Page 1       TOP OF DOC
[H.A.S.C. No. 107–2]



FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002—H.R. 2586






 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

JUNE 28, 2001


For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: (202) 512-1800  Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001


One Hundred Seventh Congress

BOB STUMP, Arizona, Chairman

FLOYD D. SPENCE, South Carolina
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
HOWARD P. ''BUCK'' McKEON, California
J.C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
JIM RYUN, Kansas
BOB RILEY, Alabama
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
KEN CALVERT, California
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
ED SCHROCK, Virginia
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina
LANE EVANS, Illinois
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
ADAM SMITH, Washington
JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California

Robert S. Rangel, Staff Director
David Trachtenberg, Professional Staff Member
Jarrod Tisdell, Research Assistant



    Thursday, June 28, 2001, Fiscal Year 2002, National Defense Authorization Act—Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)


    Thursday, June 28, 2001

 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC


    Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative from Missouri, Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services

    Stump, Hon. Bob, a Representative from Arizona, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services


    Rumsfeld, Hon. Donald H., U.S. Secretary of Defense

    Shelton, Gen. Henry H., (U.S. Army) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    Zakheim, Hon. Dov, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)


Rumsfeld, Hon. Donald H.

Shelton, Gen. Henry H.

Skelton, Hon. Ike
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Stump, Hon. Bob

[The Documents submitted are pending.]

[The Questions and Answers can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Mr. Bartlett
Mr. Skelton
Mr. Ruyn
Mr. Hayes
Mr. McKeon
Mr. Larson
Mr. Ortiz
Mr. Reyes
Mr. Taylor
Mr. Thompson


House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Thursday, June 28, 2001.
 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:12 a.m., in room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Stump (chairman of the committee) presiding.


    The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order.

    Before we get started, let me remind the members that we have the extra mike on the house mike and that that mike is live at all times, so be careful what you say.

    Good morning, Mr. Secretary.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Good morning.

    The CHAIRMAN. Today the committee is pleased to welcome the acting Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to testify on the Administration's defense budget request for fiscal year 2002.

    Mr. Secretary, it has taken a long time to arrive at this point. We are finally here. Unfortunately there are only three months left in the fiscal year.

    I support your efforts to conduct a comprehensive status review before proceeding with any fundamental changes in current strategy, force structure and programs for the department. I believe this approach is long overdue. Resources must flow from strategy, not the other way around. And I commend you and the President for recognizing that fact. Unfortunately I think the prior Administration too often put the cart before the horse.
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Let me also thank you for sharing with the committee the results of the numerous defense studies that you have initiated on your part on strategy review. We have been briefed on most of these and look forward to learning about the rest and, in particular, about your decision regarding their conclusions. We also are eager to learn how they are factoring into the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).

    That said, several points must be made. First, we are holding today's hearing in a very late process. The month-long delay in getting a budget proposed by the Administration will force the committee and the Congress to work at a greatly accelerated pace if we are going to complete our work by October 1 of fiscal year.

    Second, I commend the Administration for acting on its conviction that increases defense spending. The President and the secretary of defense have been both been clear on this point. The Administration's proposed level of defense spending represents the largest increase since the mid-1980s. In real terms, it reflects an increase of approximately seven percent over this year's level.

    I believe this increase is long overdue. However, I am concerned that the level of resources being proposed for defense will not sufficiently address all the readiness, modernization and quality-of-life shortfalls that currently exist. In particular, I note that the procurement request represents a slight decrease over enacted levels for 2001.

    And, General Shelton, I would be interested in hearing your most recent view regarding the level of annual procurement funding required to maintain existing capabilities.
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Last year the committee heard from a variety of administration officials and outside experts, who testified that the defense budget was very severely underfunded, by as much as $100 billion according to some estimates.

    Third, while the Administration's proposed budget amendment deals solely with fiscal year 2002, it is important for the committee to understand how this request relates to the department's long-term plan to restructure America's armed forces.

    As I understand it, this proposed approach will not address out-year spending and program priorities until after the completion of the QDR and not until fiscal year 2003. For this reason, the budget request before us seems to represent more of a placeholder budget than a significant change of direction or movement toward defense transformation.

    In sum, I would reiterate the Administration's budget is a welcome step in the right direction. However, additional resources sustained over time will be required to fully restore the health of our armed services.

    Mr. Secretary, I look forward to today's presentation and to working with you in the weeks ahead and to move this process forward as rapidly as possible.

    But before we begin, I would like to yield to the ranking member for any remarks he may choose to make.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Stump can be found in the Appendix.]
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC


    Mr. SKELTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    And, Mr. Secretary and General Shelton, we thank you and welcome you to be with us today. I look forward to your testimony.

    I would like to thank you for finally presenting a budget amendment to us. The net increase of $18.4 billion will help us address some of the problems our services are facing. And in our heart of hearts, Mr. Secretary, we know you wanted more.

    You have budgeted more realistically for health care costs. You have proposed a targeted pay raise of at least five percent for all military personnel. I have suggested to you in a letter signed by many of my colleagues here that this figure should be 7.3 percent, but your proposal is a step in the right direction.

    You have added much-needed funds for operation and maintenance. I also agree with the increased funds you recommend for military facilities and family housing.

    In the end, I must say that I am disappointed by the overall content of this budget, given the extreme delays in producing it. The committee was told that the delays in submitting the budget amendment were because of the need to undertake strategic reviews before developing budgetary proposals. We waited patiently for this amendment and now find one little change in its priorities. If all the changes affected by the reviews will occur in the fiscal year 2003, why have we had to wait so long for this one?
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Also why have we not already been furnished with the department's legislative proposals that do not depend on the budget or strategic reviews?

    There are also several aspects of the budget proposal I find troubling. First, while it holds the number of Army divisions constant at 10 active and eight reserve, I believe these numbers are already inadequate for our missions and strategy. Even decreasing some of the Army's commitments, I believe we need a minimum overall end-strength of 520,000 active-duty Army personnel.

    Second, I am concerned with the proposed size of the Navy at close to nearly 300 ships. Given the mission of foreign presence and engagement and the increasing importance of the Pacific Rim, I believe we must commit ourselves to rebuilding the Navy to at least 400 ships.

    Third, some faulty assumptions underlie your proposed management reforms, particularly the changes to the Davis-Bacon Act. Now, Mr. Secretary, it ain't going to happen.

    Last, I am disturbed to see overall procurement numbers, as well as specific funds to the Army, Navy, Marines, are dropping. We need to maintain U.S. strength by investing in necessary systems and platforms. The more we shortchange investment accounts now, the more it is going to cost in the long run, and the longer it will take to modernize our forces.

    The positive elements of this budget are extremely important, but we need more like them. We must balance our fiscal responsibility with our responsibility for U.S. national security and for those who serve in the military. And I look forward to working with you on that.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Secretary and General, we really appreciate your being with us today. We want to work together. It is a major challenge, and I hope we can do just that; at the end of the day, be proud of the work product that we have. Thank you so much.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Skelton can be found in the Appendix.]

    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ike.

    Let me also welcome this morning Dr. Zakheim, the Department of Defense (DOD) Comptroller. Glad to have you with us.

    Secretary ZAKHEIM. Thank you.

    The CHAIRMAN. A couple of announcements.

    And I have spoken to Mr. Skelton. So that everyone on the lower level gets an opportunity—and the secretary has graciously agreed to extend his time until 12:45—we are going to try a four-minute time limit. And please observe that four-minute limitation to avoid the gavel. But we are going to maintain a strict four-minute time limit on everybody. If you would kindly not just speak until the last minute and ask a slough of questions, we would appreciate it.

    Mr. Secretary, your remarks, the chief's remarks will all be, of course, inserted in the record in their entirety, and you may proceed in any way you see fit, sir.

 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Skelton, members of the committee. I am pleased to be here to present the President's 2002 amended budget for the Department of Defense.

    In discussing the budget, it is necessary to begin by confronting some less-than-pleasant facts; they are important.

    The U.S. armed forces have been underfunded in a number of respects over a sustained period of years. We have been living off the substantial investments of the 1970s and the 1980s. Today, shortfalls exist in a number of vital areas. Shortfalls, I must say, that are considerably worse than I had previously understood prior to coming to the department.

    As you and the members know well, Mr. Chairman, the U.S. armed forces are the best-trained, the best-equipped, the most-powerful military force on the face of the earth. And the members of this committee have certainly contributed greatly to that fact.

    Peace, prosperity and freedom across the world are underpinned by the stability and the security that these men and women provide. I recently visited our troops in Kosovo and Turkey. They are dedicated men and women ready to take on any mission their government may ask of them.

    Our country has many strengths. Indeed, in some ways, it has because our forces are so capable that we face the challenges we do. Over much of the 1990s, the U.S. has simultaneously underfunded and overused the force, and it has taken a toll. Asked to do more with less, they have saluted and done their best, but it has been at the cost of investment in infrastructure, in maintenance and in procurement.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    With the end of the Cold War, there was an appropriate draw-down, a peace dividend, so to speak, but it went too far, overshooting the mark by a good margin, in my view. We are well passed the time to take steps to arrest those declines and put the armed forces on a path to better health. Many facilities are dilapidated and in urgent need of repair and replacement.

    Due to shortfalls in spare parts, flying hours, training and personnel, Navy non-deployed force readiness is 43 percent, which is down from 63 percent in 1991. Only 69 percent of the Air Force's total combat units are mission-ready; down from 91 percent in 1996. And 75 percent of the Army's major air and ground combat systems are beyond their half-life, and Army aviation safety of flight messages have increased 222 percent in the past four years. And I am told that some 60 percent of military housing is characterized as substandard.

    While DOD was using its equipment at increased tempos, procurement of new equipment fell significantly below the levels necessary to sustain existing forces, leading to steady increases in the average age of our equipment. It was called a procurement holiday. I know you will agree that we have an obligation to make sure that these men and women in the armed forces have the proper equipment, training, facilities and the most advanced technology available to them.

    The President's 2002 defense budget adds needed funds to begin stabilizing that force. Using the 2001 enacted budget of $296 billion as a baseline, the President earlier this year issued a budget blueprint that outlined a 2002 baseline budget of $310.5 billion. This included $4.4 billion in proposed new money for presidential initiatives involving military pay, housing and research and development.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The request before you proposes to raise that to a total of $328.9 billion, an $18.4 billion increase over the President's February budget blueprint. Taken together, these amount to $22.8 billion in proposed new money for the Department of Defense for 2002.

    As the chairman indicated, it apparently is the largest peacetime increase in defense spending since the mid-1980s. It does represent a significant investment of the taxpayers' money. But let's be clear, this increase, while significant, and we certainly need every cent of it, does not get us well. The underinvestment went on far too long, the gap is too great and there is no way it can be fixed in a year or, in my view, even in six.

