policy to seek continued negotiated reductions in
Russian nuclear weapons, as indicated by that statute?
MR. RUMSFELD: Well, I've -- you were kind enough to give me a copy of
that statute, and I have read it, and it seems perfectly reasonable to me. The
only thing I might have added to it, had I been a member of Congress, might have
-- I might not have included the word "negotiated" in the second phrase where it
says "seek continued negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces." It seems
to me you may or may not do it on a negotiated basis. There have been instances
in relationships with countries where they have each taken actions that were not
a result of a final negotiated agreement, but rather were understood and were
agreed to be in both parties' interests.
But I find
nothing in here that is surprising or unusual or with which I would disagree.
SEN. LEVIN: All right. And you believe that both of those
goals are legitimate goals, with that qualification?
MR. RUMSFELD: There is no question but that I think that we should
deploy a missile defense system and -- when it's technologically possible and
effective, and I think you obviously would want to be in discussions with Russia
about the sizes and shapes of their capabilities and ours.
SEN. LEVIN: And that it is a legitimate policy and an important policy,
do you believe, to seek reductions in those nuclear weapons on Russian soil, as
indicated by that statute? Do you agree with that as a goal?
MR. RUMSFELD: I do. I think that to the extent we can manage those
capabilities down -- I must say, I think that the Russian stockpile, or
capabilities, are going to go down anyway, simply because of the circumstance of
their economy. But I have no problem in talking with them about that, although
it's principally a responsibility of the Department of State.
SEN. LEVIN: Is it in our interest that there be fewer nuclear weapons
on Russian soil rather than more nuclear weapons on Russian soil? Is that
something which would be in America's interest and the world's interest?
MR. RUMSFELD: Sure. Yes, indeed.
SEN. LEVIN: On the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, we've recently
received a letter from Secretary Laird, former Secretary Laird, who now joins
General Shalikashvili in believing that there should be reconsideration of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty with certain safeguards relative to it, relative
to verification. I'm wondering whether or not -- and given your previous
position as having doubts about the question of verification -- whether you
would be willing to take a look at the position of our Joint Chiefs, which
favored the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and believes it is verifiable, and
would you be wiling to take a look at the recommendations of General
Shalikashvili, Secretary Laird, relative to that treaty?
MR. RUMSFELD: Former Secretary of Defense Mel Laird was kind enough to
send me the material that he communicated with General Shalikashvili about. I've
not had a chance to study it. But my concern on the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty -- and I forget when it was before the Senate, but as I recall, I
testified on the subject -- my concerns were two-fold, really.
One was the number of issues that were raised by people whose judgment
I respect in the scientific community about the risks to the reliability and
safety of the stockpile. And I think that's something that is terribly
important. We simply must have confidence in the safety and reliability of our
weapons. And the second was the difficulty of verification. I have -- I'm aware
in the press of what General Shalikashvili has come forward with, and certainly
I would want to look at it and think about it as any reasonable person would.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you.
Earlier
this month, the Chicago Tribune reported on a taped conversation that you
apparently had with President Nixon when you were serving as counsellor to the
president in 1971. On the tape, there's a number of statements which I would
appreciate your commenting on. And I think it's important that you do comment on
them.
MR. RUMSFELD: Mmm-hmm.
SEN. LEVIN: First, there were some offensive racist comments by the
president. And I would like you to explain your recollection of that
conversation and your response to his comments.
And
secondly, the Chicago Tribune reports the conversation -- that you make the
statement that "the Republicans got us out of Democrat wars four times in this
century," referring to the first World War, second World War, Korean War, and
Vietnam War. I'm wondering whether or not you believe that those wars were
Democratic wars -- whether you believed it at the time and, if not, you know,
what was -- why you would have made that statement and your thoughts about
that.
MR. RUMSFELD: Well, I was -- the Bush transition
office was contacted by the reporter who had been listening to the tape. And he
provided the Office with some notes -- I wouldn't call them a transcript
because, in many cases, they weren't -- didn't even purport to be a transcript
of a tape. And there was lots of places where it was dot, dot, dot. And they
then, somehow -- the transition office got a hold of the tape and I was able to
listen to a few seconds of it; I don't know how long, but not much. And I
couldn't understand much of it. It's very difficult to understand.
The truth is, I didn't remember the meeting or the
conversation at all when it was raised. It was 30 years ago -- 29 years ago.
Apparently, from what can be reconstructed was I was in a office somewhere in
the White House complex with President Nixon as a -- I guess I was an aide or a
counsellor or an assistant to him at the time. Apparently -- and again, I'm not
certain of all of this -- but it appears that he was characterizing some remarks
that were made by Vice President Agnew. And he was characterizing -- he was
quoting them in a critical manner, saying that Agnew shouldn't have said that;
he shouldn't have been drinking with people who he didn't know, or whatever it
was. And then later he quoted some other people and how they talked and he
adopted a dialect, according to this statement.
The
tape seems to indicate that I may have agreed with one or more things on that
tape. To the extent I did agree with anything, I am certain I agreed only with
the fact that some people talked like that and that Vice President Agnew should
not have used or thought such derogatory and offensive and unfair and
insensitive things about minorities. I did not then, and I do not now, agree
with the offensive and wrong characterizations. And I think it's unfortunate
that it comes up because it can -- it's not fair and it can cause pain to people
to read that type of thing.
It's ironic that that
newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, opposed the civil rights legislation during the
1960s when I was supporting it, when I was -- the most powerful paper in my
congressional district. And I supported every single piece of civil rights
legislation. And I was chairman of Tuskegee Institute's 100th Anniversary
fund-raising when Chapie James (sp) died, and have an honorary degree from
Tuskegee Institute.
On the Democratic war quote, I
would say this; that was a time when the Vietnam War was raging and President
Nixon was embattled, and he was trying to end it. And there were buses around
the White House, if you think back to that period. It is not -- when you think
of the Hoover Depression or the Clinton economy today, there are shorthand ways
of talking in private. And it is -- a war is our country's war; it is not a
Democratic war, it is not a Republican war, it is not a president's war, it is
our nation's war, and I understand that. And to the extent shorthand was used,
it should not have been.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you.
Senator Warner.
SEN. WARNER:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That's an important inquiry
that the chairman brought up. And I feel I should add some personal
recollections. I was secretary of the Navy at that very time, under Nixon. And I
recall being in a similar position from time to time in his presence when --
although I regard him as a great president on national security and foreign
affairs, he did have his shortcomings.
And I've looked
into that transcript very carefully with our nominee here this morning, and I'm
personally satisfied that he conducted himself in a manner that reflects no
discredit on him today.
And secondly, I must say, Mr.
Chairman, the morning after that article appeared, Senator Moynihan called me.
And Senator Moynihan also was a member of our team in those days and very much
involved. And he said that if this is a matter that requires an explanation,
he'd be happy to appear before this committee as a witness and testify to the
unqualified credentials of this distinguished nominee, and particularly in the
area of civil rights.
So I thank you for your
forthright responses on that issue.
Let us turn to the
critical question of defense spending. I'm going to ask you three or four
questions on it. We're not here today to establish a number or even a benchmark.
I think the important thing is to receive from you your unqualified support to
increase defense spending. The procedures by which you will, in the first 90
days, undertake to ascertain, first, the efficiencies that can be generated
within the existing budgets, and secondly, the procedures by which the
president, yourself, and other advisers will determine how to increase by what
amount.
And secondly, reiterate what the president has
already said to me and others, that yes, other budget considerations very
important, will take into consideration, but threat -- the threats facing the
United States and the need for this modernization will be the controlling
factor in reaching the determination on increased funding.
Can you elaborate on that?
MR. RUMSFELD: Yes,
sir. I was asked by the president to consider becoming his nominee for this
post, I guess eight or 10 days ago. And I have spent most of my time visiting
with members of this committee and preparing for this hearing.
I have not taken a series of briefings at the Pentagon, nor have I had
an opportunity to wrap my head around the budget numbers. I've read a great deal
about it. I mean, the CBO was using one number, I think it was something like a
40- or $50 billion add-on. I read an article by Jim Schlesinger and Harold
Brown, who came up with a number that was somewhat higher than that, 60 or 75
billion, as I recall. And I read a report from the Center for -- CSIS and
Georgetown Center that was something in the neighborhood of 100 or 100-plus.
SEN. WARNER: And I urge you include the very conscientious
evaluations of the joint chiefs.
MR. RUMSFELD: Yes.
Yes.
What the number is, I don't know. Is it clear that
there needs to be an increase in the budget? There is no doubt in my mind. But
I'm not well enough along in my thinking on it, nor have I had an opportunity to
even begin to be briefed by Bill Cohen, although he has told me they are -- he
feels the same way. And I have not had a chance to talk to the transition people
who are thinking through the budget numbers and how whatever it is --
SEN. WARNER: But your commitment today is to work towards
a significant increase.
MR. RUMSFELD: Yes, sir.
SEN. WARNER: That's what I wanted to know.
MR. RUMSFELD: Absolutely.
SEN. WARNER: And
that threat will be a consideration.
MR. RUMSFELD:
Absolutely.
SEN. WARNER: And secondly that in your
capacity as secretary of Defense, the chiefs can continue under your
administration to come before Congress and give us their views.
MR. RUMSFELD: Yes, indeed.
SEN. WARNER: That's
fine.
MR. RUMSFELD: I'd prefer they give them to me
first, but --
SEN. WARNER: Well, that's all right.
(Laughter.) We'll get them.
Let's turn to another
threat. And it's interesting. I've done a lot of study on this. We know about
the military threat, but there's another threat, and that's the industrial base
in America has been put to a tremendous task of trying to survive in the face of
12 to -- a dozen years of decline in defense spending. They find very tempting
avenues to go out into the private sector and do business and forget about all
the regulations in the Department of Defense and the uncertainty of defense
spending and take that on and simply worry about their bottom line. But
fortunately, we have a lot of courageous people who are willing to continue to
provide our industrial base.
So you bring that business
experience, which is very valuable -- not unlike old Dave Packard (ph), with
whom I served with, and he really understood the need to strengthen the
industrial base -- together with the competition from firms in Europe primarily,
where those firms have government support in some instances.
So give us your thoughts on that, and then I address a quote by the
president-elect here that I want to get some clarification. "We will modernize
some existing weapons and equipment necessary for current tasks. But our
relative peace today allows is to do this selectively. The real goal is to move
beyond marginal improvements, to replace existing programs with new technologies
and strategies, to use this window of opportunity to skip a generation of
technology."
