Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

US Military Despises Donald Rumsfeld

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Why Our Military Despises Donald Rumsfeld by Ralph Nader http://groups.yahoo.com/group/libertyunderground/ Civilian control over the military is a long
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Why Our Military Despises Donald Rumsfeld
      by Ralph Nader

      Civilian control over the military is a long established democratic
      tradition in our country. It was the military that was believed by our
      founding fathers to be susceptible to plunging our country into
      foreign adventure. Presently, however, the boondoggles, crimes and
      recklessness of draft-dodging George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and former
      Air Force pilot, Donald Rumsfeld, together with their draft-dodging
      neo-con associates, have turned this expectation upside down. The
      civilians are the war-mongers.

      Probably the least told story of the Iraq war-quagmire is the extent
      to which the Pentagon military, especially the U.S. Army brass,
      disagrees with and despises these civilian superiors. Donald Rumsfeld,
      one of the most disliked of the Secretaries of Defense, has spent much
      energy making sure that high level dissent in the military is muzzled
      and overlayered by his loyalists.

      Just last week Rumsfeld demoted three military service chiefs in the
      Pentagon hierarchy and replaced them with three loyalists who
      previously worked for his buddy Dick Cheney.

      Right from the beginning the U.S. Army brass opposed the invasion of
      Iraq for both military and strategic reasons. They believed such an
      attack would absorb massive human and material resources that would
      divert from the chase after the 9/11 terrorists and the resolution of
      the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. They disagreed with the paucity of
      soldiers that Bush/Cheney and Rumsfeld were to send there. They were
      appalled by the lack of post-war planning directives by the

      At the 4 star general level, the Army brass knew Saddam Hussein was a
      tottering dictator, embargoed, surrounded and contained by the U.S.,
      Britain, Turkey, and Israel, and unable to field an army equipped with
      minimum loyalty and equipment. They also knew that going to Iraq would
      be the gigantic equivalent of batting a large bee hive. To this day
      Army commanders in Iraq, most recently General George Casey, recognize
      that the U.S. military occupation is a magnet for more and more
      terrorists from inside and outside Iraq. CIA Director Porter Goss was
      more explicit before Congress last February testifying that occupied
      Iraq is a recruiting and training ground for more terrorists who will
      return to their countries for more disruption.

      When Colin Powell was at the Pentagon, he developed what came to be
      known as the Powell Doctrine-know clearly what your military and
      political objectives are, follow up with overwhelming force and have a
      clear exit plan. Bush/Cheney, Rumsfeld violated this Doctrine. Their
      only objective was to topple their former ally, in the Eighties,
      Saddam Hussein. After that, they were clueless and surprised by the

      To top Army officers, the worst of all worlds is Iraq. Their Chief of
      Staff, General Eric Shinseki, after testifying before Congress about
      the need for over 300,000 soldiers for any such invasion, found his
      retirement accelerated. Draft-dodger Paul Wolfowitz, then number two
      in the Pentagon, rejected his estimate and recommended less than half
      that number.

      Retired high military officers, diplomats and intelligence officials,
      with good sources inside the Department of Defense, say that the
      military is furious with Bush/Cheney. The latter orders torture with
      thinly veiled instructions and dubious legal memos and when disclosed,
      as at Abu Gharib, the Army takes the rap to its reputation.

      Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld start these so-called commando groups, which
      included ex-Saddam toughs, and their predictable atrocities against
      young Sunni men becomes the U.S. Army's headache to restrain. The idea
      behind these outlaw, death squads, reported/ The/ /New York Times
      Magazine/ last year, was to enable summary destruction of arbitrary
      'suspects' and terrorization of the Sunni population. The Army kept
      telling Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld that such Administration-approved mayhem
      was backfiring and fueling more hatred by the Sunnis against the U.S.,
      its troops, and these hired gangs.

      The Administration finally responded by telling the Army to assign
      more men to advise and monitor these gangs which the U.S. is equipping
      and paying.

      Other sources of irritation within the military is Bush/Cheney making
      sure that the fallen soldiers and the injured soldiers are returned in
      stealth fashion at Dover Air Force base and Andrews Air Force base
      outside of Washington, D.C. Bush/Cheney do this for political reasons,
      knowing opposition to the war increases as U.S. casualties mount.

      Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld still refuse to count officially U.S. soldiers
      who are injured outside a combat situation, again for political
      reasons. This keeps the official injury count at about one third of
      the real total. Career Army officers do not like their solders being
      used this way.

      The Army is also upset over the loss of some of their senior officers
      and non-commissioned officers to the giant corporate contractors
      operating in this cost-plus environment of maximum profit for less
      than maximum service. These companies are hiring away these
      experienced soldiers with offers that double or triple their salaries
      to do the very privatized jobs which the Army used to do for itself.
      In a tight skilled manpower situation, the Army finds this drain to be
      undermining its mission.

      On the surface, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are heavy on their photo
      opportunities with the troops, heavy with the flattery that these
      political tricksters heap on the soldiers and alert to any potential
      public dissent.

      There was a recent slip up though. At a Pentagon news conference,
      November 29th , a reporter asked General Peter Pace, the chairman of
      the Joint Chiefs of Staff, what should American soldiers in Iraq do if
      they witness Iraqi security forces abusing prisoners. The General's
      reply: "It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service
      member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene
      and stop it."

      Standing next to him, the calculating conniver, Donald Rumsfeld tried
      to distort the words of the forthright Pace by saying that American
      soldiers only had an obligation to report any mistreatment.

      In a nutshell, that is the difference between the Pentagon military
      and their arrogant civilian superiors who have disrespected their
      judgment and ordered them to shut up and follow unlawful policies.
      Meanwhile the quagmire bleeding Iraq continues in its way to bleed
      America. Speak up military. Remember the Nuremberg principles.


      $2.6 TRILLION Still Missing From Department Of Defense ...

      Testimony before the House Appropriations Committee: Fiscal Year
      2002 Defense Budget Request As Given by Secretary of Defense Donald H.
      Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton,
      and Comptroller Dov Zakheim, Rayburn House Office Building,
      Washington, DC, Monday, July 16, 2001.

      SEC. RUMSFELD: Mr. Congressman, thank you very much. Your question
      is, of course, right at the heart of an enormously important issue for
      the Department of Defense. We have a panel in the Quadrennial Defense
      Review on this subject. We have met with it twice in the last two
      weeks. We're obviously going to have to meet with it again. It is a
      big, broad, complicated subject.