    I want to be very straightforward about what this budget does and doesn't do. This budget will put us on the path to recovery in some categories, such as military pay, housing allowances, readiness training and health care. It will start an improvement but leave us short of our goals in other areas, such as maintenance of weapon systems and reaching best standards for facilities replacement. And in still other categories, unfortunately there will be continued shortfalls, such as backlogs and property maintenance requirements.

    Consider, in the private sector the standard for overall facility replacement is 57 years. DOD's target is 67 years for the mix of our facilities and infrastructure. Under the 2001 enacted budget, DOD was replacing facilities at an unbelievably poor average rate of 192 years, not the target of 67. The 2002 budget gets us closer. It would allow us to replace facilities at an average rate of 101 years: an improvement, but still well off the acceptable target of 67 years. We could go better.

 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    With a round of base closings and adjustments that reduced unneeded facilities, we could focus the funds on facilities we actually need and get the replacement rate down to something like 76 years at the 2002 budget level. Without base closing, to achieve the target of 67 replacement would require an additional $7 billion a year for nine years, or a total of $63 billion.

    Let me say a word about 2003. Today we are proposing a $328.9 billion defense budget for 2002. But just to keep the department going next year on a straight line with no improvements, just covering the cost of inflation and realistic budgeting numbers, which were not in the forward year plan as it existed, we would need a budget of $347.2 billion. That is an $18.3 billion increase.

    And that would not make a significant contribution to transformation. It would just be holding where we are by adding in the additional health care costs that have been legislated, inflation and fixing the numbers so that the forward numbers on acquisitions of equipment are actually realistic as opposed to unrealistic, as they are in there.

    So where do we find the money for the rest of our needs? We simply have to find cost-savings. We have an obligation to the taxpayers to spend the money wisely. DOD overhead has clearly grown to a point where it is estimated that as little as 14 percent of DOD manpower may be directly related to combat operations. Now, there are lots of ways to calculate that and you need to include logistics, which are a very important part, but the important point is not the statistic; the important point is the fact that we have a lot of overhead.

    Despite 128 acquisition reform studies, DOD has a system that doubled the time to acquire equipment while new generations of technology have shortened down to a year to 18 months. DOD has processes and regulations so onerous that a number of commercial businesses developing needed military technologies simply refuse to do business with the department.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The department needs greater freedom to manage. If we have it, I believe we can use the taxpayers' money more wisely.

    For one example, I think we ought to consider contracting out commissaries, housing, some mess halls and other services—it is already being done to some extent—that are not core military competencies and that can be performed more efficiently in the private sector. In 2002 the department proposes a pilot program with the Army and Marine Corps to contract out certain commissaries and another pilot program with the Navy to contract out refueling support, including tanker aircraft.

    Mr. Chairman, I can't promise it, but I have never seen an organization in the private sector or the public sector that could not, by better management, operate at least five percent more efficiently, but only if management has the ability to do that. It is not possible today, given the host of restrictions and prohibitions that exist on the Department of Defense.

    With those savings, we could increase ship procurement from six to nine ships a year, maintaining a steady state of a 310-ship Navy and protecting needed jobs at Navy shipyards. We could procure several hundred additional aircraft annually rather than the 189 to help meet and reach the steady state requirement of the Navy, the Air Force and the Army aircraft.

    We have a big task ahead, I understand that. Since the Cold War we have a 30 percent smaller force doing 165 percent more missions. This budget of the President's proposes a large increase by any standard. It will allow us to make significant improvements in the readiness, morale and the condition of the military, but there are things it does not do. The taxpayers, I believe, have a right to demand that we spend their money more wisely. Today we can't tell the people, the American people, that we are doing that. I cannot tell them we are doing that.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Fixing the problem is a joint responsibility. It will require a new partnership between Congress and the executive branch. It is a responsibility we have not only to the men and women who serve the armed forces today but to future generations of Americans as well.

    Because of the long lead times, the capabilities that any president and any Congress invest in don't benefit that generation. It creates capabilities that will be available for all of our successors. One generation bequeaths to the next generation the capabilities to ensure its security. Today we have the security of future generations of Americans in our hands. We have a responsibility to get it right.

    I am anxious to work with this committee and each of you to try to achieve that goal. It will certainly take the best of all of us.

    Thank you very much.

    [The prepared statement of Secretary Rumsfeld can be found in the Appendix.]

    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

    General Shelton, of course, your statement will be in the record. If you care to make a similar statement?

 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    General SHELTON. Well, thank you, Chairman Stump.

    Congressman Skelton and distinguished members of the committee, it is an honor to be with you again here today and to report to you on the state of our armed forces. I would also like to highlight some of the key priorities and concerns from my written statement, which has been provided for the record, and then we will move right into your questions.

    But before I begin, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to salute the memory of the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, the late Congressman Norm Sisisky; a dear friend of our men and women in uniform and, of course, a great American. Congressman Sisisky, along with his fellow colleague and Virginian, Herb Bateman, have both left behind a very proud legacy of achievement with this committee; a legacy, which I might add, will help sustain our armed forces well into the future. They will both be sorely missed.

    Now, let me thank the Congress and this committee in particular for your significant and your sustained support of our armed forces. With your help, we have made considerable progress in areas that directly impact the overall health and welfare of our troops: increased pay in allowances, pay table reforms, military health care (TRICARE) reform and expanded health care coverage, additional funding to provide adequate housing for our military families, and finally budget plus-ups to help arrest the decline in readiness for many of our front-line and first-to-fight units.

    But let me also say that we need to sustain this momentum if we are to preserve the long-term health and readiness of the force for years to come.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Today, as we consider new budgets, new national security strategies and new ideas of transforming the force, it is important that we always remember that the quality of our military are the critical enablers for all that we hope to accomplish.

    Since my last testimony we have been reminded of the human element of national security in several profound ways. Last October the USS Cole was savagely attacked in the port of Aden; 17 of our sailors died. Some ask, ''Why would we put a ship in harm's way in such a dangerous part of the world?'' Well, that is what we do. We go into harm's way to protect America's interests around the world. The soldiers of the USS Cole were en route to the Gulf, establishing presence and protecting America's vital national interest.

    Last December two U.S. Army helicopters crashed during a nighttime training mission in Hawaii. Nine soldiers died in that tragic accident. Some ask, ''Why would we put soldiers from the Army in harm's way during a dangerous training mission in the black of the night?'' Well, that is what we do.

    We train for the most difficult missions that we must face. And we know that when America's interests are threatened that we will be ready to go, day or night, because failure is not an option. We minimize the risks to our great men and women, but we train like we anticipate having to fight.

    A few months ago an unarmed EP-3 reconnaissance aircraft flying international airspace over the South China Sea was struck by a Chinese fighter, as we are all aware. It was forced to make an emergency landing, and 24 of our people were detained. Some observers ask, ''Why are we conducting surveillance of another nation?'' My answer is, ''Well, that is what we do.'' We are vigilant. We are watchful. Because we know that when our interest and those of our allies in the region are challenged, we must be ready.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I am very proud of the performance of these men and women and the many thousands of others who proudly wear the uniform of our country. They have been and will always be our decisive edge. Indeed, they are so good at what they do, unless there is an incident or an accident, we rarely take notice of their daily contributions to our national security. They sail their ships, they fly their aircraft, they go on their patrols quietly and professionally. And America is safe and enjoying great prosperity in part because of them.

    However, today our people and our forces are experiencing some significant challenges, a number of which I would like to bring to your attention today.

    To begin with, although our first-to-fight forces are trained and ready to meet any emergent requirement, we find that many other operational units are not as ready. These include our strategic airlift fleet, our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, combat service support units and training bases, all of which provide critical capabilities to our war-fighting forces. These units, in some cases, are suffering from the consequences of a high operational tempo (OPTEMPO) and the diversion of resources to sustain the near-term readiness of the first-to-fight forces.

    In fact, since 1995 the department has experienced a 133 percent increase in the number of military personnel committed to join operations. These are real-world events, not exercises, and we are doing it with nine percent fewer people.

    This high operational tempo on segments of our force has placed an increased strain on our people. And I believe that the fundamental cause of this situation is the imbalance between our national security strategy and the post-1997 QDR force structure. Fixing this imbalance during this year's QDR is one of the top priorities for Secretary Rumsfeld and all the joint chiefs because the challenge will only increase over time, and we owe it to our people to get it right.
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    In fact, today we are struggling to reconcile a multitude of competing demands, including near-term readiness imperatives, long-term modernization and recapitalization of aging systems, and infrastructure investments that are essential to preserving the world's best war-fighting force.

    And as I have mentioned in my previous testimony and as Secretary Rumsfeld commented on this morning, we have made a conscious decision in the 1980s to live off of the investments that we had made during that period of time and to start drawing down the force. This marked reduction in procurement means that the average age of most of our major weapons platforms continues to increase, as was highlighted by the secretary. Many have already exceeded their planned service life or are fast approaching it.

    Let me give you just a few examples. Our front-line air superiority aircraft, the F–15, averages 17 years of age, only three years away from the end of its original design service life. Our airborne tanker fleet and our B-52s are nearly 40 years old. Our intelligence surveillance reconnaissance and our electronic warfare aircraft platforms, like the RC–135, the EP–3s, the P–3s and our EA–6Vs, electronic warfare aircraft, all average between 19 and 38 years of age.

    The main battle tank, the M–1, and the amphibious assault vehicle used by the Marines are powered by engines designed, in some cases built in the 1960s. Finally, we have numerous helicopter platforms in all of our services that have passed or are approaching the end of their original design service lives.

 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    In fact, most of the war-fighting platforms that I have just mentioned meet the 25-year rule required by the great state of Virginia to qualify for an antique license plate. [Laughter.]

    Our forces are not aging gracefully. In fact, we are having to spend significantly more in each year to maintain our aging equipment and repair parts and maintenance down time and in maintenance support. The operational environment and the current pace of operation requires us to keep this equipment ready. But to do that, we are having to drain resources from the very modernization accounts that we should be using to buy replacement systems.

    And if we don't replace these systems soon, either the force structure will shrink further or we will have to continue to maintain the old systems, which results in spiraling operations and maintenance costs and reduced combat capability. In my view, these options are unacceptable.

    The bottom line is, I do not believe that we will be able to sustain our long-term readiness under these conditions. So what do we do? I think there are two things that are critical.

    First, we must bring into balance our strategy and our force structure, and we must significantly increase our efforts in procurement to modernize and recapitalize the force. The QDR should produce the strategic blue print and the investment profile that will be necessary to shape our force and to carry out the new strategy.

