Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on FY2004 Defense Authorization

FDCH TRANSCRIPTS
Congressional Hearings
Feb. 13, 2003
Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on FY2004 Defense Authorization

REED:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, Mr. Secretary, let me commend you for your representation of our country at Wehrkunde.

RUMSFELD:

Thank you.

REED:

You had not only remarkable eloquence, but remarkable restraint, and both were noted.

(LAUGHTER)

RUMSFELD:

I'm not noted for restraint.

REED:

I agree.

(LAUGHTER)

As we all understand, the American public is terribly concerned about the developments around the globe and even within the United States, with the heightened alert, with conflicts potentially in the Persian Gulf, with a war on terror, and they're also a bit confused. And as I go back to my home state of Rhode Island, one of the confusing elements is the apparent disparate treatment between the threat posed by Iraq and the threat posed by North Korea.

North Korea has a military force capable of a surprise attack; clearly, Iraq does not. North Korea has as ejected U.N. inspectors; Iraq grudgingly, reluctantly and non-cooperatively has allowed them into their country. And our response to the North Korean situation has been to refer to the United Nations; our response to the Iraq situation has been to, we hope, encourage the United Nations' enforcement, but are prepared to go it along.

And I wonder, Mr. Secretary, since you are responsible for the military planning, are we discounting a more serious threat posed by North Korea, the threat that they will within weeks have nuclear weapons or marketable plutonium because of our concentration, preoccupation with Iraq?

And secondly, what can we do right now with respect to North Korea to try to moderate their behavior?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REED:

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Let me raise another issue which is related to North Korea, because reports today indicate that they have a missile capability that could reach the West Coast of the United States, which underscores the importance of developing and deploying an effective missile defense system.

REED:

You have indicated in your budget that you have proposed a limited deployment. And I think in response to Senator Levin, you said that this will be done without operational testing.

The first question I have is, can I assume that you will conduct operational testing, even though it will come after deployment?

RUMSFELD:

Of course. I don't even know that it's correct to say it will be deployed without operational testing. I think this is an unusual situation. And I would characterize what we have proposed as simultaneously a test bed as well as a minimal deployment. It is both things. And the words are hot-button words, because the testing is required before deployment, but not before a test bed. And yet the reality is the test bed offers a deployable minimal capability.

REED:

I agree with you, Mr. Secretary, in terms of these are hot-button words. And that's why I think it's very careful to pick words carefully. The last missile test in the course was a failure. There have been great successes with some failures. It's still a very (inaudible) system.

RUMSFELD:

Exactly.

REED:

We need a booster rocket; that has not yet been integrated in the system. My suggestion was that using the word "deployment" gives it a little more credibility, the system as it exists today, than in fact it has.

RUMSFELD:

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Let me tell you the dilemma I went through.

On the one hand, if you called it a deployment, it has a greater deterrent effect, one would think. If you call it a deployment, when in fact it is very minimal and would—it is what it is, then it's overstating it.

If you call it a test bed, someone who is against deployment is going to call it a deployment, because the reality is it has a minimal capability. And then they're going to say you put it out there to test it before you deployed it before you tested it. So no matter which way we went, someone wasn't going to like it.

And my attitude is, we've got an obligation. It is a fact—George Tenet declassified it yesterday, as I understand it—that the North Koreans very likely do have a two-stage with a kick motor capability which could reach the United States. We also assess that they have a limited number of nuclear weapons. Now, that's not a happy combination. Having that test bed quote, "deployed/minimally deployed system," is not a bad thing, I'd say.

REED:

Thank you for your responses and your restraint.