      As you know, the Department of Defense really is not in charge of
      its civilian workforce, in a certain sense. It's the OPM, or Office of
      Personnel management, I guess. There are all kinds of long- standing
      rules and regulations about what you can do and what you can't do. I
      know Dr. Zakheim's been trying to hire CPAs because the financial
      systems of the department are so snarled up that we can't account for
      some $2.6 trillion in transactions that exist, if that's believable.
      And yet we're told that we can't hire CPAs to help untangle it in many

      To see the full testimony –


      Testimony before the House Appropriations Committee: Fiscal Year
      2002 Defense Budget Request

      As Given by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Chairman of the
      Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton, and Comptroller Dov
      Zakheim, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Monday, July
      16, 2001.


      REP. LEWIS: If the committee will come to order -- (pause) -- good
      morning, Mr. Secretary.

      SEC. RUMSFELD: Mr. Chairman, nice to see you.

      REP. LEWIS: Let me begin the meeting by expressing my
      appreciation for those of you who were so responsive to adjusting your
      schedule last week. My bride and I had to spend a little time in
      California on a special family matter that had nothing to do with me,
      but on the other hand, we want you to know that everything is going
      fine, and we're happy to be with you.

      Most appreciative of your readjusting today, Mr. Secretary,
      General Shelton, Dr. Zakheim.

      I wanted to mention, just as an aside, Mr. Secretary, to give you
      a sense of the committee's concern about our schedule -- I believe you
      know very well that the committee has been very supportive of the
      review that you're about. But to put it in some perspective in terms
      of our challenges, it was one year ago tomorrow that we were filing
      the conference report for the '01 bill. Generally speaking, it
      suggested that it's very advisable to have defense matters move well
      ahead of the pack, if we possibly can, because there are people in the
      place who do believe that there are other priorities beside defense,
      no matter what this subcommittee might think.

      So this year, because of a number of circumstances, we're going
      to be in the midst of that very competitive environment. And so the
      committee is going to have rather intensive work to do in the months

      We are appreciative of your scheduling problems, but frankly,
      this is my first go-round with a new administration that happens to be
      my administration, where they want to review the way we've been
      spending dollars -- appropriately so. But in the meantime, it's
      created some problems and challenges that we will be asking you to
      help us with as we go forward.

      As the committee comes to order, today the committee is pleased
      to welcome the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, secretary of Defense,
      second time around; General Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs
      of Staff; and Dr. Dov Zakheim, the comptroller of the Defense Department.

      General Shelton, this may be your last appearance before the
      committee, and we want you to know that the committee is very proud of
      the some thirty-eight years of dedicated service you've given to our
      military forces. And particularly your service over these last years
      has been just -- to talk about capping off a career, you have made a
      fantastic contribution to the nation's strength, and we want you to
      know the committee appreciates that work.

      GEN. SHELTON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

      REP. LEWIS: Our witnesses are here to testify on the president's
      amended defense budget request for fiscal year 2002. It's taken more
      than a usual amount of time, as I suggested, to put this package
      together, Mr. Secretary, but we can appreciate the challenges you've
      been facing.

      While the department's budget request for the fiscal year that's
      ahead of us is $328.9 billion, that is a reflection of 32.6 billion
      over last year's enacted level. This represents an increase of 7
      percent, taking inflation into account, the largest proposed single-
      year increase for defense since the mid-1980s.

      Mr. Secretary, for a good many years now, members of this
      committee have been pointing out the need for significant funding
      increases in support of our national security effort, and there is no
      question that with this budget you and the president have recognized
      this as well. And I would ask those who would question the size of
      this increase to carefully examine where these additional funds would
      go. Of the $33 billion increase, some three-quarters, or nearly 25
      billion, is in direct support of our men and women in uniform for
      increases in pay and medical care, for housing and installations and
      for training and operational support. That is the vast majority of the
      additional funds you're requesting, and it's really by way of taking
      care of the basics. They put our people first, and for that, Mr.
      Secretary, I commend you.

      Another area of emphasis in this budget lies in the area of
      missile defense. I must say that General Kadish had to be doing a
      dance over the weekend -- (laughter) -- as we began to face a series
      of tests, as he's described it, but a very, very successful
      development in terms of the prospect of asking for additional funding
      for missile defense. In this area, the administration is bringing
      forward a series of proposals which, in terms of policy, priority and
      process have already generated debate and no small degree of
      controversy. This involves not just questions about the ABM Treaty,
      but also over funding priorities within our defense program and
      whether and how we can redesign the process for developing and
      fielding new technologies to meet new threats.

      I hope we are able to engage with you today on these issues
      involving missile defense, Mr. Secretary, for they are not only
      important in and of themselves, but they speak to a larger challenge
      we all must confront; that is, what are the real threats of the future?

      Where should we be putting our priorities, and how best can we
      move forward once we decide to meet those priorities, for as we all
      know, the threat of ballistic missiles is just one of many challenges
      that confront our nation and its allies as we move into the years ahead.

      These are hard questions, and as we consider this budget, Mr.
      Secretary, many fundamental questions still remain unanswered. This
      budget does not address changes to war-fighting strategies, the size
      and composition of future force structures, nor how to transform our
      forces for the future.

      We realize that these are issues for the Quadrennial Defense
      Review that will be completed later this year, but they're still vital
      inputs to the defense appropriations process. And especially where
      appropriations are concerned, a major question is: Can we afford, and
      how do we best balance the costs of adequately supporting today's
      forces, modernizing that force in the near term, and beginning the
      process of transformation that force for the demands of the 21st
      century? This is a question the committee must grapple with now, and
      as we consider the fiscal year 2002 defense budget, we urge you, Mr.
      Secretary, to work with us closely and make results from the QDR
      available to the committee as soon as possible.

      You have rightly noted in your written testimony that the United
      States armed forces are the best trained, best equipped, most powerful
      military force on the face of the earth. We want you to know that this
      committee is proud of that force and the exceptional professionalism
      and dedication of all Defense Department personnel, from the newest
      recruit, Mr. Secretary, to you and, of course, to General Shelton, who
      in the months ahead is probably going to have some phenomenal new
      challenges, and we will miss this fantastic service that has been
      yours, General.

      So, after my good friend, Jack Murtha, has made his remarks, I'd
      invite you to summarize your statements and then we'll proceed with

      REP. JOHN P. MURTHA (D-PA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

      Mr. Secretary, he welcomed you three, but one of the most
      important people here is Arlene Lewis, who is with us today. Seldom do
      we get the honor of having her, so we welcome Arlene Lewis to this

      See her back there?