    Another related concern is that our vital infrastructure is decaying at an alarming rate. Budget constraints have forced us to make some hard choices. We have had to redirect funds from military facilities and infrastructure accounts to support current readiness requirements. For example, in our Real Property Maintenance Accounts we currently have a growing backlog of over $11 billion.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Secretary Rumsfeld mentioned our replacement rates of our facilities is running right now at over 100 years as compared to 67 years, I believe, is the right answer for the civilian industry standards.

    I think that a quality force deserves quality facilities and, therefore, I think it is essential that we start providing the resources to reverse the deterioration of our posts, camps, stations and bases.

    One way that Congress could help us in this regard is to authorize additional Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRACC) rounds. According to an April 1998 DOD BRACC report, we currently have 23 percent excess base structure. By removing that excess capacity we could potentially save an estimated $3 billion per year, which is money that could be directed to help fix the remaining infrastructure.

    Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to focus for just a second on what I referred to earlier as the decisive edge: our men and women in uniform. President Bush stated that a volunteer military only has two paths. It can lower its standards to fill its ranks, or it can inspire the best and the brightest to join and stay. This starts with better pay, better treatment and better training. I think President Bush had it exactly right.

    We must continue to close the significant pay gap that still exists between the military and the private sector. And we must make continued investments in health care, in housing and other quality of life programs that are essential to maintain our force.

 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    One of the most valued recruiting and retention tools any corporation can offer potential employees or current workforce is a comprehensive medical package. We are no different. For that reason, the chiefs and I strongly urge Congress to fully fund the defense health program and all health care costs as a strong signal that we are truly committed to providing quality health care for our troops. I can't think of a better way to renew the bond of trust between Uncle Sam and our service members and retirees than this commitment to quality health care.

    Additionally, I ask for your support to help ensure that all our men and women in uniform—single, married and unaccompanied—are provided with adequate housing. Unfortunately, as Secretary Rumsfeld mentioned, we currently have 62 percent of our family housing classified as inadequate. Correcting this situation is essential if we are to improve the quality of life for our service members and their families. And, of course, we have learned over the years that while we recruit the member, we retain the family.

    To sum up, I believe that our military remains the best in the world. But having said this, let me point out that our military advantage will erode over time if we ignore or if we fail to prepare for the evolving strategic landscape of this 21st century.

    Our greatest adversary, as I have said so many times in the past, is complacency. It is imperative that we take action today to ensure that our men and women in uniform are properly equipped, trained and led. If we do so, I am confident that we will prevail in any challenge that we face in the future.

    Mr. Chairman, today I am struck by the fact that we have an opportunity, an opportunity to build a foundation for another long era of U.S. military supremacy. And in so doing, we will help underwrite the peace and prosperity that our nation currently enjoys well into the future.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before this distinguished committee, and we look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of General Shelton can be found in the Appendix.]

    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, General.

    You mentioned our friend, Mr. Sisisky. Let me take a moment to introduce his successor down here, to my far right, on the end of the aisle. While not officially named, will be named before the day is over, the newest member of our committee, Randy Forbes, down on the end of the aisle there.

    Welcome to the committee, Randy.

    Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, let me make one more comment, if I may. We all know the time constraints that we are having to work under. We would like to get a commitment from you and your department, if you would, sir, to furnish us with the necessary information that we are going to have to request to complete our job on time. If we could get that from you, we would appreciate it very much, sir.

 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Secretary RUMSFELD. We will do everything humanly possible, sir.

    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

    The chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Skelton.

    Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Secretary, let me welcome again you and the general.

    In the interest of time, I will ask just one question. If I may submit several others, however, for the record, to be answered within a reasonable time.

    Let me ask you this, Mr. Secretary, we all know that the $18 billion that has thus far been recommended isn't going to cover the waterfront. In your opinion, what are the major requirements that are left unfunded by your recommendations?

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Dr. Zakheim may want to comment on this, but it is clear that what we have done within the resources available is to focus on the people part of it, which is so critical to the success of the armed forces. The area that has been put off is the transformation portion, and we will have to address that in the 2003 budget.

    Mr. SKELTON. Thank you so much, and I will submit several questions for the record, Mr. Chairman. Thanks so much.

 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CHAIRMAN. I will remind members that came in late that we are operating under a strict four-minute rule.

    The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon.

    Mr. WELDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Gentlemen, thank you for being here. And, Mr. Secretary, we had confidence in you all along that you would come through, and you did. $38.4 billion is exactly what we knew that you would come in with, which was a significant increase. It is not as much as some of us would like, but in this political environment where defense remains last in every major national poll, you have done a good job in giving us a good start.

    I do have questions about the $1 billion savings anticipated. I raised those at a readiness hearing earlier this week, because I think some of the assumptions are certainly going to be questionable.

    One of the areas you have talked about is the Davis-Bacon reform. As the original author of the Davis-Bacon reform bill in the last session that was supported by all the building trades and 30 members of the Republican Party as well as most of my Democrat colleagues, I would say to you, Dr. Zakheim, that we ought to work together on that. I don't know that we can get to $1 million, but we certainly can make an improvement over the current threshold of 2000. But we have to do it with the labor movement as opposed to butting heads with them.

    In the case of what needs to be done, Mr. Secretary, your priorities are right on. But the most important thing is the update of financial management systems. You can't expect this Congress to have confidence in what General Shelton talked about; savings in base closings or savings in the A–76 process or savings in the acquisition reform until we have confidence in the financial process that we are using to assess our savings.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I chaired a hearing on A–76 earlier this year, and the secretary's representative was totally off base by $1 billion in what the services estimated were their savings. You can't expect us to have confidence to give you the kinds of things that you want, which I will probably support in the end, until we have confidence that the financial process you have in place is, in fact, legitimate. So that is, I think, your number one priority.

    And the $100 million you have asked for, Mr. Secretary, I support fully. In fact, if you wanted more, I would give you more, because that is really the number one priority before we can move to the other issues that you have identified.

    But there is one thing you didn't include, and I would ask you to include this because it is becoming a bigger and bigger item. The service chiefs have testified to this, the vice chiefs testified to this in a hearing on the issue of encroachment.

    More and more our training is being impacted—General Shelton, you are aware of this—by issues that are being forced upon the military from nonmilitary efforts. And, Mr. Secretary, I would ask you to consider support for a piece of legislation I am going to be dropping with bipartisan support that is going to raise this issue to a national level that we have never seen before.

    We currently have an environmental impact statement in process which says that before any governor of any state or territory, can build a bridge or a road, they must complete an environmental impact statement to assess the damage being done to a snail darter or to a spotted owl.
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Well, I want the same process for national security. I want to establish a national security impact statement process so that before any governor, whether it is the Governor of Puerto Rico or whether it is the governor of one of our states here or a local jurisdiction decides they want to take action that may adversely affect our military, we must require them to complete the same assessment process that we do for the spotted owl or that we do for the snail darter. And I say that as a green Republican who supported the endangered species bill, voted for the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. It is time to bring the balance back.

    And so I would say to you that in terms of your priorities, please put the encroachment issue at the top of your agenda, because if you talk to your service chiefs, it is, in fact, costing us money and proper preparation and training for our troops.

    Thank you.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Mr. Congressman, on the financial management systems, you are exactly right. The process is broken. The best estimates are that it will take years to refashion the financial management systems so that they function in a way that managers can, in a reasonable period of time, have any sense of how the money is flowing through that institution. We have to get them fixed. It is—well, I won't add any adjectives.

    With respect to encroachment, you are quite right. It is just an enormously important issue. And certainly all of us, including governors and mayors and private citizens, have to recognize that we all have an obligation to see that we put the proper balance in. And I will certainly be interested in looking at your legislation.
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Taylor, is recognized for four minutes.

    Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    General Shelton and Secretary Rumsfeld, thanks for coming. I deeply regret that you were not given the opportunity to tell this committee and all of Congress of the hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars, that our Department of Defense is going to need in the next 10 years prior to the tax vote.

    Having said that, Mr. Secretary, I am pleased that you are asking for more money for defense, and I want to commend you on that.

    But I have to note that I was underwhelmed by what you have done for shipbuilding. In the past six years the fleet has shrunk by a net loss of 15 ships per year. We are now down to 313; we were at 389 just six years ago.

    Under the best case scenario, if we funded 21 ships this year, then we would stop the free fall of the Navy fleet in the year 2005 at 268. Anything less than that, the fleet continues to free fall at at least 15 ships per year.

    You have only asked for five ships this year, Mr. Secretary. The general purpose amphibious assault ship (LHD) had been funded two years, and we have been incrementally funding it ever since. And I was a bit distressed to hear our secretary of the Navy just yesterday say he didn't know what number the fleet should be.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I would hope in the very near future someone at the Department of Defense would give us some guidance as to what our target should be for the size of the United States fleet. And I would hope that you would work with us and redirect some funds to start rebuilding the American fleet.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Mr. Congressman, you are right, the shipbuilding budget is not improved in this. It has been going down steadily. It is on a track that is going to take this country to something like 230 ships at steady state, if we continue roughly building at the rate we are.

    Mr. TAYLOR. You asked for five this year, Mr. Secretary.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. It takes about six and a half, and the right number is nine. And it has been going on for year after year after year, and it is about ready to fall of a cliff in about four or five years, and it really will drop fast.

    Now, the situation with respect to this year is, I am told, a problem that is unique to the shipyards. We were ready to allocate a higher amount, but there is a certain aspect of the contracting situation and the shipyards that we weren't able to do it. But you are absolutely right, anyone knows that 230 ships, which is the trend-line we are headed towards, is not enough.

    Did you want to comment, Dov?

 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Secretary ZAKHEIM. Yes, sir, certainly.


    Congressman, it will drop off a cliff. There is no question about that. Just to maintain roughly 310 ships, would be nine. That, of course, presupposes a strategy that doesn't change and we are still going through a review.

    This year, there were some, as you know, both design and contractual issues which, in practice, made it difficult to go above six. The plan originally had five or, if you wish, four plus one if you count the LHD as a, kind of, separate category because it has been incrementally funded. And we added another ship, a DDG–51 Aegis-guided missile destroyer to bring it up to six. That is nowhere near what we should do.

    Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Secretary, with all due respect, I don't buy the argument that the shipyards can't or don't want the work. They are desperate for work. And I simply fail to believe that the Ingalls, the National Steele and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO), the Newport Newses, the Bath Iron Works of the world wouldn't welcome the opportunity to maintain their workforce and their supplier base and to up the shipbuilding budget this year rather than later.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. I can do nothing other than agree with you that the shipbuilding budget is low. It has to be increased, or we are going to have a Navy that will be too small.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    If you could put that chart up? Is there one there, the shipbuilding chart?