Now that's a bold challenge. And I bring
back your recollection. I left the department roughly '74. You came in shortly
thereafter. You remember the bones of TFX were all over the department, billions
of dollars lost in trying to manufacture an airplane and hang every trinket
known to mankind on it, until it sunk of its own weigh.
MR. RUMSFELD: (Laughs.)
SEN. WARNER: We then
experience the A-12, which I can show you that. Billions of dollars lost. Well,
today we're working on I think some essential programs. I won't mention them
here. One indeed needs to be scrutinized, and that's the VSTOL. You know that
aircraft. The Marines. It's important to the Marine mission. We've got to give
very serious consideration to that program.
But I'm not
getting into programs. I want you to explain to me, against that background,
your definition of skipping a generation of technology and the impact that could
have on this industrial base.
MR. RUMSFELD: Yes, sir.
First, with respect to the study on the defense industrial base, let me say that
I agree with you. I had the privilege of being briefed by General Tom Mormon
(sp), who served, I believe it was, on the Defense Science Board that did the
study, and it is a very serious problem. I mean, the return on investment in the
defense industry today is not sufficient to attract investment. And the
government doesn't make things, we purchase things, we acquire things, and that
industry has to be there. And to be there, it has to be viable from an economic
standpoint or people are not going to invest in it. And it is a very serious
problem.
Second, with respect to the president-elect's
remarks about skipping generations and that, clearly the review is going to have
to address this. But it seems to me there's at least two ways that one can
achieve advances in technology. And I don't want to bring up ancient history,
but as fate would have it, I was in the secretary of Defense office when the
subject of the M1 tank along. And the argument was that it should continue to be
another upgrade of a new diesel; let's do another diesel and a couple more
diesels. And I decided no. I said let's go to a turbine engine. Now, that takes
a major weapon system and moved into an entire new generation of technologies at
that time.
SEN. WARNER: I think that's helpful. Let me
get in one last question here. You'll have an opportunity to amplify that for
the record. And that's the doctrine of the use of force.
General Powell, the secretary of State designee, once stated that we
should always execute the decisive results and be prepared to commit, quote,
"the force need to achieve the political objective." I was quite interested the
other night, in looking at the Lehrer NewsHour, and our secretary of State, Mrs.
Albright -- I urge you to go back and look at that transcript. And I'll just
pick out one of her quotes. And I do that respectfully, but it says as follows
in answering that question about where she was with regard to the Powell
doctrine. "It doesn't have to be all or nothing. If you think about the fact
that you have to employ every piece of force that you have, and you have months
to plan it, and the Earth is flat, you're never going to do anything." In other
words, you need the full -- I don't have the time here to -- (inaudible
word).
Give us your parameters of thinking of how you
are going to advise the president of the United States as to when to send into
harm's way the men and women of the armed force, and, frankly,
secretary-designate, when not to send.
MR. RUMSFELD:
Well, that is an enormous question and an exceedingly important one. And I'd be
happy to talk about it for a few seconds here.
Could I
go back to the tank first? I would not want to leave the idea that the only way
to transform is to go from one generation of technology and leapfrog into a new
one. There's another way. And I'm not as familiar with it, but respect to the
same tank, it's my understanding that it's gone from, I think, the M1 to the M1
--
SEN. : M1A.
MR. RUMSFELD:
What's the second -- ?
SEN. : M1, A2.
SEN. : This is the tank expert right here.
SEN. : M1 and then A2.
MR. RUMSFELD: But it's
gone from analog to digital. Now, there you've taken a platform that exists and
you've not done a leapfrog with the whole platform, but you've taken some
electronics and leapfrogged. And there are plenty of opportunities to do things
where we can significantly improve capabilities, both with respect to the system
itself but also with respect to the pieces of the system, or elements of the
platform, if you will.
Now with respect to your
question. This is a subject that is important. It's sensitive. It is, in my
view, a presidential issue and not a secretary of Defense issue alone; it is a
National Security Council team issue. And we have not met. We have not deposited
ourselves and worried this through. All of us in that team have opinions and all
of us have opined on this subject, publicly and privately, from time to time,
including the president-elect.
The elements that come
back from time to time are, is what you think you want to do actually
achievable?
It may be meritorious, it may need to be
done, but if you can't really do it, oughtn't you maybe not to try? And that's a
tough one to evaluate. In no case it is a cookie mold you can press down and
say, There's the answer. Each of these are subjective and difficult.
The second that comes to mind is resources. Do you have
the resources? You might be able to do it, but if you're spread all over the
world and you simply don't have the capabilities at that given moment, then
you've got to face up to the truth, and that is that you can't do everything. A
second thing that comes back from time to time is, To what degree is this
particular activity or recommendation truly a part of our national interest? And
that's something that comes -- it's a consideration. It's one of the dimensions
of the debate and discussion.
Another, I would say, is
other artificial constraints as to how you can do this, and I think -- I think
it's terribly -- I personally believe it's terribly important that we have a
very clear understanding of what the command structure is and who is deciding
what, and to the extent humanly possible you avoid a committee that hasn't
pre-decided these things and ends up interminably debating as to what should be
done with respect to various aspects of an engagement.
I think last, and there may be others I have forgotten, but I thought
about this last night, When is -- What are the -- How would you characterize
what success is? When you've done something, how do you know when you've done it
that you've done what you went in to do, and what is success, and what's your
exit strategy? When does it end? Is there some point where it's over, or is it
interminable?
Now, I don't know where that positions me
across that spectrum, because I don't -- I tried to avoid characterizing where I
happen to think in any given case, because I don't know. I really -- it's
something I wanted to talk to the president-elect about and Secretary- designate
Powell and Condi Rice and the folks that are interested in this, and it's an
enormously important subject.
SEN. WARNER: Thank you,
Mr. Rumsfeld.
SEN. LEVIN: Senator Kennedy.
SEN. KENNEDY: Thank you very much, and my congratulations,
Mr. Secretary.
MR. RUMSFELD: Thank you, sir.
SEN. KENNEDY: On arms control, Mr. Rumsfeld, during the
campaign, President-elect Bush made some interesting arms control proposals,
including the reduction of nuclear weapons well below the START II levels and
removing them from hair-trigger status. I've long been an advocate of arms
control and was pleased to see the president- elect's interest in this area. I
understand that when you were with President Ford as Secretary of Defense, you
did not support the SALT II Treaty, and are opposed now to the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty. Will you support the president-elect's arms control agenda?
MR. RUMSFELD: Well, you can be sure I'll support the
president- elect's agenda. He's the president, and -- I will, however, offer my
views, I hope, persuasively and thoughtfully, in deliberations with the National
Security Council, as I did during that time. I mean, I -- people, honorable
people, can come to different views, and I did with respect to SALT II.
SEN. KENNEDY: You had an exchange in response to questions
seven to 11 on the missile defense. As you know, the failure of the two most
recent flight tests of the NMD has cast significant doubts on the viability of
the current system. When the president-elect announced you as the nominee, he
spoke of the need for the United States to develop a missile defense system that
will work. And I'm interested in what your definition of a "system that will
work."
You were talking about recently about
characterizing success and involving the United States in these situations
overseas. What is your -- when will we know that it will work?
I mean, would you establish as a baseline that it clearly has to pass a
field test?
MR. RUMSFELD: Senator, I would really like
to avoid setting up hurdles on this subject. I think back -- I was reading the
book "Eye in the Sky," about the Corona program and the first overhead
satellite, and recalling that it failed something like 11, 12, or 13 times
during the Eisenhower administration and the Kennedy administration. And they
stuck with it, and it worked, and it ended up saving billions of dollars in --
because of the better knowledge we achieved.
In this
case, if I could just elaborate for a moment, the principle of deterrence, it
seems to me, goes to what's in the minds of people who might do you harm and how
can you affect their behavior.
The problem with
ballistic missiles, with weapons of mass destruction, even though they may be a
low probability, as the chart that Senator Levin, I believe, mentioned suggests,
the reality is, they work without being fired. They alter behavior.
If you think back to the Gulf War, if Saddam Hussein, a
week before he invaded Kuwait, had demonstrated that he had a ballistic missile
and a nuclear weapon, the task of trying to put together that coalition would
have been impossible. There's no way you could have persuaded the European
countries that they should put themselves at risk to a nuclear weapon. People's
behavior changes if they see those capabilities out there.
I think we need missile defense because I think it devalues people
having that capability, and it enables us to do a much better job with respect
to our allies.
Now, finally, I don't think many weapons
systems arrive full- blown. Senator Levin or somebody mentioned "phased" and
"layered." Those are phrases that I think people, not improperly, use to suggest
that things don't start and then suddenly they're perfect. What they do is they
-- you get them out there, and they evolve over time, and they improve.
And so success -- you know, this isn't the old "Star Wars"
idea of a shield that'll keep everything off of everyone in the world. It is
something that in the beginning stages is designed to deal with handfuls of
these things and persuade people that they're not going to be able to blackmail
and intimidate the United States and its friends and allies.
SEN. KENNEDY: Well, I think that you make good response to the
question. I think we can give assurance, though, that there's going to be a very
careful review and --
MR. RUMSFELD: Absolutely.
SEN. KENNEDY: -- in terms of the effectiveness, by you as
it moves along, and that it's going to have to meet the criteria. And I'm
prepared to establish that criteria, but it's going to be meaningful criteria,
in terms of actually being able to function and be able to work --
MR. RUMSFELD: Yes, sir.
SEN.
KENNEDY: -- in the different phases.
Let me move to the
questions of Colombia. What is your sense of the capacity of the military in
these countries to address the particular challenge? Do you think that -- and
how are we going to deal with these reports that we've read recently about the
spillover in the area and in the region, and how are we really going to be able
to determine the difference between the counterinsurgency and the
counternarcotics? Have you -- can you tell us what you're thinking? This is
complicated. It's specialized. It's not -- it's somewhat on the edge of -- but
enormously important. We're going to have to address this. And I'd be interested
-- just your thinking at this time. We'll have more time later on to get into
it, but can you tell us now, at least, what your thoughts are?
MR. RUMSFELD: It -- Senator, it is not something that I've been able to
get briefed into. It's my understanding that the Department of State has the
lead on this. And I understand that there's a cap that's been put on by the
Congress on the numbers of people in -- military people that are engaged. It is
complicated.