      REP. LEWIS: Thank you. (Chuckles.)

      REP. MURTHA: All right.

      I'm disappointed, Mr. Secretary. We harped, this committee harped
      with the Clinton administration to either reduce the tempo of
      operations or increase the budget. We knew that without one or the
      other we were going to have an inadequate defense budget. We're going
      through the same drill again where this budget is inadequate, in my

      I'll say this. Where you put the money, as the chairman said, is
      exactly the right place. The thing I hear when I'm out in the field is
      problems with health care, the problems with quality of life, the
      problems with housing, and you have addressed that issue the best you
      could with the amount of money you have available. But as the tempo of
      operations stays the same, without reducing that tempo of operations,
      we're going down a very treacherous slope, in my estimation, and we're
      going to have a difficult time keeping the quality of the troops at
      the highest level with this high technology that we address.

      The $20 billion, I agree completely with where you distribute it.
      The supplemental, we made a suggestion in the supplemental and I
      think, I hope that Dr. Zakheim will pay attention to it. We put $200
      million into the installations of health care so that we can get ahead
      of the curve. Inflation rate is 3 percent in the installations and 13
      percent when we buy the care from outside vendors. They need more
      nurses, they need more administrators, and so forth, and we tried to
      make that change, and I hope that you'll look at that and see if we
      can not even do more next year to provide better and more medical care
      in the military installations themselves.

      But I can't argue with the amount of money that was distributed
      to you. I can't argue with any of the priorities that you have set
      forward, and look forward to hearing your justification for the budget.

      REP. LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Murtha.

      Mr. Secretary, as I have indicated, your entire statement will be
      included in the record, but you may proceed as you will and we look
      forward to an open exchange here. I do understand at the beginning
      that General Shelton and others have schedule pressures and we're
      going to try to move forward in an expeditious manner and, in the
      meantime, General Shelton, we're interested very much in your comments
      as well.

      Mr. Secretary?

      SEC. RUMSFELD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

      (Discussion aside about microphone.)

      REP. LEWIS: This is the Appropriations Committee. We can't
      really figure the electronics out -- (laughter).

      SEC. RUMSFELD: Apparently that's the mike. Whose is this?

      REP. LEWIS: It's your public, Mr. Secretary.

      SEC. RUMSFELD: (Laughs.) Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and members
      of the committee. I appreciate the tight schedule you're on and assure
      you we will do everything to cooperate with you as we go forward. And
      certainly the results of the QDR will be available to this committee
      as they become available.

      Congressman Murtha, with respect to your comment, let me say that
      we do -- General Shelton has a study underway with respect to the
      department's engagement approach across the globe, and I am advised
      that he believes and the chiefs believe that the op tempo issue has
      been moderated somewhat today relative to, I suppose, a year, year and
      a half, two years ago.

      I do -- rather than reading my statement, I'd just like to save
      time for some exchange of views. Let me just make a few comments.

      This committee knows well the numbers and the situation of the
      armed forces today probably better than almost everyone in Washington.
      So you understand the shortfalls that the men and women in uniform
      have been facing in terms of readiness, operation, procurement, health
      care, maintenance, infrastructure, modernization, housing,
      intelligence. We do have the best-trained, best-equipped military
      force on earth, as the chairman indicated, and peace and prosperity
      and freedom across the world are underpinned by the stability and the
      security that these men and women provide.

      But there is no question but that years of underfunding and
      overuse have taken a toll. With the end of the Cold War there was a
      drawdown, an appropriate peace dividend, but it overshot the mark by a
      good deal, and as the size of the forces reduced, the men and women in
      uniform were asked to take on more and more missions. They saluted,
      they did their best, but at the cost of putting off maintenance,
      training, procurement and other necessities, and now that bill is
      staring us in the fact. The cumulative effective of year after year of
      neglect is catching up.

      The budget numbers the chairman mentioned; it's a sizable
      increase; some $22.8 billion. That's a significant commitment of the
      taxpayers' dollars, but we need every cent of it, let there be no
      doubt. We need the funds for pay and housing and health care and
      quality of life; we need it for the backlog in maintenance,
      modernization and transformation and research and development, and
      this budget certainly helps. But let's be clear, it does not get us
      well. I know that and you know that. The underinvestment and over- use
      of the force went in far too long; the gap is too great; the hole
      we're in is too deep; there is no way to spend our way out of it in
      one year. Again, you know that and I know that.

      We're proposing this budget in full recognition that just to keep
      the department going next year on a straight-line basis, with no
      improvements, just covering costs and inflation, and honest budget
      numbers, we'd need a budget of $347 billion -- another $18 billion
      increase. To get well by 2007, that is to meet current requirements in
      areas like readiness, proper flying time, training, maintenance and so
      forth, would cost the American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars
      more, and that's before calculating the additional investment that
      will be needed for transformation.

      It's an indication of the depth of the hole we're in that the
      $22.8 billion increase that the president proposes only makes a good
      dent in the shortfall that the armed forces are facing. So where do we
      find the money for the rest of the needs? We simply have to match
      these sizable spending increases with sizable increases in efficiency
      at DOD. And I've asked the department to come up with reforms and cost
      savings that we can undertake in the coming months, but we'll need
      Congress to give us greater freedom to achieve cost savings, so we can
      assure the taxpayers that we're using their dollars more efficiently,
      and we can redirect funds to urgent priorities. We simply have got to
      turn waste into weapons.

      Today we're proposing some immediate and significant savings and
      efficiencies, but we'll need help from the Congress to allow us to do

      Let me make a comment about the B-1 bomber that's been very much
      in the news. It's a 20-year-old system. It's not stealthy. It's
      designed for the Cold War. That has been headed towards expensive
      obsolescence. Last month, the Air Force proposed to modernize the
      aging B-1 fleet, turn it into a more potent weapon capable of
      contributing to 21st century security without requiring new money. It
      proposed cutting the size of the force from 93 to 60, taking the
      remaining aircraft and concentrating them in two of the largest B-1
      bases rather than the five bases where they're scattered today. The
      Air Force would then take the savings, use them to modernize the
      remaining aircraft with new precision weapons, self-protection
      systems, reliability upgrades, so that they can become viable in a
      future conflict. They are not viable in a conflict today; they're too

      Doing this would add some $1.5 billion of advance combat
      capability to today's aging B-1 fleet over the next five years without
      requiring additional dollars. It would make the B-1 force usable so
      that it could provide America the kind of all-weather, long-range
      strike capability that will be critical in the 21st century. This is
      the kind of efficiency we owe the taxpayers.