    It gives you a sense of the problem. The red line is what it takes to maintain about 310, and that would be about $3 billion more a year. The lowest line is the trajectory we are on, which is about six and a half ships. And as you can see, every year you go out, the gap that you need to fill between the top line and the lower line gets bigger.

    So every year that the Congress and the Administration over the past decade have not met that gap, the gap has grown. And we are now faced with a sizable gap that will take billions of dollars to close.

    The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Hefley, is recognized.

    Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much.

    You know, the phrase that you had on that other chart and that we have heard so much—the military force is doing more with less—Mr. Secretary, that has worn a little thin, hasn't it? We are a little tired of doing more with less. And if ''more with less'' means that you still have the hangar queen situation, and if ''more with less'' means that you still have sailors when they are in their home port living on the ship instead of in decent quarters, and if ''more with less'' means that we still house our troops in Third World conditions in many places here in the United States, and if ''more with less'' means that we don't keep our health care promises, then we have something very, very wrong.
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    You have spoken to every one of these areas, I think, in the budget you present, and I appreciate that. It is not what most of us on this committee would like. It is probably not what you would like, but at least it is going in the right direction, and I think we are all appreciative of that.

    The last Administration kept coming to us constantly saying, we need more rounds of base closure, and you are doing the same thing. And our response to them was that you are not getting any more rounds of base closure because your President destroyed the integrity of the system for base closure.

    Now we have a different situation, and I think most of us do understand that you have excess inventory in certain areas. I think there is some more convincing to be done, but I think we do understand that.

    But I have serious concern about going through the same routine that served us up until the President interfered, served us pretty well the last time around for those three rounds of base closure. I have serious concern about us going through that, putting every community in America that has any kind of a military installation into an absolute froth of anxiety. And I wonder if you have thought of any innovative approaches to dealing with it.

    My suggestion has been that there are some things you are not going to give up. You are not going to give up West Point. You absolutely are not. Take it off the table. You are not going to give up the space center. Take it off the table. Take the things off the table that you absolutely are not going to give up, and then let's deal with what is in question.
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Have you thought of that? Or have you thought of any innovative approaches that would not do the typical commission way that we did it the last round?

    Secretary RUMSFELD. We have people looking at that right now, Mr. Congressman, and that suggestion that you have just made is one that has some attraction and is being considered.

    Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you. How much excess inventory do you think you have? Do you have a percentage?

    Secretary RUMSFELD. I do not. The services are unanimous that we have excess inventory. General Shelton used the number 23 percent. That, 20 to 25 percent seems to be what the range that comes up when the question is asked. But what the actual number is, I don't know.

    Mr. HEFLEY. Okay. Thank you very much.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Yes, sir.

    The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maine, Mr. Allen, is recognized.

    Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here again.

    I want to associate my remarks with those of Mr. Taylor, and simply point out that, as you say, shipbuilding is not improved, and it will drop off a cliff, and you need $3 billion. I would point out that the increase for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and the related programs currently in the Air Force is exactly $3 billion. There is no question in my mind but money that the Navy needs for shipbuilding is being diverted directly to national missile defense.

    There are some things I like about this budget, Mr. Secretary, but we have such limited time I have to talk about the one piece which is profoundly disturbing to me, because, in my opinion, it threatens our national security in the name of protecting it.

    And I am speaking about the rush to deploy a national missile defense that is untested, hugely expensive and may never work; and second, the rush to abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty which, in my opinion, has been part of an arms control regime that has helped keep the peace for decades.

    A couple of comments. I am worried about your talk about responding to capabilities instead of threats. You know, we are now in a realm where we are talking about some sort of threat that we can't define from countries we cannot name.

    The last time you were here, you testified that 28 nations have ballistic missiles. But besides the four other nuclear powers, not one today has an operational long-range missile that can hit U.S. territory. In five years, maybe North Korea, but your Administration is now picking up an effort to negotiate away that threat. Iran, you know, maybe, but that is doubtful. I think it is misleading to create the impression that this country is on the brink of being attacked by rogue state missiles.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Now, you also testified that the number of ballistic missiles on the face of the earth is growing. Well, that is technically true, but most of them are short-range missiles. The number of Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) that threaten our national territory has declined over the last 15 years from 2,318 in 1985 to 1,100 in 2000. And I think our policy ought to be based on realistic threat assessments and not sort of vague, uncertain scare tactics.

    Last comment here, the ABM Treaty does not apply to theater missile defenses, which address the more urgent threat. Yet, the thrust of this budget in money and policy is to intentionally rig a test as early as possible to violate the ABM Treaty.

    National Missile Defense (NMD) tests will only be non-treaty compliant if you select them to be noncompliant. For example, the airborne laser technologies could be tested in 2003 against a short-range target, which would be treaty compliant. But you apparently have chosen to arbitrarily test it against an ICBM, which would not be treaty compliant.

    So my two questions: Why does your budget precipitously force a confrontation over the ABM Treaty issue before it has to, thus limiting the time have to renegotiate the treaty with the Russians, number one?

    And with respect to the threat, is there even one other country that you believe represents a realistic threat of having both the capability and the inclination to fire a long-range missile at the United States in the next five years?

 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And I thank you for your time. Although I have taken most of it. [Laughter.]

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Goodness gracious. First of all, on the subject of rush to deploy, there is no such thing. We, in fact, delayed the Clinton Administration's plan to begin with Shemya in Alaska, and we have been undertaking a series of research and development activities that are not deployments at all. So that comment is without any basis.

    Mr. ALLEN. So 2004 is not a target for deployment?

    Secretary RUMSFELD. I have not set deployment targets, because we are engaged in research and development, which means we don't know what the answers will be and, therefore, one can't project as to when someone could deploy. So I want to clarify that, so that is very clear in your mind.

    Second, untested also is without merit. The reality is that that is exactly what we are doing. No one is deploying something that has not been tested.

    Third, it is hugely expensive. Money is money, and, you know, $100 is a lot of money. But the reality is that we are spending something like $11-plus billion dollars on terrorism issues for the United States government, and we are spending a much smaller amount on missile defense. So it is difficult to say what is too much or what is too little, but the loss of a major city or an attack on one of our allies or deployed forces.

 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    You keep using the phrase ''attack on U.S. territory.'' We have interest besides the continental limits of the United States. We have deployed forces overseas. We have allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), we have allies in Asia. And the ability to threaten them affects us quite directly.

    Next, may never work. That is what Wilbur and Orville Wright faced. There are always people who say it is not going to work. That's what they said about President Kennedy going to the Moon and returning safely in the decade: It won't work. Well, my golly, it is amazing. Things tend to work. And there isn't a doubt in my mind that if the United States decides it wants to develop that capability, that we can develop that capability. And we have already tested and demonstrated the ability to do important elements of what is required to achieve an effective ballistic missile defense capability.

    Next, the rush to change the ABM Treaty because it is a centerpiece in arms control and strategic stability. That is what the Soviets have said in decades past; that is what the Russians are saying today.

    The ABM Treaty was not and is not, and to my knowledge never was, the centerpiece or cornerstone of strategic stability. It was one agreement between two countries, the Soviet Union and the United States. And given our overwhelming capabilities, it had a value, and it created a more stable situation between those two countries for a period and it still does today.

    The problem is, the Soviet Union isn't there today. And Russia is not our enemy, and we do not go to bed worrying about the problem of a strategic nuclear exchange with Russia. The Cold War is over. We need to get over it, it seems to me.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The issue of vague scare tactics, I think you said, with respect to the threat—hardly, I would say, Mr. Congressman. The intelligence community of the United States of America has a process which they use. They engage in it; they consult with the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency. They use all sources of intelligence.

    And then they come out with a national intelligence estimate. And that is what is there. You can read it. Everyone knows what it says, and it talks about the problems of ballistic missile threats to the United States in a time frame that is not certain and from a country that may not be certain.

    We do know that countries that do not wish us well have an enormous appetite for weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver them. We know North Korea does, and we know they have launched a two-stage, with a kick motor for the third. With an ounce of luck, it could have been in orbit and would have ICBM range.

    Everyone said they couldn't do it. How could those people who were starving, how could they possibly develop the kinds of system integration capabilities that would enable them to do that? They did it. They are very close. And we know they have nuclear materials capable of developing some handful of nuclear weapons.

    Mr. ALLEN. But you would agree, Mr. Secretary, they have agreed to a moratorium voluntarily on their own testing through 2003?

    Secretary RUMSFELD. The agreed framework that has been established is something that we have not been able as a country to fully inspect and determine exactly whether or not they are agreeing. We also know that countries like Iran have very active germ warfare programs and that they are working with the Russians today to develop their nuclear capabilities.
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    So I think that, with a wave of a hand, to suggest that those are scare tactics, they are not. There are real threats out there. And if you think back to Pearl Harbor, nobody ran around saying, ''Oh, my goodness, the Japanese are going to bomb Pearl Harbor.'' It didn't seem probable. And I don't deny for a second that it is possible for someone to look at the threats from countries like Iran and North Korea and Iraq, if they had the freedom to do it, and say not to worry.

    The reality is those weapons are enormously powerful, they are spreading throughout the world. And we would make a terrible mistake to not be attentive to the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver them.

    And I would add one thing: A ballistic missile can be put into a boat, a ship on a transporter erector launcher, peel off the top, erect it and fire it, and it has been done by one of the countries that have those capabilities today. They do not have to be ICBM range. They can be shorter and just as deadly.

    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bartlett of Maryland is recognized.

    Let me remind members that we have been notified there is probably going to be a vote in 45 minutes. Please be as brief as possible. Thank you.

    Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much.

    I would like to add my welcome to Randy Forbes and note that he joins Congresswoman Davis and Congressman Schrock to form the Tidewater Trio. They are going to make sure that we do it right here. I want to welcome these new members to our committee.
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Secretary, your QDR reminds me a bit of our omnibus appropriations bill: enormously large and just too difficult to get your arms around. Can you provide us with the equivalent of executive summary so we will have some better idea as to how you reach your conclusions?

    Secretary RUMSFELD. I am sure we can, Mr. Congressman. There has only been one QDR prior to this. As you know, it is not my idea; it is mandated by Congress. There was one in 1997. It seemed not to be impressive in its outcome when one asks the various people who participated. Whether or not this one will be, I don't know.

    I know that General Shelton and the Chiefs and the undersecretaries and I are working our heads off trying to do what the Congress has asked us to do in a very short period of time. And when we are through, we will try to get an executive summary.

    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix.]

    Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much.

    I would just like to make a comment or two about the suggestion that we privatize the commissaries and post exchanges (PXs). Just a word of caution that we have a lot of these facilities overseas. They are operated at a loss because we want to bring a bit of America there so that they have a higher quality of life.