I am one who believes that the drug
problem is probably overwhelmingly a demand problem, and that it's going to find
-- if the demand persists, it's going to find ways to get what it wants, and if
it isn't from Colombia, it will be from somebody else. And if I were the
neighboring countries, I'd be concerned about spillover as well. I think it's a
very important problem, and it's not something I've had a chance to screw my
head into or talk to the National Security Council team about.
SEN. KENNEDY: For the next eight days, I'm the chairman of the Seapower
Subcommittee of this committee. Under Senator Snowe, we had extensive hearings
about the decline of the ship-purchasing budget and what's going to be necessary
in order to meet responsibility in terms of the Navy.
Have you had a chance in any respect to review that, and can you give
us any kinds of ideas of how you think that that issue is going to be able to be
addressed down the road?
MR. RUMSFELD: Well, I haven't
been briefed on it at all. I am, by background and interest, very interested in
the Navy, and I recognize the importance Mrs. -- Senator Snowe indicated to me
that we are currently building ships at a level that, if it continues, will
permit the U.S. Navy to decline down into very low numbers, and that the only
thing that can be done, if we're to maintain the kind of capabilities in the
world where we can project power and presence through the United States Navy, is
we're going to have to increase the shipbuilding budget. I'll stop there.
SEN. KENNEDY: Okay. Just -- and I only have a few more --
about a minute. Senator Roberts, who has been the chairman of the Emerging
Threats Subcommittee, and has been a real leader in the whole area of
bioterrorism and cyberterrorism has -- and Chairman Levin referenced that in
terms of his opening comments. Could you give us some assessment of what your
own kind of concerns would be in those areas? There's been recent legislation
that Senator Frist, myself, and others had advanced at the end of the last
session in terms of bioterrorism. I'd just be interested in your own kind of
perception of the nature of the threats as we're looking down the road.
MR. RUMSFELD: Well, I've been made aware of Senator
Frist's and your interest and Senator Roberts'. I would rank bioterrorism quite
high in terms of threats. I think that it has the advantage that it does not
take a genius to create agents that are enormously powerful, and they can be
done in mobile facilities, in small facilities. And I think it is something that
merits very serious attention not just by the Department of Defense, but by the
country. And I have an interest in it, and certainly would intend to be
attentive to it.
SEN. KENNEDY: Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN.
LEVIN: Senator Thurmond?
SEN. THURMOND: Thank you,
Chairman Levin. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate you on your leadership during this
period of transition, and appreciate your bipartisan approach in holding this
hearing. Your chairmanship continues the committee's long tradition that the
defense of our nation is above politics.
Before I
address the issue at hand, I want to express my appreciation for our outgoing
secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen. His tenure as secretary of Defense will be
marked by great advances in the quality of life for our military personnel and
their families; the refocusing of the Department of Defense to the new threats
of weapons of mass destruction and cyberterrorism, and more importantly,
assuring this nation's position as the world's only superpower. I wish him, and
his lovely wife, Janet, the best in their future endeavors.
Secretary Rumsfeld, congratulations on your nomination and welcome to
this, your second confirmation hearing as secretary of defense. I hope that the
praise of Bill Cohen does not lead you to the conclusion that you will not have
any challenges as you move into the office of the secretary of defense.
Our nation is fortunate to have an individual such as you
follow Bill Cohen. You have distinguished career, both in the public and private
sector, and have shown your willingness to take on the tough issues faced in the
Department of Defense.
Those of us who have served on
the Armed Services Committee in the mid-70s can recall the problems you
encountered then with the state of our armed forces. They were undermanned,
morale was sagging, drugs were rampant, and most important, they were
underfunded. Fortunately, shortages in the armed service forces are no longer a
major issue. However, overworked and undermanned units and underfunded programs
are problems that will, again, test your mettle.
Mr.
Secretary, you have been a proponent for a strong defense. I can assure you that
this committee will provide you their support. That will be critical as you work
to strengthen the armed forces and meet the challenges of the future. Our
nation's history is replete with examples of failing to anticipate the future
challenges and denuding our military capability.
Coincidentally, it was 50 years ago, at the beginning of the Korean
War, when the United States sent the ill-equipped and under- trained troops of
Task Force Smith into battle with tragic results because we failed to anticipate
a threat. As we commemorate that war, we should make the pledge of never again
will this nation send another Task Force Smith to battle.
Mr. Secretary, I wish you success and look forward to working with you
in the coming years.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. RUMSFELD: Thank you, sir.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you, Senator Thurmond for those comments. And we very
personally appreciate it, and the leadership that you have shown on this
committee and so many other places in this Senate over the years.
Senator Lieberman, we all give you a special welcome back;
some of us with greater enthusiasm, perhaps, than others. (Scattered laughter.)
But welcome back.
JOE LIEBERMAN (D-CT): Thanks, Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Rumsfeld.
I was privileged to have a
courtesy call yesterday from Don Evans, the secretary of Commerce designate, and
I opened by thanking him for all he did to bring me back to the United States
Senate. (Laughter.) So it is good to be here though, with my colleagues and
particularly on this committee.
Mr. Rumsfeld, I welcome
you and join my colleagues in expressing my, not only admiration for you
extraordinary record of public and private service, but for your willingness to
take on this job at this time.
I haven't read
"Rumsfeld's Rules" yet, but I will certainly -- I remember it was a little red
book in another country of some distance from here. (Laughter.) I don't know
what color "Rumsfeld's Rules" are going to be, but --
As your opening statement suggests, at this critical time -- unusual
time in our national security history, there's a surprising amount that we have
to do. We are -- when I think of the comparison that you made of the Cold War
situation you found on the last occasion when you came in as secretary of
Defense, and the remarkably different circumstance you find today -- we are not
in ideological and strategic conflict with another major superpower, the Soviet
Union, we are it. But we are nonetheless challenged. Technology is expanding the
threats. As you've documented, we have tremendous demands on us to maintain our
force, to keep our troops with the quality of life and training that we want
them to have.
This is going to require some very tough
leadership from you, and priorities -- the setting of priorities and the
willingness to try to implement those. We have -- in the time I've been
privileged to be on this committee and therefore been involved more directly in
national security questions, watching Congress and the military and the
executive branches we have generally reached beyond in authorization what we
have ultimately -- and conceptualization -- what we've ultimately been willing
to pay for.
And I think we're at such a point now where
legitimate claims can be made for resources, and we haven't yet put them
together. I mean, in the madcap experience to which Senator Levin refers that I
went through last year -- (laughter) -- a glorious experience, actually, and one
that I thoroughly enjoyed -- the Bush-Cheney Campaign had a document out
suggesting the willingness to spend $45 billion more over the next 10 years for
national security.
Vice President Gore and I doubled
that to $100 billion, big spenders that we are -- (scattered laughter). But what
is interesting and, of course, focuses the tough choices you will have, is that
the chiefs, the Joint Chiefs who, I believe Senator Warner referred to, have
essentially told us that what we really need is at least $50 billion more a
year.
So let me first put in an appeal which you and I
have spoken about, which is that all of us who care about national security have
to really reach out and try to build more of a public understanding for the need
to spend more to keep our national security strong in this age. If you look at
what people think we ought to spend more money on as we are deciding how to
spend the surplus, national security comes out way down on the list, and that's
not good. And as long as that exists, it's going to be hard for us here to make
the decisions we should make.
Second point is, how do
you -- how do you begin to approach the excess of needs and the deficiency of
resources and make the kind of priority decisions that we need you to make?
MR. RUMSFELD: It is -- it is -- I want you to know that I
understand the task facing the Department of Defense is enormously complex. It
is not a time to preside and tweak and calibrate what's going on. It is a time
to take what's been done to start this transformation and see that it is
continued in a way that, hopefully, has many, many more right decisions than
wrong decisions. There is no one person who has a monopoly on how to do this, or
genius. It's going to take a collaborative relationship within the executive
branch and with the Congress, and I just hope and pray that we're wise enough to
do it well.
But the one thing we know of certain
knowledge is that it's not a peaceful world. It is a different world and it is
more peaceful in the sense that the Soviet Union is gone. But it is nonetheless
a dangerous and untidy world. We also know that the power of weapons today is
vastly greater than it was in earlier eras, and we know that with the relaxation
of tension at the end of the Cold War the proliferation of these capabilities is
pervasive. It is happening, and we have to acknowledge that.
If I know anything, I know that history shows that weakness is
provocative. Weakness invites people into doing things they wouldn't otherwise
think of.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Right.
MR. RUMSFELD: And what we have to do is better understand what will
deter and what will defend against this new range of threats? And I don't look
at them in isolation. I don't think of long-range ballistic missiles and
short-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles and terrorism as something
that's disconnected. I think of it as a continuum.
With
the Gulf War, the world was taught, Don't try to take on Western armies, navies
and air forces, because you lose. Therefore, you should try something else.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Right.
MR.
RUMSFELD: And that means you're going to look at things like information system
attacks and cyberwar, you're going to look at bioterrorism, you're going to look
at other kinds of terrorism. The vulnerability of space assets has to be
worrisome to people, as well as shorter-range ballistic missiles and cruise
missiles, in addition to ballistic -- long-range ballistic missiles.
So --
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Let me ask
this question: If -- and I agree with you -- if we have to prepare to face this
new range of threats to our security, because no sensible antagonist will take
us on as we were taken on in the Gulf War because we were too dominant, does
that not inevitably mean that we will have to cut some of the programs that we
are now spending money on that may be more continuations of that earlier threat
scenario than the new ones?
MR. RUMSFELD: It's entirely
possible that that kind of a recommendation can come out of this review. And
whether it will or not, I don't know until I dig into it. I mentioned the need
for collaboration with Congress. That's true. We also need to make darn sure
that we're dealing with our allies in a way that they are brought along. We're
not alone in this world. We have some enormously important allies in Asia and
Europe and friends in other parts of the world. And I think that those
relationships as well are terribly important.
SEN.
LIEBERMAN: Let me ask about the review that you've spoken of. As you know,
Congress has authorized by law a quadrennial defense review, and that was a way
to try to encourage and mandate an incoming administration to look forward and
to require that those in the military present some big thoughts over the
horizon. You've also referred to, and the president-elect referred during the
campaign and more recently to a strategic review. Help me, if you would, to
relate those two reviews to one another. Is the strategic review the incoming
administration has in mind the quadrennial defense review authorized by law? Or
since that doesn't give you a final product until December, though it gives you
some before, are you thinking about a separate review to help you make some of
the budget priority decisions I've just referred to.