      Congressional support for the plan would send an important signal
      to all of the services and give them an incentive to find further cost
      savings by telling them that such efforts will be rewarded with freed-
      up funds to improve capabilities. Failure of this proposal would send
      a damaging signal across the defense establishment that finding ways
      to save money and increasing efficiency is a waste of time and leads
      to nothing but hostility to the Air Force.

      That's not the message we need to send, so a lot is riding on the
      decision, and we need your support and the support of Congress on this
      effort to respect the taxpayers' dollars.

      Another example, of the Peacekeeper -- I won't go into it. I've
      mentioned it in my prepared remarks. It's a system that is no longer
      needed, and the warheads will be needed, and we believe that it is an
      effective and efficient way to proceed.

      There are other cost savings. I have no desire in the world to
      enter into a round of base closing. When you get up in the morning,
      that's not the first thing you want to do. It's just a very difficult
      thing to do. It makes people unhappy. It causes anguish and angst and
      concern. But we have to do it. Everyone who talks about says we've got
      20 to 25 percent more base structure than we need. We simply cannot be
      respectful of the taxpayers' dollars and sit there toting, year after
      year, 20 to 25 percent more base structure than is required to operate
      this department. So we're going to be coming at you -- as little
      stomach as I have for it, we will be coming at you on base closings.

      I could go on, but the point is this: I've never seen an
      organization, public or private, that could not operate at something
      like 5 percent greater efficiency, but only if it has the freedom to
      do it. But it's not possible to do that at DOD, because of the
      restrictions on the department and the way it currently functions.

      So unless the department is given encouragement to turn waste
      into weapons, we will have to come to you next year asking you to
      appropriate more of the taxpayers' dollars to still -- meet still more
      urgent needs, many of which could have been paid for by finding cost

      Five percent of the DOD budget is something in excess of $15
      billion. We could do a great deal with that saving. We could pay $3
      billion needed to annually increase ship procurement from six to nine
      ships, so we could maintain a steady state, 300-plus ship Navy. We
      could cover the 1.4 billion needed annually to fund base operation
      requirements, or we could pay the entire annual cost of procuring the
      additional aircraft necessary to help meet the steady state
      requirements for Navy, Air Force, and Army aircraft. These are all
      important priorities that need to be funded, and I would certainly
      prefer to come to you next year and tell you that we've found ways to
      fund certain programs by operating more efficiently.

      Mr. Chairman, we need the support of the committee for the
      president's budget. We need every dime. We need your support for the
      proposed increases in pay and housing, the quality of life for our men
      and women in uniform. We need your support to fund the increased
      flying hours that are needed. We need your support to reduce the
      backlog of facilities, maintenance, and repair, and weapon system
      maintenance and repair for modernization, and for transformational
      research and development. But we also need your support to give us the
      freedom to move dollars from waste into more effective capabilities
      for this country.

      As I said at the outset, after a decade of underfunding and
      overworking our force, we're in a hole.

      Getting out of it will require significant, sustained investment.
      I'll feel a lot better about it coming before this committee next year
      to ask for those funds if I can tell you and the president and the
      American people that we're treating the taxpayers' monies responsibly;
      and today we are not.

      Thank you.

      REP. LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We appreciate your candor.
      I'm glad that there was nothing provocative in your remarks.

      SEC. RUMSFELD: (Laughs.)

      REP. LEWIS: General Shelton, I have not been to India since
      1965, but in my youth, I had a chance to spend a good deal of time in
      that subcontinent shortly after 1947, when it became the world's
      largest democracy, a country that continues to expand and grow. I was
      astonished, upon first having the opportunity to have this job, to
      learn that we'd had almost no significant high-level contact with the
      military in India.

      It was my understanding that you may be headed in that direction
      here shortly, presuming our schedules work out. But in the meantime,
      frankly, I've got to tell you that I'm very pleased with the fact that
      you are making that effort. I hope to follow sometime later in the
      year on a return visit myself, so I'd really appreciate your spending
      some time with me after you have a chance to return from that contact.

      So with that, General Shelton, we are very pleased to hear
      whatever you might want to present to the committee.

      GEN. SHELTON: Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'll look forward to
      it and I will get with you as soon as I get back.

      Chairman Lewis and Congressman Murtha and other distinguished
      members of this committee, it really is an honor to be with you here
      again today and to report to you on the state of America's armed
      forces. I'd like to highlight just a few key priorities and concerns
      from my written statement, which I've submitted for the record, and
      then we'll move right into your questions.

      First let me thank the Congress, and this committee in
      particular, for your significant and sustained support of our men and
      women in uniform. And let me thank you, Chairman Lewis, for your very
      kind words this morning. Thank you.

      With your help, we've made considerable progress in a lot of
      areas that directly impact the overall health and welfare of our
      troops, from the increased pay and allowances to pay table reforms, to
      TriCare reform and expanded health care coverage, to additional
      funding to provide adequate housing for our military families, and
      finally, the budget plus-ups that have enabled us to 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 preserve the long-term health and readiness of the force in the
      years to come. Together as we consider new budgets, new national
      security strategies, it's important that we also remember that the
      quality of people in our military is what is extremely important
      because they, in essence, are the critical enablers for all that we
      hope to accomplish.

      Since my last testimony before this committee, we have been
      reminded of the human element of our national security in several
      profound ways.

      Last October, the USS Cole was savagely attacked by terrorists in
      the port of Aden and 17 sailors died in that attack. Some have asked
      why would we put a ship in harm's way in such a dangerous part of the
      world? Well, that's what we do; we go into harm's way to protect
      America's interests around the globe. The sailors of the USS Cole were
      en route to the Gulf to establish our presence and to protect
      America's vital interests.

      And last December we had two U.S. Army helicopters that crashed
      during a training exercise in Hawaii. Nine soldiers died in that
      crash. And some asked, why would the Army put its soldiers into harm's
      way during a dangerous training mission in the black of night? Well,
      that's what we do, we train for the most difficult missions that we'll
      face. We must know that when America's interests are threatened, we'll
      be ready to go, day or night, because failure is not an option. We
      minimize the risks to our great men and women in uniform, but we have
      to train like we anticipate having to fight.

      A few months ago, as we all know, an unarmed EP-3 reconnaissance
      aircraft flying in the airspace over the China Sea was struck by a
      Chinese fighter and, of course, for a while we had 24 of our great
      personnel detained. Some ask why are we conducting surveillance
      against another nation? My answer to that is, "That's what we do." We
      are vigilant, we are watchful because we know that our interests and
      those of our allies in the region may be challenged and we must be ready.