    I would also like to note that I think that probably one of the biggest benefits of our commissaries and PXs is not so much the money that is saved there, and they do save money there, but the sense of community that it brings to our military people. And I would suggest that the few dollars that we might save and might not save by privatizing it would be small compensation for that loss of sense of community.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I think it is very important for our military people to know that we think they are special and they have these special shopping facilities that they can go to that is just theirs. And I think that the few dollars we might save would not be worth the harm that we would do to morale and sense of community on our military.

    And I want to thank you all very much for your hard work, but just this one word of caution.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Thank you very much.

    Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Mr. Congressman, there is no reason, if you did have a private operator operate commissaries, that they couldn't stay exactly where they are and still provide that same sense of community.

    The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas, Dr. Snyder, is recognized.

    Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Good morning, Mr. Secretary.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Good morning.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. SNYDER. Good morning, General Shelton.

    I appreciated your reluctance a little bit earlier, Mr. Secretary, to state an exact number for excess base capacity of three and a half years ago, I think. I asked for a question on the record about, well, you know, what is the exact number and how did you determine it?

    And, basically, it was a list of the bases that have been closed compared to the total number of bases that we have had in the past. I mean, there was no reference to acreage, no reference to, you know, amount of space on the tarmac. It was a very unscientific way of determining it.

    Let me ask you. It seems like the only voices that I have heard in my four and a half years in Congress that have been opposed to base closures have been, you know, some members in Congress. In your discussions, in the last seven months, eight months, since you have had this job, have you run into any minority views, within the military, within the DOD, that thinks we do not need another round of base closures?

    Secretary RUMSFELD. I have not met a military person who has ever said that we should not close bases. They all feel that they would rather have those resources into people and transformation and the important operations capabilities of the force.

    Mr. SNYDER. I noticed in your statement that you are counting on some savings in the fiscal year 2003 budget, coming from dealing with excess facilities, and that you also say you are going to send up suggestive legislation toward later on this year. We don't have a lot of time, if we want to try to get a bill passed and underway. And next year is an election year, which has got its own dynamic.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I think I mentioned to you before, I have a bill that is filed out there that, I think, tries to take a different look at things. It has a threshold question of, does there need to be another round of base closures, to help some of the members on the committee that think that, perhaps, we don't need another round. It requires you to send to the base closure commission a list of those bases—as Mr. Hefley mentioned—that we want these off the table. And the commission can add to that, so that early in the process a lot of communities would be taken off the anxiety list.

    And then, it also keeps the commission functioning as a potential appeals board to deal with some of the problems we had over, I don't know, Sacramento or something in the past, so that if some community thinks they are getting messed up, that this is not what is supposed to occur, the community can take it to the commission. And if they choose to, the commission can issue a binding opinion that can only be overturned by you, by the Secretary of Defense, by written notification to the community and to the committee.

    It is trying to deal with some of the problems in the last round of base closures. But I would encourage you, if you are interested, to do this. It is not going to be an easy process, and the sooner you can get up your suggested legislation, the better.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Thank you very much.

    Undersecretary Aldrich is the one who is working on this, and we will see that he takes a look at the legislation you have mentioned.

 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I would not want anyone to believe we could get savings out of base closures in 2003. I just don't believe you can. I think it costs money. The first year or two or three, it probably costs you more money to do it. But it is the savings thereafter that it benefits.

    Mr. SNYDER. Right. And if I might, one of the disadvantages of not having had the budget number, is we have not had a whole lot of hearings or opportunities to have General Shelton here.

    General Shelton, if I might ask you, specifically, off the budget, and talking about Macedonia, what do you see as potential scenarios, how that potentially may play out—the good, the bad and the ugly—what our role is in trying to shape that, what we could or should be doing, what we are doing, and what we might need to be doing down the line?

    General SHELTON. Well, Congressman Snyder, as you know, we have had a force in Macedonia since about 1995 as a part of, at that time, a border surveillance, border observation mission, with roughly 1,000 troops; part of a United Nations (U.N.) mission, at that time.

    And in February of 1999, the U.N. mandate expired, and the only thing that we retained in Macedonia was a camp, Able Sentry, to support our operation in Kosovo. It is primarily a Communications Zone (COMMZ) logistics type of operation.

    We do have some infantry there today. I have a colonel in charge. I have about a battalion of 101st Airborne to secure that base. And we use it to support the Kosovo operations, where our supplies flow into. Many of you have probably flown into the capital in Macedonia where we are based.
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We are there as part of NATO. There are 18 nations that operate bases there, to support the Kosovo operation. We have been concerned, as a part of NATO—and unilaterally, I might add—about the current situation on the ground with the government. We have supported the efforts to reach an agreement between the Macedonian government and the National Liberation Army (NLA), or the Albanian element.

    We basically have continued to make sure we have proper force protection and use the base. And then the rest of it is being worked in the policy arena right now in terms of the way ahead. That is where we are.

    The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss.

    Mr. CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    And gentleman, I thank you all for being here this morning.

    Mr. Secretary, I want to commend you on a very important decision you made in hiring my good friend and fellow Georgian, Mr. Powell Moore, as one of your key staff members. Obviously a very smart move.

    I have to tell you, though, Mr. Secretary, I am very much disturbed about a pattern that has developed in your office, to consider and make major policy decisions regarding weapons systems and personnel without consulting those of us who, not just are directly affected by this, but are the folks that you are asking to support your budget and to write the paychecks for that budget.
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    And I have been very supportive of the Administration's position on the strategic review. I think it is necessary. You and I have had some brief conversations on that. But yet, there has not been any dialogue that has been ongoing between members of Congress and your office with respect to these decisions.

    The one that I am particularly concerned about, and am very much bothered about, is the one that was made in recent days, that I was made aware of two days ago, regarding the transfer of the B–1 bombers from the Air National Guard to the active force. I can appreciate your position, that that was done for the purpose of saving money. We need to look everywhere we can to try to save money. But the figures just simply don't bear that out.

    It is my understanding that the B–1 costs 25 percent less to operate in the Air National Guard than it does in the active force, that the Guard has a 15 percent higher mission-capable rate than the active duty Air Force with respect to the B–1. The aircrews at the 116th B–1 Wing at Robins Air Force Base have an average of 2,500 flying hours and 1,000 hours in the B–1, which, again, is higher than the active duty force.

    All the B–1s at Robins, as well as at Kansas, have already been upgraded. They have been modified, so that we can carry precision-guided munitions (PGMs). We have just spent about $75 million in military construction (MILCON) work at Robins to bed down these B–1s. We have spent about $100 million at Ellsworth to bed down the B–1s there.

    Our 116th is an outstanding unit. It has been recognized time and again by the Air Force for its efficient operation. And I really want to know what has changed to warrant the sudden decision to move the B–1s out of the National Guard and into the active force.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Secretary RUMSFELD. This is a decision that is in the hands of the United States Air Force. And the decision, as I understand it, was to reduce the number of B–1s from something like 93 down to 60, and to use the savings to modernize the remaining 60, and to go from probably something like five locations down to two locations, and, through the consolidation, to save some funds.

    Dov, do you want to comment?

    Secretary ZAKHEIM. Certainly, yes. That was exactly the logic behind what the Air Force did. And, in fact, we are talking about savings of about $165 million that were immediately plowed back into the B–1 program.

    Now, at the same time, the Air Force recognized, and is working on right now, what they are calling a mitigation program. So there should be no effect either on the bases or on virtually all—I can't say all because I don't know down to the last individual—virtually all the National Guardsmen that are affected.

    The Air Force has told me that they are going to incorporate them into the future total force program, which I am sure you are familiar with. There are several ideas that they have as to how to do that. They have not finalized exactly which one, but what they are looking for is, indeed, meaningful military activity for the Air National Guardsmen that have been affected. So there is no effect on bases; virtually no effect on people.

    On the other hand, what you do is you take this money and you make these B–1s that are remaining both survivable, and you have given them significant communications upgrades.
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    So from an efficiency point of view, a management point of view, a military-effectiveness point of view, this was the right way to go, and we supported the Air Force decision.

    The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from California, Mrs. Tauscher, and then Mr. Ryun.

    Mrs. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary. Gentlemen, how are you?

    Mr. Secretary, last week when you were here, I asked you what you believed to be the appropriate number of nuclear weapons we should maintain on high-alert status. And you responded that you were still getting your Saturday morning tutorials on these things and working hard to get all this stuff ramped up. But today I read that you are proposing to eliminate the Peacekeeper missiles. It must have been a busy Saturday last week.

    I support efforts to reduce nuclear weapons responsibly. And in fact John Spratt and I yesterday introduced the Nuclear Threat Reduction Act, which would actually provide the President with the ability that is now banned by law to unilaterally move down our weapons. And maybe you can take a look at that legislation when you get a chance.

    But I would like to know now what this proposed cut means and what it does to fit into an overall strategy of potentially reducing our weapons.

 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Secretary RUMSFELD. Yes, indeed. The situation I was left with when I arrived was that the budget for the Peacekeeper missile had no money to continue it provided by the Congress and no money to terminate it. It was just there, and not a happy situation.

    The Air Force reviewed the situation and concluded that our some 50 Peacekeeper missiles were not needed, and the work I have done with respect to the total nuclear offensive forces persuaded me it was not needed. And since we had no money to do anything with it, it seemed appropriate to deal with it out of regular order, and that is what the Air Force announced.

    Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Secretary, essentially what you are saying is this is a budget-driven situation, not part of the context of your review of the size and alert status of our nuclear forces?

    Secretary RUMSFELD. No, it is part of that, and I am far enough along in that process that there is not a doubt in my mind but that this is the correct thing to do. As a matter of fact, this Saturday I am going to be with Strategic Command (STRATCOM) again out in Omaha, continuing that process, and we are moving along. We have a congressionally mandated nuclear posture review, which the work we have been doing will feed into it.

    We have some 7,500 offensive nuclear weapons. We don't need that many. The Peacekeeper will not make even the beginning of a dent in that total figure.

    Mrs. TAUSCHER. Will the warheads be retired?
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Secretary RUMSFELD. What will be done with the warheads is yet to be determined.

    Mrs. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Ryun.

    Mr. RYUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your coming today. I know you have a very difficult task, and yet I think you will see a lot of support from the members that are here.

    I would like to associate my comments with the gentleman from Georgia. Being from Kansas, we were a little bit short on being able to find out about the decision with regard to the B–1 bombers, and are concerned about some of the decisionmaking processes that were involved in that.

    For example, in Kansas we will build over 100 engines, saving $575,000 per engine this year. That will result in a $60 million savings for the B–1 fleet, and there will be a full savings of roughly $70 billion. It appears to me that that is not a real good business sense to move everything out.