MR. RUMSFELD: The latter. My impression is that what the president has
in mind is that we will take a look at how we view the world and our
circumstance in it, and fashion some thoughts with respect to broader strategy,
and then get down into more of the details as to the defense establishment's
capability or appropriateness of our current arrangements to deal with those
kinds of threats and
******* Matching of next tape
011129CH.SA
It is -- I'm worried about getting people
picked, recommended, which I can't do, as we know, until I'm the man. And I'm
not. I have to have help. And it is -- I'm being practical. As a manager, I know
that we're going to have to figure out a way to flush out this system a little
bit.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Thanks very much. I'd say, from
your perfmance here this moring, that it's cleaer that you are the man.
(Laughter.)
MR. RUMSFELD: (Laughing.) Thank you. Thank
you.
SEN. LEVIN: Senator McCain?
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to congraulate the president fo r
It is
-- I'm worried about getting people picked, recommended, which I can't do, as we
know, until I'm the man. And I'm not. I have to have help. And it is -- I'm
being practical. As a manager, I know that we're going to have to figure out a
way to flush out this system a little bit.
SEN.
LIEBERMAN: Thanks very much. I'd say, from your performance here this morning,
that it's clear that you are the man. (Laughter.)
MR.
RUMSFELD: (Laughing.) Thank you. Thank you.
SEN. LEVIN:
Senator McCain?
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
I want to congratulate the president for his
outstanding selection of Don Rumsfeld to be the next secretary of Defense. His
reputation for intelligence, candor, and competency is well deserved. And I look
forward to a rapid confirmation of his nomination, so that he can get right to
work.
I guess there's very few benefits of old age, but
every new administration we hear the same complaint that you just mentioned.
It's a very legitimate complaint. And perhaps maybe we ought to do something
about this process.
And I'm not worried about the
willingness of people like you to serve, in all candor, because you're a patriot
first and last. But I am worried about, at lower levels of government, the
undersecretary, the assistant secretary, those positions that, when highly
qualified men and women look at it and then see what they have to go through,
they decide not to do that. And I think that's the compelling reason.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for you, Mr. Secretary
--
MR. RUMSFELD: (Laughs.)
SEN. MCCAIN: -- but I certainly do for others that we -- that you need
to attract on your team, as you so well pointed out.
I
was interested in your comments to Senator Warner's questions about the use of
force, and when and when not the United States troops should be committed. Those
of us who assailed the administration and NATO's conduct of gradual escalation
during the Balkans campaign took heart in your comments at that time,
particularly your reflections on CNN on April 4th, 1999, with respect to
comparisons of Kosovo to Vietnam, which went as follows, and I quote: "There's
always a risk in gradualism. It pacifies the hesitant and the tentative. What it
didn't do is shock and awe and alter the calculations of the people you're
dealing with."
During an interview with Chris Matthews,
you noted that "it was a mistake to say that we would not use ground forces,
because it simplifies the problem for Milosevic. It seems to me we ought to
start saying things -- stop saying things to appease and placate our domestic
political audiences, and we ought to start behaving in a way that suggests to
Milosevic that it's in his interest to end this and stop ethnic cleansing and
come to the negotiating table." I appreciate those words very much.
But my question is, do you think we should have gotten
involved in Kosovo to start with?
MR. RUMSFELD:
(Pauses.) There are pieces of that on both sides, obviously. I think that NATO
had historically been a defensive alliance and been thought of as that. And its
image has altered as a result of that.
My comments --
(chuckling) -- and they sound pretty good to me, too; I'm kind of pleased I said
those things -- (laughs) -- were obviously after the fact. It was: We're there,
by golly. I'm no fan of graduated response. If we're going to do something,
let's do it.
And -- but I don't know that -- the
problem is that in our society people seem to watch how people manage a crisis
or a conflict, rather than what preceded it. And of course, the real kudos ought
to go to people who manage things in a way that the conflict doesn't happen,
that in fact --
SEN. MCCAIN: Or not manage them, so
that the conflict does happen.
MR. RUMSFELD: Well, yes,
sir. And when I think back to the Balkans -- I mean, goodness, I don't -- again,
I don't want to bring up ancient history, but all of us for years did scenarios
and war planning and war games with respect to the -- Yugoslavia coming apart
and problems in that part of the world. And if we know anything, it's that the
Europeans, I think -- by waiting for the Europeans to do something, things
evolved in a way that were unfortunate.
And I think it
requires a lot more --
SEN. MCCAIN: That's certainly
true --
MR. RUMSFELD: -- effort up front.
SEN. MCCAIN: I think that's certainly true of Bosnia.
MR. RUMSFELD: It is.
SEN. MCCAIN:
Now, Kosovo is a little closer call.
MR. RUMSFELD: Yes.
It is.
SEN. MCCAIN: So we don't have an answer.
MR. RUMSFELD: I don't, and that's -- that's (direct ?).
SEN. MCCAIN: I'd like to mention a couple more issues to
you, and I'll again propose the question that you previously addressed in the
advance questions to the committee. Do you believe we still have excess military
infrastructure that can and should be reduced?
MR.
RUMSFELD: Instinctively, I do, but knowledgeably, I don't because I have not
gone back in and reviewed it. But I would say this --
SEN. MCCAIN: Well, have you heard the comments of Colin Powell, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of Defense that you are succeeding,
virtually every military expert in America?
MR.
RUMSFELD: I have. I am kind of old-fashioned, though. I like to figure things
out for myself. But I am a firm believer that force structure has to -- that
base structure has to fit force structure, and we know --
SEN. MCCAIN: Do you think that it does now?
MR. RUMSFELD: As I say, my impression is it doesn't. I have not been in
there, and I -- the next question after that would be, well, in what way, and of
course, I don't know what way because I've not been over there getting briefed.
But my brain tells me, my instincts tell me, from the past, that in fact not
only should base structure fit force structure, but that it doesn't, and that
something should be done about it, because we cannot afford to waste resources
with the important tasks we have ahead of us. But I'm not in a position to say,
This is how it ought to be done.
SEN. MCCAIN: Recently,
the United States made a very significant investment in the problems in
Colombia; largely, not totally, but largely unnoticed by Americans and their
representatives. I take it from your answer that "I have less than well-informed
personal views which I'd prefer to discuss with the appropriate officials before
taking a public position," is that you haven't paid as much attention to it as
maybe other issues, as well?
MR. RUMSFELD: That could
be true. I haven't. I have not been to the country in years, and I -- and I know
only basically what I know from the press, and --
SEN.
MCCAIN: You know that we've just invested about $1.3 billion in the last
appropriations cycle?
MR. RUMSFELD: That's my
understanding.
SEN. MCCAIN: And we're upgrading a base
in Ecuador, which I found out -- perhaps I shouldn't admit this -- by looking at
a newspaper.
MR. RUMSFELD: I didn't know that.
SEN. MCCAIN: There's a lot of things going on in Colombia,
Mr. Secretary, and I hate to harken back to other conflicts, but I hope you'll
get very well aware of this situation, what we're doing, what the involvement of
U.S. military personnel is in the area, and what kind of investment -- more
importantly, what goals we seek here. Because, very frankly, I don't know the
answer to those questions yet, and I think that at least those of us who sit on
this committee should be much better informed, and I hope that the committee
will start looking at this situation from an armed forces standpoint very
quickly.
MR. RUMSFELD: I will certainly invest the time
needed to do that.
SEN. LEVIN: Senator McCain, if I
could just interject?
SEN. MCCAIN: Yes.
SEN. LEVIN: Senator and Warner and I were just chatting, and he raised
that very same subject, and I think both of us would agree with your comment
that we should, indeed, as a committee, get more deeply involved, and will.
SEN. MCCAIN: I thank you, and I'll take responsibility for
not knowing about the upgrade in Ecuador, but very frankly, I'm not sure many
Americans know about it, either. And maybe that's perfectly fine, but I think
we'd better have a close and careful examination of exactly what we're committed
to. I'm not sure that members of this committee and Americans would agree with
the proposed decision on the part of the president of Colombia to give more
areas of sanctuary to the so-called narcotraffickers there.
But anyway --
Finally, Mr. Secretary, I am
sure that you are aware of my concerns about excess spending and the increase of
pork barrel spending. It's risen -- my time has expired, but I --
SEN. WARNER: No, you -- we cut into your time. You can
take that question.
SEN. MCCAIN: I'll take about five
or 10 more minutes, Mr. Rumsfeld. (Laughter.)
SEN.
WARNER: No, no, no, no, no, no.
SEN. MCCAIN: Well, it's
gone up. It continues to go up. When you were secretary of Defense it was about
$200-$300 million a year of unrequested add-ons in the Defense appropriations
process. It's now up around $6 or $7 billion at minimum -- at minimum. And new
gimmicks have been invented since you were there. One of them is the so-called
wish list that comes over from the Pentagon that, although not requested in the
budget, would be really great to have. So they pick and choose from that very
long list.
I want to say this to you, Mr. Secretary.
And I don't think you need any advice. But unless you get a handle on this
spending, a billion and a half dollars for an aircraft -- helicopter carrier
that the Navy and Marine Corps said they neither want nor need, continued
acquisitions of C-130s which 10 years ago the United States Air Force they
didn't need, we're going to have a C-130 in every school yard
in America before this is over. You're going to have to get a handle on this,
and you may have to face down some very powerful interests, both on the Hill and
off the Hill.
And so I see it lurch out of control. Why
do I care? I was just down at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma. They're still
living in World War II barracks. And we're purchasing equipment that the
military neither wants nor needs. We hopefully have addressed the food stamp
problem, although I'm not sure we have satisfactorily. But while all this excess
and unnecessary spending is going on, the men and women in the military have
suffered. It's not an accident that Army captains are getting out at a greater
rate than in the history of this country's armed services. I don't mind losing a
few admirals and generals; I do mind losing the high quality captains that are
the future leaders of this country.
So I strongly urge
you to look at this issue because the urgency of the cold war situation has
therefore allowed us a degree of license in unnecessary spending out of the
Defense budget, much of which has nothing to do with defense, that you're never
going to be able to meet our requirements of a new and modernized military much
less the men and women in the military being taken care of unless you address
this issue.
I thank the chairman for the additional
time.
SEN. WARNER: Thank you.
Do you have a quick comment on that before I call on Senator Cleland?
You want an opportunity to --
MR. RUMSFELD: No, I'm --
no, I certainly agree that the question that has to be posed is whether or not
something is going to contribute to our national security and whether or not it
meets the priorities that are important for this country. That has to be our
focus.
SEN. WARNER: Thank you.
Senator Cleland.