      I'm very proud of the performance of these great men and women
      and the thousands of others who very proudly wear the uniform of our
      country. They have been and always will be our decisive edge. Indeed,
      they're so good at what they do, unless there's an incident or an
      accident, we rarely take notice of the contributions that they make to
      national security. They sail our ships, they fly our aircraft, they go
      on 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'd 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; our combat service support units; and our training bases,
      all of which provide critical capabilities to our war-fighting forces.
      These units are in some cases suffering the consequences of high-op
      tempo and the diversion of resources to sustain the near-term
      readiness of the first-to-fight forces.

      In fact, since 1995, DOD has experienced a 133 percent increase
      in the number of military personnel committed to joint operations. I
      mean real-world events, not exercises, and we are doing it with 9
      percent fewer people. This high operational tempo on segments of the
      force has placed an increased strain on our people.

      I believe that the fundamental cause of the situation is the
      imbalance between our national security strategy and the post-1997 QDR
      force. Fixing this imbalance during -- it's one of the key goals of
      this year's QDR and 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.

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

      And as I've mentioned in previous testimony, we made a conscious
      decision to cut procurement accounts in the 1990s and to live off the
      investments of the 1980s. This marked reduction in procurement means
      that the average age of most of our major weapons systems continues to
      increase, as highlighted by the secretary. Many of them have
      experienced or exceeded, rather, their planned service life or are
      fast approaching it.

      Let me provide you with just a few examples. Our front-line air
      superiority fighter, the F-15, averages 17 years, and it's only three
      years away from the end of its original designed service life. Our
      airborne tanker fleet and B-52 bomber force are nearly 40 years old.
      ISR, our intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft and
      electronic warfare aircraft platform, such as the RC-135, Rivet Joint,
      our EP-3s, our P-3s, and our EA-6Bs, all average between 19 and 38
      years of service. And finally, there are numerous helicopter platforms
      within the department, in all the services, and they have either
      passed or are fast approaching the end of their original designed
      service lives. In fact, most of the war-fighting platforms I've just
      mentioned meet with 25-year rule required by the great state of
      Virginia to qualify for an antique license plate.

      Our force is not aging gracefully. Today we spend significantly
      more each year to maintain our aging equipment in repair parts and
      maintenance down time and in maintenance support. And the operational
      environment and current pace of operations requires us to keep this
      equipment ready to go. But to do that, as you know, we've been
      draining resources from the very same modernization accounts that we
      should be using to buy replacement systems. If we don't replace these
      systems soon, either the force structure will shrink further, or we'll
      have to continue to maintain the same systems, which results -- is
      resulting in spiraling operations cost and maintenance cost, and also
      reduced combat capability. In my opinion, these are unacceptable
      options. The bottom line is, I don't believe that we'll be able to
      sustain our long-term readiness under these conditions.

      So what do we do? Two things. 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 a strategic blueprint and investment profile to
      help us shape our force and to carry out the new strategy.

      Another related concern is the fact that our vital infrastructure
      is decaying at an alarming rate. Budget constraints have forced us to
      make hard choices. We've had to redirect funds from military
      facilities and infrastructure accounts to support current readiness

      A quality force deserves quality facilities; therefore, I think
      it's essential that we provide the resources to reverse the
      deterioration of our post camps and stations. One way that Congress
      can directly help is to authorize a process to dispose of excess bases
      and facilities. According to a 1998 DOD BRAC report, we currently have
      23 percent excess base capacity.

      Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to focus on what I referred to
      earlier as the decisive edge, and that's our men and women in uniform.
      President Bush stated that "A volunteer military 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 -- and this starts with better pay,
      better treatment, and better training," end of quote. The president, I
      believe, has it exactly right.

      We must continue to close the significant pay gap that still
      exists between the military and the private sector. This will allow us
      to attract and retain the best and the brightest to meet our future
      needs, and we must make continued investments in health care, in
      housing and other quality-of-life programs that are essential to
      sustain a quality force.

      One of the most valued recruiting and retention tools that any
      corporation can offer its potential employees or its current workforce
      is a comprehensive medical package and, in this regard, DOD is no
      exception. 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 bonds
      of trust between Uncle Sam and our service members and retirees than
      this commitment to quality health care.

      Additionally, I would ask your support to help ensure that all of
      our men and women in uniform, single, married and unaccompanied, are
      provided with adequate housing. Unfortunately, this is not the case
      today. Currently, almost 62 percent of our family housing units are
      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 as we have learned over the years, we recruit the
      service members, but we retain the family.

      Mr. Chairman, if we are able to achieve success in the
      initiatives that I have listed, I believe we can sustain our quality
      force and ensure that America's best and brightest continue to answer
      the call to serve America.

      To sum up, I firmly believe that America has the best military in
      the world today, but let me also point out that our greatest adversary
      today, as I have said so many times in the past, is complacency. It's
      imperative that we take action today to ensure that our men and women
      in uniform are properly equipped, trained and led, and if we do so,
      I'm confident that we will prevail in the challenges ahead.

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

      REP. LEWIS: Thank you, General Shelton.

      Dr. Zakheim?

      MR. ZAKHEIM: I don't have a prepared statement, sir.

      REP. LEWIS: Thank you all very much for being with us this
      morning. Mr. Secretary, we will follow on with a good deal of
      discussion regarding what we're doing to attract and retain those fine
      men and women that General Shelton was referring to. I feel it's kind
      of my responsibility, though, to join one of the key issues that's a
      part of your budget at the outset.

      Mr. Secretary, the budget proposes spending $8.3 billion on the
      full range of ballistic missile defense programs. This is an increase
      over last year of nearly 60 percent, or $3 billion. This is an
      increase over last year of nearly 60 percent; in addition to this
      funding increase, the administration is proposing significant changes
      in policy as well as the acquisition process as it applies to the
      potential fielding of national and theater missile defense programs.

      It's clear that this new program is much more aggressive and
      complex than earlier efforts. For both national and theater missile
      defense, you are proposing multiple development programs, carried out
      in parallel with no firm commitment to any one system or approach. In
      addition, you are seeking a degree of flexibility in managing the
      development and potential acquisition of these programs, including
      broad discretion over how appropriated funds are allocated towards
      different systems. This is unprecedented in recent memory for any
      defense program.

      Finally, this missile defense program poses many challenging
      policy questions. These include, first, the need to consider modifying
      or withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, and second, the relative priority
      and value of missile defense programs are measured against other
      pressing demands, such as the department's aging infrastructure
      equipment, et cetera.