    Could you give us a little bit more of an economic justification for what you have done and how you have arrived at your decision?
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Secretary ZAKHEIM. Sure. Again, the basic notion was as follows. The Air Force concluded that we had more B–1s in the fleet that we needed. And that is the major change, of course. You have gone down from 93 to 60. In addition, you have a situation where the B–1s were spread over five bases, and I believe in McConnell, for example, there are nine B–1s. So you are talking about smatterings of B–1s around the country, and that means a relatively inefficient way to deal with a force of that size.

    Again, as I mentioned a moment ago to Congressman Chambliss, the Air Force is fully cognizant of the fact that this has an impact on the bases and on the personnel. And ''mitigating strategy'' sounds like Pentagonese, but basically what they are saying in plain old English is that the bases will not be affected and virtually all the people will not be affected. And it could be argued that they will have a more meaningful military operational role in this future total force that the Air Force is conceiving of.

    Mr. RYUN. If I could, I would like to see some hard numbers other than the verbal numbers you are supplying, please.

    Secretary ZAKHEIM. Absolutely.

    Mr. RYUN. I know our delegation is very interested.

    You also said that it really wouldn't affect the personnel. Could you explain how, if you are taking the aircraft out that it would not really affect the personnel?

 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Secretary ZAKHEIM. The Air Force is looking at options for employing those personnel in military operations that are obviously not related to the B–1 but that are central to what the Air Force calls its Future Total Force. And I can't give you those in detail because the Air Force is still looking at options, but they have assured us that they have some very viable options. And we will get you more detail on that.

    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix.]

    Mr. RYUN. Thank you.

    Mr. Secretary, if I may ask you one other question. In your testimony, you mentioned the need to address force structure shortfalls in fiscal year 2003 for the Navy and the Air Force, but you didn't address the Army. Can you give any comment on that with regard to force structure?

    Secretary RUMSFELD. The work that the chairman and the chiefs and I have been doing is now in, as we have discussed, the Quadrennial Defense Review process that Congress requires. And the force-sizing questions, if you are talking about people, are addressed in that context. And if you are talking about capabilities, that will flow from the Quadrennial Defense Review.

    Mr. RYUN. Thank you.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Secretary RUMSFELD. We have not made decisions at this point with respect to force sizes, in direct response to your question.

    Mr. RYUN. Thank you.

    The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews, is recognized.

    Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you, Mr. Secretary, General, Mr. Comptroller.

    First question, I notice that the fiscal year 2002 allocation for the Army PAC–3 and Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) program is $857 million is the proposal. What are the plans for the MEADS side of this, and what benchmark should we be looking for a year from now in terms of achievements for that money? What are we trying to accomplish in the MEADS program?

    Secretary ZAKHEIM. As I understand it, and as you well know, Congressman, the MEADS program—and MEADS, of course, is an international program. We have several European partners. It is an extended air defense system. The ''M'' is for medium.

    That program is not as far along as PAC–3. There has been considerable debate over MEADS over the last few years, but the program, we are told, is moving along well. I do not have at my fingertips the actual benchmarks, but I could certainly ask the Army to get that to you.
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix.]

    Mr. ANDREWS. I would appreciate that. I think the program has great promise. I think it is a diplomatic and political bridge between some of the objectors to our National Missile Defense plans and our valid national security purposes. And I think it is a very promising endeavor that could lead to greater levels of cooperation for other systems. I would actively encourage you to do that.

    The second question I have is about DD–21 in the Navy. I know that there is a pause that has taken place in making the DD–21 decision. I wanted to know when we can anticipate the decision coming forward, and what criteria we are using to decide when to pick that date.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Well, there are two pieces to that. One is that Undersecretary Aldrich, with Dr. Zakheim, are conducting a ship building review, if you will, on the size of the Navy and the mix of the Navy. That process is taking place. The second process that is taking place is the Quadrennial Defense Review, where the Navy will be addressing weapons system decisions in the course of that review, which should be ended in eight weeks.

    Mr. ANDREWS. Do we anticipate the DD–21 decision, then, to be incorporated into the QDR, or will it be made independent of that?

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Probably is the answer. The Aldrich study—I don't know, we did not set a deadline. I am trying to think when he is planning to finish. But they will be in close proximity. And I would guess we would wait for both, and the decision would flow out of whichever one is later.
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. ANDREWS. The third question I have is, I am aware of the fact that there is a strong need to increase our, and improve upon, our stock of algorithms in our encryption area. I know that there is a lot of concern that there be a step up of that effort. What are we looking for in this budget proposal with respect to that, in terms of replenishing our algorithm supply in the encryption area?

    Secretary RUMSFELD. We will have to respond to the record on that.

    Mr. ANDREWS. I would appreciate that.

    Finally, as a comment, I applaud and support your substantial compensation structure increase. I think it is something that has bipartisan support. The administration is to be commended for stepping forward with this.

    I would hope that, as we consider the particulars of it, that you would give all due consideration to the legislation Mr. Murtha and Mr. Skelton have put forward this week. I don't believe that this should be a contentious issue. It is one that we ought to cooperate on and try to increase this compensation for as many people as we can as quickly as we can. And I wanted to let you know I am quite willing to cooperate in that effort with you.

    The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from Virginia, Ms. Davis.

    Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    And thank you, Mr. Secretary, General Shelton and Dr. Zakheim. I want to tell you I appreciate all the hard work you have put into the budget, and I thank you all for it. And I guess you can guess where I am going to go next: to shipbuilding.

    You know, you said that right now, we are on a course to drop off the cliff and that Congress, over the years, has not met the gap. But even this budget request for 2002 that we are putting in, I think probably even creates a larger gap. And I guess my concern goes to the shipbuilding industrial base.

    You know, where are we going to be in future out-years, with our industrial ship building base, if we are not continuing to put the number of ships we need in the budget?

    And you stated that you would like to have put more in the budget, but the contracts and so forth, if you will, with our private shipbuilding face, wouldn't allow you to do that. And I wonder if you could expand on that a little bit.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Well, first, as I indicated in my remarks, there is no question but that this shipbuilding is not what any of us would like to be presenting to the Congress. However, it does not make the situation worse. It makes it slightly better, but still on a downward trend.

    The industrial base is important. And we do not have the shipbuilding study completed, but there is no one that I have dealt with in the Pentagon who thinks that 230 ships is the right number. It has got to be more. So we will know much more about what the mix ought to be. And that, needless to say, ought to be healthy if we can find the support to increase the budget and put ourselves back on a proper trajectory. That would be a healthy thing for the shipbuilding industrial base.
 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Secretary ZAKHEIM. Yes, Congressman Davis, the plan that we inherited actually provided for four-plus-one, if you count the LHD as a plus-one, for this upcoming fiscal year 2002. In the $18.4 billion amended budget, we added, specifically because of our concern over both the size of the Navy and the industrial base, an $850 million, Aegis-guided missile destroyer. And it was precisely for the reasons you have just raised. Now, all this does is prevent us from falling further back.

    Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. So what about the comment that you couldn't add more because of something that had to do with the contracts with the shipbuilders. I had not heard that before.

    Secretary ZAKHEIM. There were some design problems on some of the other ships, and what we have done is pause on them to get those resolved. And the hope is that they will be appearing in future budgets. I say ''hope'' because until a problem is resolved, it hasn't yet been resolved.

    Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Do you anticipate an aircraft carrier in 2003? I notice there is obviously not one in 2002.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. I am going to wait till the shipbuilding study is completed.

    Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I am going to call you in eight weeks. [Laughter.]
 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Okay.

    Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The CHAIRMAN. Representative Davis of California is recognized.

    Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Secretary, General, Dr. Zakheim, thank you for being here.

    I think a number of the questions regarding shipbuilding have been asked, but one of the issues that we hear, particularly, is around multi-year procurements. And I hope that you will be taking a look at any possibilities in that area that you have that would help address the needs of so many of our contractors in our communities where, in fact, they, you know, face, if we don't get the supplemental, laying people off, taking the best-skilled people and saying goodbye to them, essentially, because they are not guaranteed good work.

    Have you looked at that issue? And are there some things that we actually could be doing to assist in that area?

    Secretary RUMSFELD. There is no question but that the pattern, the rhythm that has developed between the executive and legislative branches, to be dependent on supplementals, has been difficult and been jerking around contractors and people who have the need to be able to look forward and plan a workforce. And it has been very, very difficult.
 Page 63       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    This budget is designed to not require a supplemental. And absent a war or an act of God, let's hope we don't need one.

    There was another piece, that—

    Secretary ZAKHEIM. That was multi-year procurement.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Oh, yes, we did look at it. We are looking at it. It has some advantages. I guess there are some in the Congress and in the Office of Management and Budget who have questions about it, but it does offer some distinctive advantages. And we are looking very carefully at it, and discussing it with the Office of Management and Budget now.

    Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. That might be one area that we can look at together.

    And if I may, Mr. Chairman, just continue very briefly on personnel issues. And I appreciate the focus on that. Out of the $4.1 billion—let's see, that is the budget for personnel and housing—how much of that will be allocated to reduce the out-of-pocket costs associated with the basic allowance for housing (BAH)?

    Secretary ZAKHEIM. With the what?

    Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Basic allowance for housing, I am sorry.
 Page 64       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Secretary ZAKHEIM. I don't have the number. I can give you the percentage. Okay, basically, the idea is to get down to zero in terms of out of pocket costs by fiscal year 2005, so that, in effect, you increase the basic allowance for housing to the point where you get to zero in 2005.

    We are now on a trend line. In fiscal year 2001, the out of pocket costs were 15 percent. This year they go down to 11.3 percent; that is to say, fiscal 2002. So, we are on a glidepath to zero. And we will get you the dollar figures if you need them.

    Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. I know that in some communities, including San Diego, it is more like 22 percent, something around that range. And I would certainly encourage us to try and get there a lot faster. I have, actually, put in some legislation to do that. I think that quality of life is a critical issue in communities where many of our servicemen and women are traveling very long distances. And in fact, in San Diego, of course, we have a number of servicemen and women living in Tijuana or in areas that, you know, we really prefer that they have greater access to bases and a better quality of life.

    Secretary ZAKHEIM. I just found the number for you. I guess that is pretty responsive. $147 million to get down from 15 percent to 11.3 percent.

    Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. So we would need to increase that, to make that a higher priority, to do it faster.

    Thank you.
 Page 65       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Schrock, is recognized.

    Mr. SCHROCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Secretary, General Shelton, Dr. Zakheim, thanks again for visiting with us and for enduring the slings and arrows that you have had to endure. But I think the process is working, and we are getting there.