SEN. MAX CLELAND (D-GA): Mr.
Secretary, since the C-130s are build in Georgia, I'd like to say that I'm for
school yards being able to be moved anywhere in the world at a moment's notice.
(Laughter.)
Let me just say that I'm fascinated by the
Rumsfeld Rules. And I appreciate your appreciation for quotes and anecdotes.
In listening to your incredible resume and your wonderful
experience that you bring to this task -- and you certainly have my support for
this job. I think you're going to be an outstanding secretary of Defense -- I
thought about the line by Jack Kennedy that the thing he appreciated most in the
White House was a sense of history, the thing he feared most was human
miscalculation. And I think you bring something very special to this post, to
this committee, to this country with your great sense of history. Not only in
service to this country yourself, but in the defense post I think you can help
us avoid a lot of human miscalculation. So congratulations to you.
MR. RUMSFELD: Thank you, sir.
SEN. CLELAND: In terms of the deployment of American forces, I'd just
like to follow up on my fellow combat veteran John McCain's comments and some of
the comments that have been made here.
I was privileged
to visit General Powell when he was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, again
a fellow Vietnam veteran; someone, like many of us, that learned a lot of bitter
lessons about deployment of forces in the Vietnam War. And I once heard General
Powell say something very powerful. He said, "My job is to recommend to the
president -- give the best advice to the president on how to use the American
military to stay out of war, but if we get in war, to win and win quickly." And
when he said that, it occurred to me that was the best mission statement that I
had ever really heard about the purpose of the American military.
So, he's going to be one of your great colleagues in the
Cabinet. And I think that kind of thinking I've heard from you today. I was
appreciative of your comments about using force, using the American military,
using our posture to the extent to which we didn't have to commit it. But
obviously, if we commit it then there's certain things that we have to do to
make sure it's successful.
In terms of success, I'm
glad to hear you say that we must ask the question, "How do we know when we're
successful?" I asked this question of several administration people in terms of
the Balkan war. You know, I said early on, make sure you define victory, because
one of these days you're going to have to declare it. It leads me to a
Clausewitz line that I like very much, that the leader must know the last step
he's going to take before he takes the first step. So that sets in motion a
whole set of thought processes.
Senator Roberts and I
took the floor all last year to argue out the question, in a bipartisan way,
basically about when to commit American forces; about what is in the strategic
national vital interest of the United States and what is not. And then if you
commit, then you have a definable objective and then you do have an exit
strategy. And it's been a pleasure to work with my colleague across the
aisle.
I just wanted to share those thoughts with you
that might be of help to you in fulfilling your task.
On to the question of our men and women in uniform. I appreciate your
interest in your statement about working hard to made sure that we recruit the
best and the brightest, that we don't just lower our standards, that we don't
"dummy up" the military just to get numbers. That is fool's gold. That's false
economy any way you cut it. I'd rather have less numbers and keep quality
people. So we do want to go after the best and the brightest, not only to join
but to stay. Senator McCain pointed out senior captains; senior NCOs.
I've tried to fight through this -- work through this over
the last four years. I've been on the Personnel Subcommittee. We've looked at
various ways -- various incentives, not only for recruitment for retention. And
it does seem to me that retention is a real special challenge. I've learned that
you recruit a soldier but you retain a family. We have a family military now.
And those families are interested in the same things families outside the post
are interested in.
One of them is education. For the
last two years, this body has put forward a notion that -- with my initiative --
that we ought to look at the GI Bill and maybe see if we can use that to apply
to family members to entice members to stay into the military for a full career.
I'd just like for you to take a look at that as we go along as just one of our
tools that we use to retain quality personnel.
I
appreciate in your statement a focus on intelligence. I can't help but feel that
intelligence prevents many battles and wins many battles when you get in them,
and that the coordination of our intelligence capabilities is itself a
challenge.
I mentioned deployments. Senator Roberts and
I came to, basically, a point of view of realistic restraint. We just saw with
the USS Cole that if you project force or project power, you also make yourself,
in this terrorist world -- this terrorist environment -- a target, so that power
projection requires power protection.
Therefore, if we
are -- I think we have to be very realistic about our power projection. I think
one of the reviews that I would be grateful for you to do as you review the
American military is to see where it is deployed around the world. We literally
are out there everywhere in the world, and I think it's time for a review.
In terms of weapon systems, I notice that a couple years
ago you joined with seven other secretaries of Defense to endorse full funding
for the F-22. That's something that I think that's important to our national
security interest.
Let me just say that one of the
Rumsfeld rules is, don't necessarily avoid sharp edges; occasionally they are
necessary to leadership. So, on to a sharp edge, national missile defense. I've
been a big supporter of theater missile defense, especially the Arrow system
that we worked very closely with with our Israeli friends. I'm a big booster of
research and further testing of an anti-missile system. I guess I feel right now
that we're not ready for a deployment of a system. I'm not sure that concept has
been proven. But I'm willing to work on it, to prove it out, test it, and then
make judgments on deployment later.
But one of the
wonderful briefings I've received in the last year or so is from your commission
on missile systems. And of course we were all concerned about the North Korean
launch of a missile out in the Pacific. I went to South Korea and up to the DMZ
this past August. It was fascinating to get the briefing on North Korea and see
where they were. We got a fascinating briefing. We had given to us by the
Department of the Army a photo taken at night of lights on the Korean peninsula,
which also showed lights just into southern China. It's interesting. You see
lights in South Korea, you see lights in China; North Korea literally is a big,
dark, black hole. And it's amazing to me that 50 years after the Korean War,
they still can't turn the lights on.
And I just wonder
-- we don't want to overreact here. I think any missile defense system that is
deployed should be well thought- out and not just on the basis of one launch by
a country that can't even turn the lights on. So I point that out to you because
I'm willing to walk down this path with you to continue to prove the concept,
but I think first things first. Let's prove the concept and then think about
deployment.
I would say too that in my analysis of
threats, it is this terroristic threat that is maybe our biggest challenge, and
particularly in terms of missile systems, one that Senator Sam Nunn and that
great expert on nuclear warfare, Ted Turner, have recently articulated. And that
is that we might want to look at the whole question of the Soviets -- the former
Soviets, or the Russians now, and their de-alerting of their existing systems
and any loose nukes that might be out there. That might be one of our biggest
challenges in terms of missile threats.
Now I'd like
for you just to respond to maybe the last point that I raised.
MR. RUMSFELD: Well, I think the danger that's been suggested with
respect to the disarray in the former Soviet Union and the large number of
nuclear weapons is a very real concern. There's just no question but that it has
to be looked at in two dimensions. First is the actual materials, which there
are a number of countries that have appetites for it, and if your circumstance
is that anything's for sale, there's a risk.
The second
dimension to it is the fact that you have a large number of very bright,
talented, experienced, weapons people in the Soviet Union that are not getting
paid and not getting their pensions and, again, if everything is for sale, their
brains and their knowledge is for sale. And it results in a risk for accelerated
proliferation that is serious and real, and I am very much concerned about it
and I recognize the fact that the United States needs to address it and play a
role in trying to avoid that proliferation.
I would
like to add one word on missile defense, if I might. We talk frequently about
the risks of deploying missile defense, and we're properly concerned about our
allies in that regard; we're properly concerned about attitudes by Russia and
China and other countries. I think it's useful from time to time to also ask
ourselves, What are the risks of not deploying missile defense? And I would
mention several.
One is, it seems to me, if some
countries that have significant technological capabilities decide that they are
vulnerable to ballistic missiles from their neighbors and that we lack the
ability to assist them in defending against that capability, that we may
contribute to proliferation by encouraging them to go forward and develop their
own nuclear weapons and their own ballistic missiles. I think that's just a
fact.
Second, the other thing that worries me if we
don't deploy ballistic missile capability is, I've been in the White House as
chief of staff and as secretary of Defense, on the National Security Council,
and I've seen the process that a president has to go through when there is a
risk or a threat. If we know of certain knowledge that another country has a
nuclear warhead that can effect us and we don't feel we have a good grip on
their motivations, their behavior patterns, what could dissuade them, and we
know that they are capable of using it, we are forced into one of two courses of
action. Either we acquiesce and change our behavior and change our interest and
alter what we would otherwise have done, or we have to preempt.
And I think putting a president of the United States and a country in
the position where their choices, their options, are so minimal that they are
forced into a position of -- as Israel was with respect to the raid on the
nuclear capability in Iraq, so many years ago -- where a president is forced to
go in and take action of a preemptive nature because he lacks the defensive
capability to persuade those people that it's not in their interest to do that.
So that is a dimension to this missile defense thing that I don't think gets
into the debate to the extent it ought to, and I think we need to look at
deterrence across a spectrum.
And I was in a meeting up
in New York, and some person raised their hand and they said, "My father was a
good friend of Colonel Hauth (sp)," and I thought back, "My goodness gracious.
Colonel Hauth (sp). That was Woodrow Wilson's day." And he said, I was talking
about missiles and missile defense and so forth, and he said, he said, "You
know, one day my father asked Colonel Hauth (sp) why he was so courteous; why he
was just the most gracious, courteous person he'd ever met." And the answer was,
by Colonel Hauth (sp), "Well, young man, I grew up when gentlemen carried
revolvers." (Laughter.) "And if you know everyone's got a revolver, you tend to
be courteous."
Well, North Korea is selling, has been
and is today, to my knowledge -- to my not today knowledge, but very recent
knowledge, selling those capabilities and technologies and trading them around
the world.
They are an active world-class
proliferator.
It's my understanding, when the United
States representatives met with them, their response was -- and when we asked if
they would change their behavior with respect to ballistic missiles, one of the
responses was something to the effect that "you are -- America, you've bombed in
the Sudan, you've bombed in Afghanistan, you're bombing in Kosovo, you're
bombing in Iraq, and you're giving food aid to North Korea."
Now why? Why is the behavior so different? Well, they believe it is
because they have those weapons. And they believe that the -- those capabilities
they believe they have are sufficient to alter behavior of their neighbors.
And I don't think we as a country want to think that the
old mutual assured destruction, where the United States and the Soviet Union
could kill each other several times over, is necessarily a deterrent that is
well fashioned for the period we're moving into.
SEN.
CLELAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you.
Senator Inhofe?
SEN. JAMES INHOFE
(R-OK): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I can remember when I
heard on TV -- I didn't have any indication that you would be nominated, nor
that you would accept, if nominated, this position. I told my wife there is not
a person in America today as qualified as Don Rumsfeld for this position.