      So with that, Mr. Secretary, what is the threat that justifies
      making these changes? And we'd be very interested in your commentary
      regarding the significant increases in funding. Mr. Secretary?

      SEC. RUMSFELD: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. The intelligence
      community is unanimous in recognizing the reality that with the end of
      the Cold War and the relaxation of tension, we have seen the spread of
      ballistic missile technologies and technologies relating to weapons of
      mass destruction in many unusual places across the globe, including
      countries that -- where people are starving, countries that seem to
      have very little resources. And as a result, they have identified
      ballistic missiles, as well as other asymmetric threats, including
      cruise missiles and terrorism, and prospectively cyberattacks, as the
      kind of threats and problems that the Unite States will be facing in
      the decades ahead.

      Certainly the Gulf War persuaded people that competing with
      Western armies, navies, and air forces wasn't very wise. And as a
      result, it is an awful lot cheaper and relatively easy for these
      countries to attempt to and in fact succeed in gaining ballistic
      missiles and cruise missiles and weapons of mass destruction.

      So the threat is real. It's growing. The numbers of countries
      with ballistic missiles is increasing every year. The numbers of total
      ballistic missiles on the face of the Earth are increasing every year.
      And the destructive power of these weapons is increasing.

      The United States some years ago was the target of a ballistic
      missile, and a number of Americans were killed and wounded in Saudi
      Arabia, at Dhahran.

      Now as to the size of the missile defense budget, it is a
      research and development and testing budget. It is not a deployment

      It is a lot of the taxpayers' money. On the other hand, the
      Defense Department currently is receiving something less than 3
      percent of the gross national product of the United States, and the
      missile defense budget is, in total, less than 2.5 percent of the
      defense budget. And the non-theater ballistic missile portion of it is
      about 1-1/2 percent of the defense budget. So while any numbers of
      billions of dollars are large in terms of the taxpayers' money, as a
      percentage, it is a very small fraction of what the Department of
      Defense is spending.

      REP. LEWIS: Mr. Secretary, it's my intention to stay very close
      to the five-minute rule, because of everybody's schedule today. You
      did not bring yourself to address, however, the question of the ABM

      It would appear --

      SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, my apologies. Yes, indeed.

      The treaty exists. The United States does not make a practice of
      violating treaties, and we certainly don't intend to here. The
      president and President Putin have agreed that there will be
      discussions between our two countries in the weeks and months
      immediately ahead. The president has announced publicly, unambiguously
      and repeatedly that he intends to find and establish some sort of a
      framework beyond the ABM Treaty, which is a 30-year old treaty that
      prohibits ballistic missile defense. The president intends to have
      ballistic missile defense to protect the population centers of the
      United States as well as of our friends and allies and deployed forces.

      The treaty was designed explicitly to prohibit ballistic missile
      defense. Needless to say, if you want to have ballistic missile
      defense, you're going to have to find a way to get beyond that treaty.
      And that is what those discussions are about. That is what the
      president opened with his counterpart from Russia. I've met with the
      minister of defense of Russia, Secretary Powell has met with the
      foreign minister of Russia on these subjects, and we intend to be in
      close discussion with them in the weeks and months immediately ahead.

      REP. LEWIS: Mr. Secretary, I appreciate very much your response.

      Let me mention to you that I've spent a little time reviewing in
      some depth the work of the commission that you chaired so ably that
      dealt with this subject area. I personally feel strongly that you are
      addressing a subject forthrightly here that's critical to America's
      interests, and the committee looks forward to working with you in
      connection with that.

      Mr. Murtha?

      REP. MURTHA: Thank you.

      Mr. Secretary, I'm one of the strongest supporters of missile
      defense. What I caution you, and I know that you understand, that
      research is the key to the success of the program. I went over to --
      the committee went over to Korea a couple years ago. We rushed THAD to
      failure. We put so much money in they couldn't spend it, and they
      rushed the program and it didn't work out A couple years ago, we
      slowed down the F-22 program because we felt like they were rushing it
      to failure. The V-22 program, we've had to do the same thing. So I
      appreciate what you're saying about putting the money in research
      before we start to deploy the program.

      One of the things you said about general provisions -- which we
      call general provisions, you call restrictions on the Defense
      Department. (Laughter.)

      SEC. RUMSFELD: (Laughs.) Where you stand depends on where you sit.

      REP. MURTHA: The vice president, when he was secretary of
      Defense, called the committee. He said, "We've got to get rid of these
      general provisions" Staff went over them and I think we eliminated
      about 65 percent. Well, he called me back. He says, "The lawyers say
      we have to have them." So I hope we can work closely together because
      an awful lot of these general provisions are necessary for you to do

      SEC. RUMSFELD: Right.

      REP. MURTHA: And so when I talk about general provisions, we're
      trying to help you, not hurt you.

      One of the other things that we keep failing to mention, tempo of
      operations, the exercise tempo of operations is as important as
      anything else we do. These folks come off a -- or come off a
      deployment, and they come back and then they go on an exercise. The
      same people do it over and over and over again. And one of the things
      we have to try is to reduce that exercise tempo of operation at the
      same time.

      Health care. I appreciate what you're saying about funding health
      care. I just hope the department doesn't come up with a plan that
      really is inadequate as far as health care for our retirees. And I
      know we'ave had some discussions about that in the past.

      I want to mention that when Vice President Cheney was secretary
      of Defense, he said that the defense budget should never get below 4
      percent of the gross domestic product. Well, of course, we're well
      below 4 percent. And the threat has changed some, but still, we're
      struggling with the amount of money we have available.

      One other thing I just want to mention is the DD-21. I worry that
      there's not enough people on that. I've heard General Shelton say that
      he's trying to reduce the number of people, but when you look at the
      Cole and the accident we had in the Cole -- the incident we had in the
      Cole, it wasn't an accident, the terrorist attack, and the fact that
      if we hadn't had the number of people -- I don't know what the right
      number is, but I just worry that 95, if 35 of them were killed in an
      incident, we'd need more people on that ship. So I think you have to
      look at that when you make the decision about what is going to happen
      with the 21.

      And I appreciate what General Shelton said about pay, because
      every place I've gone, General, that's the thing they talk about the
      most. We did make some changes in redux because of complaints. This
      committee was in the forefront on pay and always has been. So I
      appreciate -- I know how painful it is to come and -- not waste your
      time testifying before the Congress, but I know how many times you
      testify and how impatient you get testifying before us. But we look
      forward to working with you on all these very, very delicate issues.