    I am delighted with the increase, the $38.2 billion. Sure, I would like to see more, but I think this is heading in the right direction. I share the concerns of Mr. Taylor and Mrs. Davis, too, about the shipbuilding, because I, too, would like to see that six to nine ships are being built every year to keep us from falling. And it is a freefall, as far as I am concerned. Of course, it does save jobs at the shipyards. And I am not aware of any shipyards that couldn't handle the extra business, as well, unless there is something I just don't understand.

    I am really delighted about the quality-of-life issues: closing the pay gap to keep young folks in who might otherwise go to better paying jobs in the civilian sector, and housing, which is a huge issue, and it is in the area I represent. The Navy is doing a great job. It is an example I shared with you a week or so ago. Fort Storey, an Army post in Virginia Beach has 168 sets of quarters. Two have been condemned, 166 meet no standards at all. And I think the Army people deserve a little better than that. The Navy is getting it, and I think the Army deserves the same.

 Page 66       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And health care, believe me, right now I understand health care real well. And I think that is a good issue, especially for the active duty and the retired people.

    The base closures; I would be curious to know, if they did come up. General, you mentioned, there is 23 percent excess. It would be kind of fun to know where that might be. I don't know if you have pinpointed it to different locations, but for selfish reasons I guess I would like to know where that might be.

    And let me make a comment on ballistic missile defense. We can do anything we want to do. You know, we didn't get everything right when we were doing the space program. Mr. Kennedy said we would be on the moon by the end of the 1960s, but a lot of missiles collapsed in the silos before we got that right.

    And I think we need a ballistic missile defense. We need it, and we need it now. And, sure, we are going to have some failures, but nothing ever gets achieved without some failures unfortunately. You know, that is just a fact a life. So, you know, I fully support that and will support you in that.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Thank you.

    Mr. SCHROCK. And Mr. Bartlett mentioned the commissaries and exchanges. That is real important to the area I represent, and I hope we are real careful how we do that, because that is a very important benefit that those folks deserve and need. And if privatizing it will make it better, and we still have the same control we had before, then I would be for that. But I would like to be careful about that.
 Page 67       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Again, I thank the three of you very much for being here.

    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

    Before I recognize Mr. Spratt, let me say that we are probably going to have a vote in five minutes. In fact, three votes; a 15-minute vote and a five-minute vote and final passage. That still should leave us about 30 minutes on the other side.

    And those that did not get a chance or do not get a chance to ask a question, we are working to reschedule. But in any event, if you want to submit the question to the committee, we will see that it is in the proper hands and we will get you an answer.

    Gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt.

    Mr. SPRATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Secretary, thank you for your testimony.

    And I recognize the need for more defense spending,and I have been a supporter of missile defense, particularly the ground-base system which is closest to completion.

    What I have to tell you, as I read through the budget and recognize the cuts that are being made in the face of increases in some programs in order to make room for this enormous increase in ballistic missile defense, I have to question the prioritization in the budget.
 Page 68       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Fighter wings are going from 20 to 19. I understand you will have still as many planes. You are cutting the B–1B bomber force by a wing. The Army's operations and management (O&M) money is up, but OPTEMPO, tank miles and stick time is still the same. You have a big increase in research and development (R&D), but when you look in your science and tech program, you said you wanted to increase it by three percent; actually it goes down by $200 million. Despite the big increase in R&D, the procurement program goes down by $500 million.

    That chart that stood there for the whole of the hearing is kind of a stark reminder that, for the amount of the increase in the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program, we could fully fund the recapitalization of the Navy: $3 billion a year. Instead, we are funding five and one-seventh ship which won't sustain a 300-ship Navy. There is no question about it.

    Yesterday, General Gordon was here from the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). And I asked him to describe his facility's needs and whether or not his budget was adequate for that purpose, for the nuclear weapons production complex. He said, ''Congressman, my facilities situation is in a crisis,'' his word, ''crisis.'' And, in fact, he told me, ''This budget leaves me with a lot of unmet needs.''

    Sitting next to him was Assistant Secretary Huntoon. Her budget for cleaning up the nuclear waste legacy, which is a $200 billion obligation over the next 30 or 40 years, has been cut by $400 million. In every state where she does business, she has got a compliance agreement. And frankly, she is not going to be able to keep up with that compliance agreement.
 Page 69       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    In light of that, increasing BMD by $3 billion seems to me to be lopsided and disproportionate. In light of those unmet needs, how do you justify it?

    And second, I read this budget and have to assume that all of these unmet needs are being laid off until next year, until the 2003 budget, which means that in order to meet these needs that aren't met in this budget you are going to have to get a much bigger increase than this year's increment in future year budgets. Is that correct?

    Secretary RUMSFELD. The numbers are going to be roughly what I indicated in my testimony. That if you start with today's budget, assuming it passes like it is and add inflation and add the sizable billions of dollars needed to take care of health care and simply straighten out the funny numbers that were in the forward-year defense budget, that you are up to something like, what, $348, I said, just to stay even. All it does is fund the health and straighten the numbers out and deal with inflation without any transformation, without any improvement in shipbuilding.

    Mr. SPRATT. Well, I am talking about the total defense budget in future years, 2003 and onward.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. I am talking about just 2003.

    Mr. SPRATT. Okay. Won't they have to be substantially more than this year's budget to meet the needs that aren't met by this budget?

 Page 70       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Secretary RUMSFELD. Absolutely. That was my testimony.

    Mr. SPRATT. $343, though. I would have guessed that you are thinking in the future about $35 to $40 billion-a-year increase instead of an $18 billion increase.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Well, what I was characterizing in my remarks was that if you start with today's budget and you add inflation and you add the incremental costs that the actuaries tell us will be the health care burden that we will have to carry forward, and third, if you straighten the numbers out for various types of procurement items that were under-budgeted in the existing base budget, you end up at $347.2 billion without even addressing the subject of modernization and transformation. So you are quite right.

    Mr. SPRATT. Substantial increase.

    Would you just comment on the proportional allocation, given all these other cuts, given $3 billion, a 57 percent increase to BMD?

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Well, the way I look at it is that the number for missile defense investment, that is for theater and national missile defense, is something like two to two and a half percent of the defense budget. It does not sound to me that if you recognize the power of weapons of mass destruction and the pervasiveness of proliferation that investing something like two percent of the defense budget in defense against those kinds of threats is excessive.

 Page 71       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CHAIRMAN. Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Thornberry, is recognized, then Mr. Simmons.

    Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your candor when you said earlier that what has been put off is transformation in this budget. I know that you are concerned, as I am, that what is happening is what we have been doing for too many years in the past, and that is meeting immediate needs and immediate problems at the expense of the future. And, obviously, what we have to try to do is figure out some wedge that we can get into this crisis that you are facing that will pay out in the future.

    One of the things the President talked about in the campaign was taking some of the acquisition dollars and putting them under your office, so that you could allocate some money in ways that maybe the service culture would not permit.

    I understand there is some consideration, even of creating an office of transformation within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, maybe with some money to do that. Where is that? Because it seems to me you just can't create a policy office without the money, you have to have some weight behind it.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. You are quite right. There is an enormous pressure to fund immediate needs and to put off future needs. And one of the things we have done is to increase the request year to year for science and technology (S&T), for research and development, and there is some transformation in there.
 Page 72       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Another thing that has been in there is an office or an entity where we are putting a modest amount of money, something like $5 million, to start it.

    There also are important transformation steps being taken within the services, and we ought not to ignore them. The Army has been working hard on transformation. And there is no question but that there is a portion of the Air Force and Navy budgets which could be characterized as transformational.

    You want to comment on that, General Shelton?

    Mr. THORNBERRY. Well, if I could comment just right quick. And I see on one of the charts we have been given, for example, Global Hawk and some other things, some significant increases. I am concerned, though, that $5 million is not going to get very far.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Really it is not the totality of—

    Mr. THORNBERRY. No, I understand. But I am talking about in an office under you which can allocate some resources. You know, we are not talking about huge money, but $20 million, $30 million could make, I think, a significant difference, just as doubling joint experimentation, as one of these charts shows, makes a significant difference. I am worried that $5 million is so small though that it can't even get the wedge in there.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Well, as I say, you would have to look across the budgets and aggregate it to come up with a number that we could characterize as transformational, and it is substantially larger than that. It still is what gets put off, you are exactly right.
 Page 73       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. THORNBERRY. I didn't know if you had anything else, General?

    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Simmons, if you have a very short question, or we will go to you when we come back. It is up to you.

    Mr. SIMMONS. I will come back, Mr. Chairman.

    The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. Secretary, it is going to be necessary for us to—you said wait, right?

    It will be necessary for us to recess about 20 minutes. I apologize.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Yes, Mr. Chairman.


    The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will please come to order.

    The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spence.

    Mr. SPENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    And thank you, gentlemen, all of you coming down today and holding up under all these questions and comments and all the rest.
 Page 74       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Secretary, we are pleased to have you here especially and to see that we are adding more for defense in the budget. And, as you said, and I have been saying too, it is still not enough. I said that last year, and I have been saying it for a good while; we need to do more. As you know, Mr. Secretary, this committee has taken advantage of your expertise on numerous occasions; the Rumsfeld Commission and others, and we appreciate what you have done in all these areas.

    I have just a comment about base load and everybody else seemed to be talking about it and, paraphrasing what some famous American has said, here we go again. [Laughter.]

    We went through all this last year, and I remember very well we would always ask the secretary, ''Look, if you need money to do all these things and you are going to,'' just like you said this morning, you are going to buy more ships and aircraft and everybody is going to be happy if we would just close these bases. That solves all of our problems.

    And then I always ask them the question, how can you get money to do all these things right now when, as you admitted this morning, Mr. Secretary, it will take, you said, two or three years. It will probably take more than that. Based on past experience, the next Administration might take advantage of it sometime later on down the line.

    And so my observation would be that it is going to be difficult to do all these things; building more aircraft and ships and all these kind of things, that the money that won't come, if it ever does come, without cooking the books on environmental cleanup costs, for instance, it is going to be way down the line somewhere. And so I have never had a question answered by a former secretary, and I don't intend to really get an answer from you on that one because nobody knows how long it will take, and we have all these problems in the meantime to deal with.
 Page 75       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    And also about the military people of being in favor of closing bases; they bought in last time on that, too. They were told if you don't buy in on this, you know, you won't get any money, and so they had to buy in on it.

    And I think if you are going to close bases, the first people you ought to ask about closing bases are the base commanders all over the country. Go out and ask them if they think their base should be closed. And if you find anybody that says yes, start off with them and close those bases and see where you go from there. [Laughter.]

    There would be a real interest in seeing how many people you get that thinks you ought to close that base. I don't even mean people in the community. I mean the base commanders themselves.