I also had two personal reasons that I've been rejoicing
in your nomination. One is that, as Senator Durbin said, when you were inducted
into the National Wrestlers' Wrestling Hall of Fame -- of course, that's located
in Stillwater, Oklahoma.
MR. RUMSFELD: (Laughs.)
SEN. INHOFE: You're even more of a hero there than you are
in some other areas.
MR. RUMSFELD: (Laughs.)
SEN. INHOFE: And I remember also, when I came from the
House to the Senate in 1994, I went through some of these confirmation hearings
on the different chiefs. And I can remember identifying with them, because we
had served at the same time -- you know, myself and Elvis Presley and some of
these guys.
So now, as of about five years ago, Mr.
Chairman, there's not one person in the service who was serving when I was
serving. So you and I were -- are contemporaries. We served precisely the same
years. Now I have someone I can communicate with.
MR.
RUMSFELD: (Laughs.)
SEN. INHOFE: I want to also
compliment you and your family. And you know, I look at your beautiful
granddaughter over there, and I think: There isn't one of my eight grandkids who
would listen to me for two hours and be as patient as she is. (Laughter.)
Let me -- (chuckles) -- I think when we assess this thing
-- I noticed this euphoric attitude after the Cold War is over, that somehow the
threat is not there. And I really believe the threat is greater today, and I
think we're in the most threatened position that we've been in, as a national,
in our nation's history. And incidentally, George Tenet, the director of Central
Intelligence, agrees with that.
And I think when you
look at -- Senator Warner's right; we can't try to pin you down as to what kind
of a cost this is going to be. But I would say that when you have the Joint
Chiefs all agreeing that the range is somewhere between $48 (billion) and $58
billion additional, do you have any reason to believe that's unreasonable?
MR. RUMSFELD: I have no reason to believe any of those
numbers are unreasonable. I just -- it takes -- I really do like to get my brain
engaged before my mouth and --
SEN. INHOFE: Yeah, and
I'm not -- I'm just saying to you --
MR. RUMSFELD:
Yeah, I need to get in there and pore over it. And I need to get some people to
help me.
SEN. INHOFE: Well, there's one thing that
hasn't been brought up that I think I'm going to ask that you look into
immediately, and that is the -- what we're going to have to do in a supplemental
for the current budget year. We've been talking about in the out years and the
future years --
MR. RUMSFELD: Right.
SEN. INHOFE: -- but right now the -- we have a list that's been
provided us with $4-1/2 billion of near-term readiness requirements -- we're
talking about spare parts and equipment maintenance -- and another 2-1/2 billion
for emergency personnel and modernization programs.
Now, we have been told if we're unable to get that we may have to cease
training in the fourth quarter of this year. I am going to ask you to really pay
attention to the current needs -- those things that are having a deteriorating
effect on our retention and those things that have to be there. RPM accounts,
for example. I mean, you can go down to Fort Bragg and you can -- in a
rainstorm, as I've been there, and our kids are covering up their equipment with
their bodies to keep them from rusting. So those are the things that have to be
done immediately. And I hope that you would look at those.
MR. RUMSFELD: I will, indeed. Thank you, sir.
SEN. INHOFE: Just so there's clarification as to the responses that you
made, I -- when the chairman first asked about the missile defense law that we
passed, the Missile Defense Act of 1999, and he read the two parts of that bill
that I think we've heard many, many times before, do you see that there's
anything incompatible about those two statements?
MR.
RUMSFELD: The first is deploying an effective system --
SEN. INHOFE: As soon as technologically possible. At the same time
--
MR. RUMSFELD: And the second was negotiation?
SEN. INHOFE: Yes. Uh-huh.
MR.
RUMSFELD: Not that I can see. In other words --
SEN.
INHOFE: I don't either, but I just wanted to -- because I think that that -- the
act is very specific. And let's keep in mind, that was not just passed by a huge
margin in the House, it was passed by a 97-3 margin in the Senate. And not one
person who has been in here today voted against it. And so I would only ask you
that you would recommend to the administration that you immediately start
complying with Public Law 106-38 and start getting busy and deploying.
By the way, I want to say that if there's one -- one of
the great recent services that you have provided for this country was the
Rumsfeld Commission. And I think if I were to single out one or two sentences in
there, when those who are opposed to our meeting what I think our requirements
are in the national missile defense system, they often say, Well, you know, it's
going to -- these countries -- Iran, Iraq and other countries -- are not going
to be able to have this capability for another five, 10 years, you pointed out
that an indigenous system doesn't exist today, and that these countries are
trading technologies and trading systems. And so I appreciate very much your
making that statement and making it very clear to this committee.
Thirdly, there's one thing that we haven't really talked
about, and I'd ask that you address it. It doesn't have a lot of sex appeal, not
many people talk about it, but it's our near term readiness and
modernization. Just as one example -- and I could use many other
examples, but this is a personal one. I do chair the Readiness subcommittee and
have had a great deal of concern as to how these efforts over in Kosovo and
Bosnia are draining our ability to defend America, just one being the 21st
TACOM. The 21st TACOM is responsible for ground logistics in that area of the
Balkans, but also in the Middle East. And they're at about a hundred percent
capacity right now. Some of the equipment they had over there -- the M-915
trucks that we're using, many of them with over a million miles on them -- we
determined that if we could just use the amount of money that we're going to
have to use to maintain those for a three-year period we could replace them with
new vehicles.
Now, the problem there is an accounting
problem that you're well aware of. And I'm not sure whether it was back in 1975
or not. But we can't get anything done and prepare for the future when fiscally
in a normal business decision you would say, No, we're not going to keep fixing
those, we're going to have new ones. Do you have thoughts about how you might
address that?
MR. RUMSFELD: Well, there's no question
but that the government operates quite differently from business. And you're --
there's also no question that at a certain point people do not maintain fleets
of things that are antiquated because of the upkeep and maintenance cost of
continuing them.
SEN. INHOFE: Yeah. But, of course, we
have been doing it. I --
MR. RUMSFELD: Yes, sir.
SEN. INHOFE: Because a question on base closure was asked,
I would only make a request that --
The force structure
that we have today is about one-half of what it was during 1991, during the
Persian Gulf War. And that can be quantified: you know, half the Army divisions,
half the tactical air wings, half the ships -- we're going down from 600 ships
to 300 ships.
After the Cole, USS Cole tragedy took
place, I went over there, and I talked to virtually every rear admiral and
everyone who was around there, and they said that if we had had -- when we cut
down the number of ships, we cut our refuelers or our oilers down from 32 to 21.
If we had not done that, every one of them to the last one said we would not
have gone into Yemen or the other ports, we would have refueled at sea.
Now, when you go from the Mediterranean through the Suez
Canal and the Red Sea and turn left and go up the Arabian Sea to the Persian
Gulf, it's about 5,000 miles. You've got to have some refueling capability, and
virtually everything in there is in a kind of a threatened area.
I went back to the boneyards and found that we had two vehicles out
there that were in very good shape and it'd cost very little more money to put
them back into service. Let's see, those were the Higgins and the Humphrey. I
would hope that you would consider doing that, and talk to your Navy people, and
of course you draw on your own experience there, as to why it wouldn't be
prudent to pull some of those back into service and to get that refueling
capability in that area. And I just make that request that you would consider
that.
MR. RUMSFELD: I'd be happy to look at it. Thank
you, sir.
SEN. INHOFE: Thank you very much.
MR. RUMSFELD: Could I clean up two things that were a
little embarrassing to me? The senator mentioned I was in the Wrestling Hall of
Fame. It's true, but I didn't go in the front door with the great wrestlers, I
came in the back door with the so-called "Distinguished Americans Who Had
Wrestled". (Laughter.) And it was Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Dennis
Hastert and Rumsfeld and a few others. (Laughter.)
But
second, I was described as the captain of the --
SEN.
WARNER: We would add John Chafee, is my recollection, our distinguished
colleague. (Laughter.)
MR. RUMSFELD: That's right.
Exactly, yeah.
And I was described as captain of the
college football team, and it's true, but I was a little guy, and it was the
150-pound football, not the big guys. And I wouldn't want to let the record stay
inaccurate.
SEN. LEVIN: Well, we'll keep the record
open for a number of additional comments. (Laughter.)
MR. RUMSFELD: (Laughs.)
SEN. INHOFE: Oh, one
last thing, just for the record. I would ask also that in this setting, in this
environment today at this time, you can't get into your F-22, Joint Strike
Fighters, Crusader, Global Hawk, for example. I know you were a real supporter
of unmanned vehicles at one -- some time ago. But I hope that for the record,
and maybe later on you can have some time to think about this and kind of
address these platforms.
You know, we would like to
believe, and many of the American people believe that we have the very best of
everything. But I was very proud of General John Jumper not too long ago when he
said in terms of air-to-air vehicles, we are not superior. In fact, the Russians
have some things on the market right now -- the SU-35 -- that are better than
any air-to-air combat vehicle we have, including the F-15.
So, you know, I'm hoping that you'll be able to assess our
modernization and kind of get as specific as you can as early in your
term as possible.
MR. RUMSFELD: Thank you.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you.
Senator
Reed.
SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): Thank you, Mr. Rumsfeld,
not only for your willingness to serve, but for your lifetime of public
service.
MR. RUMSFELD: Thank you.
SEN. REED: We had a chance this morning to chat briefly. I thank you
for that also.
I was listening to your response to
Senator Warner about the conditions for committing American forces today. And,
frankly, and I think you would agree, it's, in a sense, a work in progress that
you're trying to understand the forces and the structure we have and the threats
we face.
I might suggest that we're pretty good at the
initial phases of these operations because they're essentially military
operations -- the forceful entry into contested territory. We're not very good
at the back end, which is the policing operation, which is humanitarian
operations. And one of the reasons we're not is that we don't have those
resources, and we haven't been able to coordinate with our allies and with
international organizations to have such resources.
And
I wondered if you might comment upon this whole issue not just in terms of
America's role, but being able to create an organization or mutual organizations
that can do missions that you might feel needed to be done; we have the forces
militarily to make the entry, but we're uncertain about whether or not we can
extract ourselves in reasonable time. Might you comment on that?
MR. RUMSFELD: Well, I can comment briefly. We all know it's a lot
easier to get into something than it is to get out of it. And we all know that
everyone's not capable of doing everything. In fact, the tasks, as you properly
point out, are distinctly different. And I have had an impression over the years
that we have a significant role in helping to deter aggression in the world. And
the way you do that is to be arranged to defend in the event you need to, which
you know well as a West Point graduate.