      SEC. RUMSFELD: If I may, Mr. Chairman.

      Congressman Murtha, thank you so much. We'll be delighted to work
      with you on the general provisions and see if we can't find the right
      ones that can enable us to have some more flexibility.

      With respect to health care, one of the problems we have is we
      have made every effort to arrange to see that this budget is going to
      fully fund that. The problem is there is no experience in the world
      with anybody doing what we're proposing to do here, so there are not
      actuarial tables that can help us.

      With respect to the 4 percent of GDP, when I came to Washington
      it was 10 percent during the Eisenhower and Kennedy period. And then
      it was about 5 percent when I was secretary of Defense 25 years ago.
      Four percent made a lot of sense when Dick was -- Vice President
      Cheney was there. We're dropping below 3 percent. And there's no
      question but that we have to get ourselves arranged so that we are
      taking proper care of the force and so that the force is being
      fashioned to fit the 21st century.

      REP. MURTHA: Mr. Secretary, I just want to add that the
      direction you're going is absolutely right. The two-front strategy
      hadn't been in effect for 15 years. We couldn't fight a two-front war
      unless it was Haiti and a big war. (Laughter.) So you're going in
      exactly the right direction, and I appreciate the difficulties and
      decisions you're trying to make.

      SEC. RUMSFELD: Thank you very much, I appreciate that. I wish it
      were more unanimous! (Laughs.)

      REP. J. LEWIS: You don't have that problem within this
      committee, Mr. Secretary.

      SEC. RUMSFELD: No, sir!

      REP. J. LEWIS: Mr. Skeen?

      REP. JOE SKEEN (R-NM): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

      We've got the burner going on this thing so somebody's covering
      this group of people up here. We've got the line here.

      Mr. Secretary, the KEA SAT will be ready for flight test and
      experiment next year. Does OSD support conducting the flight experiment?

      SEC. RUMSFELD: I'd have to get back to you for the record on that.

      REP. SKEEN: Well, we're presenting this to you so you won't have
      anything to do when you're sleeping at night or anything, we've got
      all this stuff. But thank you.

      SEC. RUMSFELD: Thank you.

      REP. SKEEN: Cruise missile detection. Last month, ABC News and
      several newspapers reported on the European progress with passive
      radar to detect stealthy cruise missiles. Would you support having our
      Army, Air Force, our air defense experts to experiment on the
      potential for this technology?

      SEC. RUMSFELD: Mr. Congressman, I think I'd rather talk in a
      closed session on the subject of cruise missiles.

      REP. SKEEN: That's fine. We can do that. I just wanted you to be
      aware of it. I have Holloman on my agenda and they're very interested
      in it.

      Mr. Secretary, the civilian computer networks that are critical
      to the economy are subject to information warfare. Are the DOD and NSA
      and our university researchers being coordinated effectively to
      address this?

      SEC. RUMSFELD: I wish I could say confidently and affirmatively
      yes, but the reality is that we have a good distance to go on
      information -- our information capabilities and our networks and the
      protection of those networks. And there are elements in the department
      that are reviewing that, and as a matter of fact, I received a
      briefing on it within the last week -- (to General Shelton) -- didn't
      we, General? --

      GEN. SHELTON: Yes, sir.

      SEC. RUMSFELD: -- and we have a distance to go.

      REP. SKEEN: Mr. Secretary, tracking mobile targets is the most
      difficult problem that we have. And the enemy's very long-range anti-
      aircraft missiles will make our architectures obsolete that use large

      When will UAV and space-based counterparts to these aircraft
      needs be deployed?

      SEC. RUMSFELD: We have, in this budget, in the R&D and the S&T
      sections, proposed to accelerate some work with respect to UAVs. There
      is no question but that despite the fact that they're a relatively
      recent entry into the inventory, UAVs are in enormous demand. And
      they're what we call the high-demand/low-density assets, and we've got
      several categories of them that we need to fund considerably better
      than we have in the recent years.

      GEN. SHELTON: If I might add, though, Congressman Skeen, we also
      have recognized the importance of being able to detect and track
      mobile targets, and that has been one of Joint Forces Command's first
      large experiments that they have ongoing at this time; with some
      payoff, I might add.

      REP. SKEEN: We appreciate you being at White Sands, there.

      GEN. SHELTON: Thank you, sir.

      REP. SKEEN: Let me just cite this part of it. Mr. Secretary, the
      F-117 Stealth fighters from Holloman Air Force Base are dependent on
      tankers to rapidly deploy. How will we meet the greatly increased
      demands on our tanker fleet to support our new strategy for rapid
      deployment and long-range strike?

      SEC. RUMSFELD: The tanker question is one that's under review in
      the QDR at the present -- excuse me for using that jargon -- in the
      Quadrennial Defense Review which was mandated by Congress -- and we
      are currently looking at the tanker issue. And there is no question
      but that it, along with airlift, will have to be addressed as we
      develop the 2003 budget in this fall.

      REP. SKEEN: (Inaudible.)

      GEN. SHELTON: If I could just add, Congressman Skeen, as you
      probably noticed on Desert Fox and Allied Force, the operation in
      Kosovo, the air bridge and the support of the tankers were critical to
      that throughout both operations, and they did a magnificent job even
      though, as I indicated, they are old and aging and, as the secretary
      said, we're having to go back and relook at the program for them. But
      they perform magnificently on a daily basis, even if they are old

      REP. SKEEN: Well, I appreciate the concentration that you've had
      on it.

      Mr. Chairman, that's --

      REP. LEWIS: Mr. Dicks?

      REP. NORMAN DICKS (D-WA): Thank you. Mr. Secretary and General
      Shelton, I want to go back to this question about the money. "Jerry
      McGuire" said, "Show me the money."

      You know, we've had some studies that were done by very prominent
      people. I think Jack -- (inaudible) -- was on one group that said we
      -- what was it --

      REP. : And Warner.

      REP. : Yeah. So was I on it.

      REP. : Yeah.

      REP. DICKS: -- we needed $60 billion a year more. And Harold
      Brown (sp) and Schlesinger called for an increase of $50 billion
      annually. Now, Mr. Secretary, the other day you had us over, and we
      appreciated that very much, and you went through and kind of added up
      what was necessary to really do this budget correctly, and it was
      significantly more than the $18 billion that we're talking about in
      the increase in '02 budget. I mean, I think it's important for you to
      tell the American people in your own personal and professional
      opinion, you and General Shelton, what you think we need to have in
      order to deal with not only the very important quality- of-life
      issues, but transformation and modernization. I mean, what do you
      think that the number is that would help us deal with the problems
      that really face the country in terms of transformation and

      SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, Congressman Dicks, in my prepared statement
      I discussed some of that, and in my statement before the Armed
      Services Committee I have laid out a whole series of areas that have
      been underfunded year after year after year by the United States

      REP. DICKS: Right.