    Another observation, too, along those lines, if my time hasn't run out, is the fact that after you close a base, a Navy base for instance, you never get it back. They start building apartments and all these kind of things and you never get it back when you need it, if you need it in the future.

    The space dedicated to the military air use is gone forever. You don't get that back when you close that air base somewhere. We were talking about Vieques, the ranges and all those kind of things; you don't get it back after you close them because they go in and take advantage of it; all the civilian people do with it all the things they have in mind.

    One last thing about excess inventory that might mean excess facilities on a base, not necessarily a base.
 Page 76       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    My time is up, and so I don't expect to continue.

    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentleman.

    The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Simmons.

    Mr. SIMMONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you, gentlemen.

    In the news release yesterday, on page four, I believe it was, it refers to strategic forces and precision strike and it says, ''The budget advances the President's initiatives to reshape U.S. strategic and tactical nuclear forces by funding design studies to convert two Trident submarines to cruise missile-carrying submarines.'' And I just want to say what a brilliant idea that is, and whoever came up with it, I commend them. I think that is a marvelous idea. I think it is cost-effective, and I think it provides us with a significant strategic capability now and into the future.

    I did have some questions for the record on the budgetary numbers or the dollars attached to that recommendation. I could not find them in the handout.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. I think $100 million has been set aside for that purpose.

 Page 77       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SIMMONS. And that would be in 2002.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. In the 2002 budget amendment, yes, sir.

    Mr. SIMMONS. Okay. My second comment follows your testimony, Mr. Secretary, page six, you refer to closing unneeded bases. I only have one base, and I do need it. [Laughter.]

    I just want to make that clear. I see the admiral behind you smiling. I think he needs it too. I hope he does.

    But let me just say this. We have gone through the base closing procedure before, and I have heard that a substantial number of bases that were previously identified for realignment and closure are still on the inventory, over 50 percent.

    I wonder if you had a figure on that. And I wonder if you could answer me this: that if, in fact, we have a high number that have been slated for realignment and closure that are still in the inventory, for whatever reason, wouldn't it be wiser to proceed with closing all of those before we get into another somewhat tumultuous base-closing process?

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Mr. Congressman, I have never been through a base-closing process, I can say with some pleasure. It can't be a happy event. The only reason I can imagine that there are still bases that have been designated for closure that are not closed would probably be something involving environmental cleanup, which I would think has a long tail. And I am guessing that. I don't know that of my own knowledge.
 Page 78       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I would prefer not to have a base-closing round, needless to say. It is not pleasant. But you look at the things we need, and the chairman is exactly right, it takes some years—however many, I don't know—to get any benefit from it.

    But the shortfalls that the armed forces face need to be addressed. And if you think of the comments of this committee today, almost every comment of concern has been about an area that needs more money: shipbuilding, airplanes, maintenance, infrastructure, you name it. Where is it going to come from? I mean, where is it going to come from? It can't constantly be more. There has to be some way to manage this thing so that we can effectively be sensitive and respectful of the taxpayers' dollars.

    And I must say, the suggestion that the military have asked to get in line and support base closure isn't the case. I have never asked any military person to get in line on something like that. I ask them for their honest, best opinion and they give it. And the military I talk to all believe they would rather see the money go to something that benefits our national security, rather than something that is clearly, in their view, excess.

    Congressman Spence's comment is, of course, also valid. You have to be darned sure you know what you are doing so you don't give away something you are going to need later, because you can't get it back. That is exactly right. So you have to be careful, and you can't do some sort of a macro percentage and say, ''Well, we don't need this,'' because someday you may need some of that. And so you have to be very careful. I recognize that.

    But together, we are going to have to find ways to save money. And there are too many urgent things that need money. And unless we find ways that we can get ourselves arranged so that the department has some flexibility to take the kind of steps that clearly need to be taken, we are not going to have the money we are going to need for our armed forces.
 Page 79       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. SIMMONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, I know your departure time has arrived. Do you want to field one more?

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Sure. I can stay until 1 o'clock, Mr. Chairman.

    The CHAIRMAN. I think we have only two that have not been heard from.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Fair enough.

    The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Hunter, then Mr. Kirk.

    Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us today, General Shelton, Dr. Zakheim.

    You know, I think that if you are going to be intellectually honest about this process, and we have been criticizing the Clinton Administration for the last six years for a shortfall in defense spending, and analyzing—using your figures, General, the figures developed, and Congressional Budget Office's (CBO's) and OMB's and everybody else's figures with respect to ammunition shortages, equipment shortages, training shortages, pilots getting enough flying hours, munitions shortages—everything from M–16s to our precision-guided systems—and the people shortages, that is the pay gap between our military and the civilian sector, you easily arrive at, without additional force structure or transformation elements, you easily arrive at a $50 billion annual shortfall. And the budget that you are giving us here makes up $18 billion of that.
 Page 80       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Even if you closed every single base under these analyses of prospective savings for base closures, you come up with $3 billion. So base closure is not going to make up for these shortfalls, even if you did everything that the base closing folks wanted to do, notwithstanding any valid questions about what do you have to do if you have to surge again and all of a sudden you need new air space and you need new land space, you need new ocean space.

    So this is, for me, this is kind of a disappointing era. It is an era in which we came in to rebuild national security with an Administration that I think wants to rebuild national security, at a time when you have a relative prosperity and a budgetary surplus. And all of a sudden we find ourselves making tortured statements to each other and deploring, on both sides of this table today, the shortfall in important military resources. That is sad, I think.

    Nonetheless, I think we are going to have to wade through this thing. And Mr. Secretary, you are going to have to be really going to bat because I think rather than having gone through the battle and succeeded maybe with not a full loaf, but a couple of slices, you may have to fight hard to keep those slices. And so we are going to be with you in that effort. I think we have to make a real effort to working in the administration with the other body and with the American people to try to keep the expected or the recommended resources that you have added to the budget here.

    With respect to missile defense, let me just say this: If we don't meet the national missile defense challenge and the theater missile defense challenge, this will be the first time this nation has faced an era of new deadly military equipment on the other side in which we failed to respond. And if you look across the array of systems that we face today around the world, the only one where we have absolutely no capability for stopping the adversary's weapon is with respect to an incoming ICBM.
 Page 81       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The question we asked for the last six years of the Clinton Administration was, first question to the Secretary of Defense was: Can you stop a single missile coming into a U.S. city or a troop concentration? The answer was always no. And added to that, now you have the fact that there is no law that compels the North Koreans, if they should want to kill some of our 30,000 troops in-theater in Korea, there is no law that says they have to shoot them with a slow missile. They could use one of the fast missiles they are now developing which, under the demarcation agreements that the last Administration attempted to ram through, we are unable to meet.

    So let me just say that, from my perspective, I want to see this Administration test vigorously and test a lot, even if it means fail a lot, and get as much in the field as quickly as we can while continuing to try to develop a robust system with respect to missile defense.

    Thank you.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Thank you.

    The CHAIRMAN. Last gentleman of the day, Mr. Kirk, from Missouri. Pardon me, Mr. Akin. Mr. Kirk, I beg your pardon.

    Mr. KIRK. Well, Mr. Secretary, good to see you. I am so glad you are here and I am glad you are finally unleashed to sell this budget. I am going to be your strongest supporter to get this budget.
 Page 82       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    And the key priority that you have on missile defense is one that I personally felt, in 94 hours on duty, spit out my cup of soup when all the bells and warnings went off. We had a no-notice No-Dong launch. And as the desk Macintosh computer reported the track, the impact zone was the entire United States in the early burn.

    I saw the Deputy Director of Intelligence (DDI) advising the White House that we did not know if we were going to be advising the President 22 minutes from now that we had lost a city. We had two options: take it and see four million Americans incinerated; or deliver a counterstrike and kill as many people as Hitler did in an hour and a half. There were no moral options that day in 1994.

    And I am so happy that you have focused on this priority, to give this moral option to the President. I think this is not only essential to our own security, but key allies like Israel.

    I just had a couple of small points. I hope you focus with Secretary Principi on DOD-Veterans Administration (VA) medical sharing. It is very important in my district, to combine our naval hospital and VA center, and I think there are several opportunities there.

    Over the skies of Kosovo, I saw the fruits of a classic bureaucratic mistake on behalf of the Air Force, who had surrendered all of her electronic warfare (EW) assets, and then fall on the mercy of the Navy to provide that electronic support, which was critical.

    It turned out to be the go/no-go item of the war. We were not tanker limited as we thought. We were EW limited. And the Prowler fleet supported that. But it would have been nice if the Air Force had kept its capability. It did not, but hopefully we will address those EW needs in the coming years and do that.
 Page 83       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Last, I am just very pleased to see your changes proposed, especially Admiral Jeremiah, on the personnel system; getting rid of up-and-out. Charlie Moskos, who was one of our next-door neighbors, pointed out to me that 20 years ago a senior chief made seven times what an E–1 made, and now only makes two and a half times, and being able to keep and retain people and widen that disparity so that you are really rewarding people who are staying with the force.

    Especially as an ensign, I learned very early, senior enlisted run the military. Keeping those people is key. So I throw all that out for your comment, or just want to make sure you are successful. And I will be fighting for your budget not just in this committee but in a more difficult committee, the Budget Committee, where we will get you the resources you need.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Very good. Thank you very much, Congressman Kirk.

    I have talked to the secretary of the Veterans Administration about the hospital issue that you have raised. And there is no question but that we do have to work closely with VA and make sure we make sense and have a rational program with respect to it.

    The Admiral Jeremiah study has been very helpful, and there is no question but that we have to find ways to target so that we can keep the people we need in the military and attract and retain them. And it is not an easy thing. Most companies have a great deal more flexibility as to how they are going to arrange their total compensation so that it is appealing to the various segments of the population that they need to attract and keep.
 Page 84       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    And we have kind of a one-size-fits-all, for the most part. I mean, if you think about it, the new health program is very nice for people 65 and older. It does not do much for a young person who is coming in and is not thinking about ever being 65. It is the last thing from their mind when they are 18 years old. And we don't have very much flexibility in how we fashion that total compensation set of elements together so that we can do a better job.

    But thank you.

    The CHAIRMAN. I apologize to the gentleman for misidentifying his state.

    Does Mr. Skelton have any closing remarks?

    Mr. SKELTON. Just a word of thanks for coming over, and we appreciate it and we look forward to working with you. Thank you.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. Thank you, sir.

    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, thanks for the extra time. We appreciate it. Everybody had the opportunity to get in their questions. We do have some that will be submitted for the record, if you would be so kind as to respond.

    Secretary RUMSFELD. We will do that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
 Page 85       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The CHAIRMAN. If there is nothing else, the meeting is adjourned.

    Thank you, all.

    [Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]