Having been at
NATO and looking a different countries and what the different countries bring to
that alliance, it's pretty obvious that the United States has some things we
bring to it that are notably different from some of the other countries. It is
also true that the other countries can bring significant things. And I don't
think that it's necessarily true that the United States has to become a great
peacekeeper, if you will. I think we need to have capabilities, as you're
suggesting, that are distinct from war-fighting capabilities, but I also think
other countries can participate in these activities that are needed in the world
from time to time and bring -- they can bring the same capabilities we can to
that type of thing, whereas they cannot bring the same capabilities we can, for
example, with respect to airlift or sealift or intelligence gathering or a
variety of other things.
There's one other aspect to
being on the ground in an area. Someone mentioned it with respect to the Cole.
If you -- or a space asset, or the Marines that were in Beirut airport back when
I was President Reagan's Middle East envoy. If you provide an attractive target,
a lucrative target, somebody may want to try to test whether or not they can
damage that target. That is a lot less true -- the United States of America is
an attractive target. So when we're on the ground, we tend to become a bit more
attractive a bit more, quote, "lucrative" as a target. And it seems to me that
it may very well be that other countries can do some of those things in a way
that is less likely to create the kind of targeting that the United States tends
to draw.
SEN. REED: Thank you.
You made reference to and anticipated my next question, which as the
former ambassador to NATO, you have a great experience you bring to the task,
because there are issues, one of which is to what extent NATO will operate or
European forces will operate independently of NATO. We have a current
controversy about depleted uranium being used in Kosovo. We have an ongoing
debate and discussion about national missile defense, and most -- many European
governments are frankly opposed to it. And then we also have the issue not only
of their -- of whether or not we are willing to essentially allow our allies to
do some things, frankly, because they might get the impression that they can do
everything alone and they don't need us any longer. I wonder, from your
perspective and as you go in, how do you propose to deal with some of these
issues relative to NATO?
MR. RUMSFELD: I would begin
with several principles. I think NATO is just an enormously important alliance,
and it has a record of amazing success. I believe in consultation with our NATO
allies. I think that they have difficult political situations and close margins
in their parliaments, and they need time, they need discussion with us, they
need leadership, and they need an opportunity so that the solution can be
fashioned in a way that makes sense.
With respect to
the European defense force, let me just put it this way: I think anything that
damages the NATO cohesion would be unwise, for Europe, for the United States and
for our ability to contribute to peace and stability in that part of the
world.
SEN. REED: During the campaign, Mr. Rumsfeld,
the Bush campaign made a great point about suggesting that China was a
competitor.
And frankly, in that type of dynamic
there's always the fear that competition will lead to conflict. How do you think
you can use your resources at the Department of Defense to preempt conflict with
China?
MR. RUMSFELD: Well, I think how China evolved in
the 21st Century into the world, in Asia and elsewhere in the world, is
enormously important. And I think our behavior and the behavior of other
countries in the region and the world is going to make a difference as to how
they evolve.
I would characterize our relationship with
the People's Republic of China as complicated and multi-dimensional. It is true,
as the president-elect said, that we are competitors. They are seeking influence
in the region, and we're in the region. And we've been in the region. And I
think it's important we've been in the region because we have contributed to
peace and stability in that part of the world.
We are
trading partners, simultaneously. So on the one hand we're somewhat of a
competitor, on the another hand we're a trading partner. We watch what they say
and they write. And I am -- you know, I'm no more an expert than others, but I
do read what some of their military colleges -- writings are saying. And we see
their defense budget increasing by double digits every year. And we see an awful
lot of their military doctrine talking about leap-frogging generations of
capabilities and moving towards asymmetrical threats to the United States --
cyberwarfare and these types of things.
I don't think
the history, as between the United States and the PRC, is written. I think we're
going to write it. And I think we have to be wise and we have to be engaged and
we have to be thoughtful. But we can't engage in self-delusion. They are not
strategic partners, in my view. They are -- it is a multi-faceted
relationship.
SEN. REED: Let me touch upon, as many of
my colleagues have, national missile defense, but from the context of the
overall theory of deterrence.
You described, from your
vantage point from the White House, the sort of two choices if someone had a
ballistic missile that could reach our shores; the choices being acquiescence or
preemption. And yet, for decades, Russia had exactly that capability -- the
Soviet Union -- and I would suggest we didn't acquiesce and we didn't conduct
preemptive strikes.
It seems to me that what is going
on here in this deterrence theory is that it's as much about the psychology or
one's perception of the psychology of the opponent, as well as throw weight and
defense mechanisms.
SEN. REED: Absolutely.
SEN. REED: And inherent -- it would seem what you're
saying is that you really distinguish some of these so-called rogue states as
being irrational -- as different from the Soviet Union, unable to appreciate the
fact that any type of unilateral attack on the United States, even if -- frankly
one would assume -- even if it was successfully defeated by a missile defense,
would result in almost inevitable retaliation.
Is that
at the core of your thinking, that we're dealing now with some irrational
actors, that not --
SEN. REED: No, sir. I must not have
explained myself well.
Two things: My comments about
the behavior of the states that we're talking about -- I'm not terribly enamored
of the phrase rogue state. It leaves the impression that the leadership there is
kind of like a rogue elephant careening off a wall blindly --
SEN. REED: Irrational.
SEN. REED: -- and
that's not the case. I mean, I've met with Saddam Hussein and I've met with the
elder Assad and I've -- as Middle East envoy. And these people are intelligent,
they're survivors, they're tough. They don't think like we do and goodness knows
they don't behave like we do with respect to their neighbors or their own
people. But they're not erratic.
And you're correct, we
absolutely must -- that's why this intelligence-gathering task we have as a
country is so much more important today; not just because of proliferation, but
because the weapons are so powerful.
And it's not a
matter of counting beans in Russia, how many missiles, how many ships, how many
tanks; it's a matter of knowing a lot more about attitudes and behaviors and
motivations and how you can alter their behavior to create a more peaceful
world.
The thing that I would want to clarify is that
when I said what I said, I was distinguishing between the relationship of the
United States and the Soviet Union. There, the so-called "mutual assured
destruction" indeed worked, and the potential to be able to have massive
retaliation, I think, created a more stable situation.
To pretend that the fact that we had, through massive retaliation, a
stable fission situation with Russia and that that necessarily would deter not
only Russia, but others, from making mischief is obviously historically wrong.
We had a war in Korea, we had a war in Vietnam. Saddam Hussein went into Kuwait,
notwithstanding the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union had a
perfect ability to destroy each other several times over.
So what you need is deterrence across a spectrum that address the
evolving threats that are notably different, as you well know. I just must not
have made myself very clear.
SEN. REED: Well, I, again,
this is a topic that cannot be exhausted in -- (inaudible) --
MR. RUMSFELD: No, it's an interesting topic.
SEN. REED: -- seven minutes, and I appreciate your thoughtfulness and
your comments. Thank you very much, Mr. Rumsfeld.
MR.
RUMSFELD: Thank you, sir.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you very
much, Senator Reed, and we're going to call on two more senators before lunch.
We're going to try to squeeze in both Senator Roberts and Senator Bingaman, and
then we'll break for lunch.
SEN. : Come back when?
SEN. LEVIN: We come back -- well, if we break right at
1:00, we'll come back at 2:00. If we go at five minutes after 1:00, we'll come
back five minutes after 2:00.
Senator Roberts. Thank
you.
SEN. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say
I think you're the right man for the right job.
SEN.
ROBERTS: Thank you, sir.
SEN. ROBERTS: This is a little
different experience in regards to the usual nomination process, at least for me
and, I think, other members of the committee. We have all of our prepared
questions that are prepared by staff in large type so we can read them and go on
from there, but I think, in your case, you sort of shine the light of experience
and expertise into the nomination fog. And I think it's been very helpful. I
think it's been educational. I think you've caused us to think a little bit, and
I think that's very appropriate.
I feel compelled to
use part of my time -- I shouldn't, but I'm going to -- to inform my colleagues
and Mr. Rumsfeld that in terms of our vital national security interests, I think
that Latin America, Central America, our involvement in Colombia, in the
Southern Command where there are 31 nations involved, are just as important as
the Balkans. And I noted that there was some concern in regards to maybe the
Congress going in with a blindfold or not really fully aware of all the
details.
Let me point out that the subcommittee of
which I am privileged to chair and Senator Bingaman was the ranking member, we
had lengthy hearings and the full committee had hearings. We had General
Wilhelm, we had the assistant secretary of Defense, we had the assistant
secretary of State. We had two of those. We had two ambassadors. We went over in
considerable detail what the pros and cons were in regards to our involvement,
more especially since we left Panama and went to Miami and found thousands of
miles in the Southern Command that were at risk. And we do have bases. We have
them in El Salvador, we have them in Aruba, and then I think we have them in
Ecuador, as well, to do a tough job. And we took a lot of infrastructure away to
go over to the Balkans.
Well, why am I saying this?
That's because there's 360 million people down there, and the average age is 14,
with a lot of problems, and in regards to immigration, in regards to drugs, in
regards to trade, in regards to possible revolution, and in regards to our
energy supply, where we have about 22 percent of our energy coming from
Venezuela and Mexico, and in regards to what a fellow down there named Chavez is
doing, I think we'd better pay attention to it.
Now, I
can't say whether our policies in Colombia are going to work or not.
But I do say that we have taken a considerable interest in
this, had a full debate, subcommittee, and in the full committee and the
Appropriations Committee, where General Wilhelm had to stand tall and parade
rest before the appropriate and in the Senate and in the House. This was not,
you know, done without due consideration. And I would urge your attention to
that, because I think it's very important.
I want to
talk about -- I want to ask you if in fact -- I'm going to -- I'm going to
recommend a criteria in regards to the use of troops, and this is in concert
with what my dear friend Senator Cleland and I determine in our realistic
restraint foreign policy dialogue that at least us two need to listen to. We had
to listen to each other over on the Senate. And we came up with the criterion
before we would put the troops in, and one was the stakes are vital to the
United States; second, public support is assured; third, overwhelming force is
used in regards to a clear definition of goals and purpose, and lastly,
everybody agrees on an exit strategy. I think that's a pretty good -- a pretty
good list.