      SEC. RUMSFELD: There is no way on the face of the Earth we're
      going to dig out of the hole we're in, in one year. It will take a
      series of years. And it is unambiguous that they overshot the peace
      dividend by a significant margin.

      We are currently recapitalizing infrastructure in the Pentagon at
      192 years. The private sector appropriate rate is something like 57 to
      67 years' recapitalization. Now you don't get that right fast. It
      takes some time.

      Our shipbuilding budget is headed down to 130 -- 230 ships. It's
      currently at 310 or so.

      REP. DICKS: But let's --

      SEC. RUMSFELD: And year after year of not building sufficient
      ships has put us on a trajectory that is clearly unacceptable for this

      REP. DICKS: But you know, here's a great article in the Weekly
      Standard, "No defense." "Here's some unsolicited advice for two old
      friends, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz: resign."

      I mean, in other words, I think you've tried to do your best to
      go down to the White House and ask for the money that's necessary to
      get this job done, but you've been turned down. And they have said
      they will not give you the money.

      As we're told, you asked for like $38 billion, and they give --
      and OMB said you'll only get 15 (billion), and you wound up with 18
      (billion). And we appreciate the fact that you got the 18 (billion).

      But what I worry about is, if you, as secretary of Defense, and
      General Shelton know that the country is underfunding the defense
      budget, then why can't we convince the president and OMB, which seems
      to be running this government, that we've got to have a significant
      increase, or we're going to let America's military capability
      deteriorate? That is unacceptable.

      SEC. RUMSFELD: Mr. Congressman, the country has known we've been
      underfunding the defense budget year after year after year. This is
      nothing new. I just arrived. I walk in, walk in the front door, turn
      around, look under every rock, and every one of them says, "We need 3
      billion more. We need 6 billion more here. We need 5 billion more
      there." You can't do it all in one year. It is not possible.

      REP. DICKS: I understand, but -- okay, I understand that. But
      would $38 billion have been a more realistic number for '02 than 18
      (billion), in terms of the problems that we're facing?

      I'm with you. I agree with what you're trying to tell the country
      -- that we're significantly underfunding defense.

      Now I've been here for 21 years on this committee. Maybe it's
      even longer than that. And I'll tell you, I've heard everybody say
      we're going to do it by -- oh, by improving procurement and doing all
      that, and I'm with you on that. I agree with you. But I don't think
      we're going to solve this problem without a significant increase in
      funding. I think you've said that. I think your statement says that. I
      mean, you just didn't add it up.

      SEC. RUMSFELD: Mr. Congressman, this is a significant increase.
      It's the biggest increase since the mid-1980s. It is --

      REP. DICKS: But if it isn't enough to get the job done, Mr.
      Secretary, what -- we're not fooling each other --

      SEC. RUMSFELD: You can't do it all in one year. It is not
      physically possible. Second --

      REP. DICKS: But you got to start with a single step that's
      significant. And the thing that frustrates us here --

      SEC. RUMSFELD: This is a single step.

      REP. DICKS: -- and I'm a good Democrat, but when I heard Mr.
      Cheney say, properly, during the campaign, that we needed to do more
      on defense, that help was on the way, I thought we were going to see
      something significant, like when Ronald Reagan was elected president,
      Ronald Reagan increased the defense budget. And we did it
      significantly, and it addressed the problems.

      And in 1991, when this -- when Cheney and Powell had to go to the
      war, we had a military capability that was sufficient to get the job

      Now, what we're seeing here today is we're allowing the
      deterioration of America's military capability, because we're not
      doing transformation right, we're not doing modernization right. And I
      say this with all due respect. I hope that you would be successful in
      your dealings with the administration, but apparently that isn't
      happening. And I think we have to be honest.

      General Shelton, what do you think?

      SEC. RUMSFELD: Wait a second. You're not going to lay that on me
      and not let me answer, are you? (Laughter.)

      REP. DICKS: Oh, of course not.

      SEC. RUMSFELD: Look. This budget does not continue the
      deterioration. This budget reverses the deterioration that's been
      going on for year after year after year. It is a significant step

      REP. DICKS: But not in transformation and not in modernization,
      Mr. Secretary. You say it in your -- you go through every category and
      say what we're short of. We didn't get it! We didn't get the help we
      needed we needed in transformation. We didn't get the help we needed
      in modernization.

      SEC. RUMSFELD: When you say let's be honest, that testimony you
      received from me is as honest as anyone can be. I have laid it right
      out there.

      REP. DICKS: Exactly. And that's why I'm saying, if you've laid
      it out, why doesn't the White House get it?

      SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, they do, and they gave us the biggest
      increase in 16 years, and a 7 percent increase, and walking away the
      largest increase of any department or agency. And we are completing
      our quadrennial -- congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense
      Review. The conclusions out of that will have additional
      recommendations for transformation. There are transformation aspects
      in this budget. And when we come out with that, as the chairman
      indicated, it will be arriving at a tine when we're developing that
      '03 budget. And you will see a number of things.

      Frankly, I don't want to fix all the infrastructure in the
      defense establishment, because as I said, we've got 20 to 25 percent
      more infrastructure than we need. It would make no sense to go out
      there and try and fix all of it.

      REP. DICKS: General Shelton?

      GEN. SHELTON: Congressman Dicks, first of all let me say that I
      think that today our armed forces, which help define America as a
      global power and help protect our national interests around the globe,
      I think are one of the greatest investments that Americans have. Three
      cents on the dollar. That's what we're paying for everything in DOD.
      When you put it in terms of $320 billion, it sounds like a lot. It's
      still three cents on the dollar in this economy that we have today, at
      the lowest point of any time since before World War II.

      We have some very significant challenges that the secretary and I
      have addressed and as I talked about today, with aging force
      structure, with aging infrastructure, deteriorating infrastructure. We
      all know that we're not going to be able to make significant inroads
      into fixing the modernization and the transformation and the
      infrastructure at three cents on the dollar. Exactly how much it's
      going to take, I think, we've all seen the CBO, Congressional Budget
      reports reports. We've seen the independent studies that have been
      looked at, that range f<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.