And the reason I mention that is on behalf
of the war-fighter. I was in Kosovo exactly the same day that we mounted out,
and the 27th Marines went in, and I took the advantage to get briefed. They, you
know, probably didn't want to brief me. That was the last thing they wanted to
do is see a U.S. senator there as they were getting ready to mount out. But I
asked a lance corporal, I said, "What are your goals here? Do you think you can
do that job in regard to Kosovo." He said, "Sir, I'm a United States Marine. I
can do the job." I said, "But what's your personal goal." He said, "My personal
goal is to take care of myself so I can come home after six months to my wife
and kids, because I know just as soon as I leave, these guys are going to start
shooting each other all over again."
And I think too
many times we -- it's not that we should not pay attention to the geopolitical
concerns and the strategic concerns. My concern is the war-fighter, that person
in uniform. And I would hope that as we go down this, we remember, it's one
thing to have a cause to fight for. It's another thing to have a cause to fight
and die for.
And so I'm in agreement with the Powell
doctrine. I, you know, pretty much said what I think we ought to do on down the
road, and I offer that up as a suggestion.
In the
emerging threats subcommittee, of which I am privileged to chair, and we have
drugs and we have terrorism and we have weapons of mass destruction and we have
the counter-threat reduction programs. We have a whole bunch of things. Every
staff member back here has to deal with me because of this subcommittee and the
foresight of the distinguished chairman. We ask witnesses in terms of things
that really bother you, whether it's a cyber-attack or a biological attack or
whatever it is, what keeps you up at night? What's the one big thing that keeps
you up at night? Other than you filling out all the paperwork you have to in
regards to the ethics business --
MR. REEKER:
(Laughs.)
SEN. ROBERTS: -- what keeps you up at night?
What would you tell the emerging threats subcommittee right now that you think
is an immediate concern in terms of our national security? What keeps you up at
night? Now, I know you said that said that you can't really single one out, that
this is a continuum and a many-faceted kind of a thing here, with missile
development, terrorism, so on and so forth. But --
MR.
RUMSFELD: Well, two things I would say. I would repeat what I said about the
importance of considerably improving our intelligence capabilities so that we
know more about what people think and how they behave and how their behavior can
be altered and what the capabilities are in this world. I think the goal ought
not to be to win a war. The goal ought to be to be so strong and so powerful
that you can dissuade people from doing things they otherwise would do, and you
don't have to even fight the war.
That takes me to the
second point. And the second point is, I don't know that I really understand
what deters people today because I don't think one thing deters everybody. I
think we need to understand that there are different parts of the world, there
are different types of leaders with different motivations. And we have to do a
lot better job of thinking through deterrence and assuring that we've done the
best job possible.
Everyone's going to make mistakes.
But today, when mistakes are made, with the power of weapons, they're not little
mistakes; they are big mistakes. And we need to do everything we can to fashion
a set of deterrents, a nest, a fabric that does the best possible job for this
country.
Let me go to your first point just very
briefly and add a thought for consideration.
You
mentioned overwhelming public support as a criteria. I'm uncomfortable with
that. I think that leaders have to lead and build support. And I look back at
history, and I think there have been times when we have had to do things when
the public was not there yet. And I think that what needs to be done is to have
leaders in office -- presidents -- who think these things through, who make the
right decisions, who are sufficiently persuaded that overwhelming support,
public support follows. You can't sustain anything without it, I quite agree.
But I think that thinking that you're going to have it at the outset is
optimistic.
Second, on overwhelming force, I've watched
presidents look at their situation in a pre-crisis period, a build-up period.
And they have very few tools to deal with. Their military tends to come and the
choices are not -- you don't have a lot of arrows in your quiver. And it's a
proper thing to say, we don't to do something unless we're going to put the
force into it we need. But the concept of overwhelming force in isolation I
would think needs to have another dimension, and it is this.
In the pre-crisis period, in the early period you can do things to
alter people's behavior that does not require 500,000 troops and six months to
build up. If we are wise and think these things through, there are things that
can be done in a build-up period that will persuade people they ought not to be
doing what they're thinking about doing, that will persuade the people they need
to support them in doing what they're thinking about doing that those people
ought not to support them. And that doesn't require overwhelming force, that
requires a lot better intelligence and a lot more tools to affect and alter
thinking in those periods. And I think we need to broaden that concept
somewhat.
SEN. ROBERTS: I appreciate that. My time has
expired. Thank you, sir.
MR. RUMSFELD: Thank you.
SEN. WARNER: Thank you very much, Senator Roberts.
Senator Bingaman is next. We will then recess, and then
Senator Allard will be first when we return.
SEN. JEFF
BINGAMAN (D-NM): Mr. Rumsfeld, thank you --
MR.
RUMSFELD: Thank you.
SEN. BINGAMAN: -- and
congratulations on your stamina in considering all of these questions --
MR. RUMSFELD: (Laughs.) Thank you.
SEN. BINGAMAN: -- as well as congratulations on your nomination. I
certainly intend to support you.
MR. RUMSFELD: Thank
you, sir.
SEN. BINGAMAN: One of the issues that we
always hear a lot of talk about but to my -- at least in my view has not been
given adequate priority in Defense budgeting is science and technology. It seems
like at least for the last several years every time we see a Defense budget
proposed by the administration the percentage of the Defense budget that is
committed to science and technology is reduced. It always loses out as compared
to procurement, as compared to readiness, compared to all these other things. I
know that President Bush, President-elect Bush gave a speech at the Citadel a
year and a half ago where he talked about the importance of science and
technology investment. And he said he was committing an additional $20 billion,
or he would if elected president commit an additional $20 billion, to Defense
research and development between now and 2006. I think that was the commitment
he made in that speech, or the statement he made.
Let
me add one other aspect of this. The reductions in growth in Defense research
and development in recent years has been justified in some of our hearings on
the basis that the industrial companies will pick up the difference here, that
U.S. industry is sufficiently strong that we don't need to do what we once did
in science and technology. That to my mind is very much at odds with what I
understand is happening to our Defense industrial base. They do not have the
luxury of putting substantial new resources into this area.
So I would be interested in any comments you've got about how we can
increase research and development, Defense-related research and development and
support for science and technology.
MR. RUMSFELD:
Senator, I agree completely with everything you've said. I told in my -- when
President-elect Bush announced that I was his choice for this post, I said that
I had visited with him, I had read his pronouncements and plans for defense, and
that I supported them enthusiastically. And certainly with respect to science
and technology, he's on the mark and you're on the mark, and I agree.
I came out of the pharmaceutical business, where we invest
in research and development that is not guaranteed to produce anything in the
next five minutes. And you have to be patient and you have to live with a lot of
failures. I've been involved in the electronics business, quite the same. If
you're not investing for the future, you're going to die. You simply run out of
gas at a certain point. And this wonderful country of ours has such fine
leadership in science and technology potentially. But the reality is an awful
lot of the foreign students who used to come over here and stay and study are
now going back to their countries, and they're leaving with an enormous amount
of knowledge. And the country, this committee, this department simply must be
willing to make those investments.
SEN. BINGAMAN: Well,
thank you for that answer.
Let me ask about one other
area that I also think tends to get short-changed in the defense budgets that
I've seen, and that relates to test and evaluation. Again, there doesn't seem to
me, at least, to be a strong constituency for funding the necessary
infrastructure to accomplish and maintain our ability in the test and evaluation
area. I have a parochial interest in this because White Sands Missile Range is
in my state, and it's our largest and, I believe, our most capable test and
evaluation facility. But this is an area that I hope you will give some
attention to. It seems to me to be one of those areas that sort of falls between
the stools when people start putting together defense budgets. It does not get
the -- it does not have the natural advocates behind it the way we are currently
structured that would allow it to be given sufficient attention.
I'm glad to hear your comment, or I'll go on to another question.
MR. RUMSFELD: I am not knowledgeable about the state of
that, and will be happy to look into it.
SEN. BINGAMAN:
One other area I wanted to ask about. And this has been asked about by some of
the other senators. There was a New York Times editorial that I'm sure you saw
expressing concern about a decision that -- expressing concern about what they
anticipate would be a Missile Defense Organization -- MDO -- recommendation to
the new president that he needs to order construction of a radar system in
Alaska to begin this March in order to meet the deadlines that you identified in
the commissioned report that you came up with for actual deployment by 2005, I
believe. I believe I've got those dates right. I wondered if you have any
insight into whether or not such a recommendation will be made, whether or not
you would support such a recommendation to begin construction of a radar site in
March, or whether you believe that is premature.
MR.
RUMSFELD: It would be premature for me to comment on it. There's no question we
simply have to get some folks passed through this committee engaging that
subject. I have to get myself up to speed. And it clearly would be an issue that
would end up with the president and the National Security Council.
SEN. BINGAMAN: Let me ask about one other thing, one other
area, and that's export controls. My impression is that there are major problems
in the system we have in place now to control defense-related exports, that it
has worked to the disadvantage of many of our companies that have
defense-related work, but also do a lot of commercial work.
And this is an issue that involves several departments, not just the
Department of Defense, but the Department of Commerce, Department of State. I
think we've probably added to the problem here in Congress by shifting
responsibilities to the Department of State and not adequately funding them in
this area.
I don't know if this is an area that you're
informed about. If so, I'd be anxious to hear your views. If not, I would be
anxious to just urge you to look at this and see if you could bring some
constructive recommendations to this system.
MR.
RUMSFELD: Well, I agree that it is something that has to be looked at. It is an
enormously complicated set of problems, of which I'm only marginally informed.
I've bumped into it through the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission and watching
that set of issues. I've bumped into through business, on a number of
occasions.
And there has to be a balance between
national security interest and our obvious desire to be able to encourage
investment in this country to create advanced technologies. And to the extent
you inhibit that, you don't stop it; you simply drive it offshore. A businessman
can sit down in a room in Chicago and decide if he wants to do research and
development in France or in Asia, in Japan, or in Skokie, Illinois. Just with a
decision, it gets changed -- one place or another.
And
to the extent we are unwise and allow a system that needs to be very dynamic,
because there's so much happening, to be static, and prevent things that need
not be prevented or delay things to the point where people are unwilling to
accept the costs which delay imposes, then we damage ourselves, not just
economically; we also damage ourselves from a national security standpoint,
because we force people to go offshore to develop these technologies. So we need
to give that system a good look.
SEN. BINGAMAN: Thank
you very much. My time has expired.
SEN. LEVIN: We're
going to recess now for one hour, till 2:05. And we'll start then with Senator
Allard. The order of recognition for all my colleagues is on a sheet of paper
here, so that you can see where in that list you would come.
We'll stand recessed -- (strikes gavel) -- till 2:05.
(End of morning session. The afternoon session will be sent as a
separate item.)
Document 112 of 112.