Изображения страниц

as the North's leadership maintains its reliance on the military to sustain the security of the Kim Regime and ensure North Korea's regional position.

Between the early and mid 1990s, economic distress and social turmoil eroded readiness and overall military capabilities of the North Korean military in Cold War terms, but not in 21st century threat terms. The North has learned by studying us and through a methodical readiness and force improvement program that continues today. This program includes measures such as increased training of key units; movement of large numbers of artillery assets forward; expansion and upgrading of its ballistic missile inventory; creation of new units in the forward area; command and control enhancements; acquisition and production of limited quantities of new weapons systems; and equipment such as submarines, tanks and artillery.

40. Senator Santorum. General Schwartz, do you have any reason to believe the current regime in North Korea has severed links to terrorist organizations?

General Schwartz. We have detected no North Korean direct links with active terrorist groups. However, it continues to provide sanctuary to terrorists of the Japanese Red Army (JRA). These terrorists had hijacked a plane to North Korea over two decades ago. While the JRA itself is no longer an active terrorist group of concern to the U.S., these terrorists and North Korea's assistance in allowing them to elude justice remain a lasting concern. We consider that the expulsion of these terroists would constitute a credible action by North Korea that it no longer supports terrorism. However, we do have credible information that North Korea continues to sell missiles and other weapons to countries in the Middle East and Africa that do directly support terrorism.

[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the committee adjourned.]




U.S. Senate,
Committee On Armed Services,

Washington, DC.


The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m. in room SH216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin (chairman) presiding.

Committee members present: Senators Levin, Cleland, Landrieu, Reed, Akaka, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, Carnahan, Warner, McCain, Inhofe, Roberts, Allard, Hutchinson, Sessions, and Collins.

Committee staff members present: David S. Lyles, staff director; and Christine E. Cowart, chief clerk.

Majority staff members present: Daniel J. Cox, Jr., professional staff member; Madelyn R. Creedon, counsel; Creighton Greene, professional staff member; Jeremy L. Hekhuis, professional staff member; Maren Leed, professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; Peter K. Levine, general counsel; and Michael McCord, professional staff member.

Minority staff members present: Judith A. Ansley, Republican staff director; Edward H. Edens IV, professional staff member; Gary M. Hall, professional staff member; Carolyn M. Hanna, professional staff member; Mary Alice A. Hayward, professional staff member; Ambrose R. Hock, professional staff member; George W. Lauffer, professional staff member; Thomas L. MacKenzie, professional staff member; Joseph T. Sixeas, professional staff member; Scott W. Stucky, minority counsel; and Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel.

Staff assistants present: Leah C. Brewer, Daniel K. Goldsmith, Andrew Kent, and Nicholas W. West.

Committee members' assistants present: Frederick M. Downey, assistant to Senator Lieberman; Andrew Vanlandingham, assistant to Senator Cleland; Marshall A. Hevron and Jeffrey S. Wiener, assistants to Senator Landrieu; Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed; Davelyn Noelani Kalipi and Richard Kessler, assistants to Senator Akaka; William K. Sutey, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Neal Orringer, assistant to Senator Carnahan; Brady King, assistant to Senator Dayton; Benjamin L. Cassidy, assistant to Senator Warner; Christopher J. Paul, assistant to Senator McCain; John A. Bonsell, assistant to Senator Inhofe; George M. Bernier III, assistant to Senator Santorum; Robert Alan McCurry, assistant to Senator Roberts; Douglas Flanders, assistant to Senator Allard; James P. Dohoney, Jr., assistant to Senator Hutchinson; Arch Galloway II, assistant to Senator Sessions; Kristine Fauser, assistant to Senator Collins; and Derek Maurer, assistant to Senator Bunning.


Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody. The committee meets to receive testimony from the chiefs of the military services on the fiscal year 2003 budget request. General Shinseki, Admiral Clark, General Jones, and General Jumper, we welcome you back to this committee. We have had a long tradition of receiving frank and candid advice from our senior military leaders on national security issues, and we look forward to your testimony this morning.

As we meet today, U.S. Armed Forces are deployed around the globe meeting new commitments in Afghanistan, the Philippines, and other places, and fulfilling longstanding commitments in Korea and Germany. The loss of life in Afghanistan this week is a vivid reminder of the risks that our men and women in uniform take when we send them in harm's way. Their courage is inspiring, their commitment to their mission is total, and our debt to them is immense. Their performance is also a tribute to the entire leadership of the Department of Defense, including our witnesses today, because that performance depends on the training and equipment that the services are responsible for providing.

Some of the systems that are essential to today's forces are recent acquisitions, such as the unmanned aerial vehicles which have been in use only a few years. Many have been in our inventories for decades. The investments that we make today in this budget are needed to ensure that our military is as prepared for future wars as it has proven to be for Operation Enduring Freedom. For this reason, we will be particularly interested in the trade-offs that this budget makes between investments in our legacy forces and investments in military transformation and the basis on which the services are recommending these trade-offs.

The administration's budget request for fiscal year 2003 includes the largest proposed increase in military spending in two decades, $48 billion more than the amounts provided for during the current fiscal year. I remain concerned that this increase comes without a comprehensive strategy or a detailed plan to guide that spending. The administration has not yet submitted its national security strategy, which is required to be submitted annually with the budget by section 603 of the Goldwater-Nichols Act. That was a provision which Senator Warner authored and which this committee has strongly supported.

The Department has not issued any military strategy to the best of my knowledge, nor has the Secretary of Defense submitted his annual report to the President and Congress, which is required by section 113 of Title 10 to be submitted annually with the budget, and the Department has not yet submitted a Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), which is also required to be submitted annually with the budget by section 221 of Title 10.

I am sure that our witnesses today recognize the difficulty that this committee faces in assessing whether we are funding the right programs and are setting the right priorities in the absence of that strategy or detailed plans for the size, structure, or shape of our military. Our hearings so far this year have revealed that despite the $48 billion increase proposed in the 2003 budget, that there are important areas where this budget does not meet the future needs of our military services.

For instance, even as the Navy's budget is going up substantially, the number of ships in the budget is going down. This budget would build 17 ships over the next 3 years, compared to the 23 ships in the shipbuilding plan of the last administration for the same period.

The military construction budget request is 25 percent below last year's level. This amount is sufficient to recapitalize our facilities every 120 years, almost double the Department's goal of a 67-year replacement cycle, and our witnesses today have indicated that they have other unfunded priorities such as force protection, antiterrorism, and even personnel strength. So with this large increase in defense spending this still brings us back to the question of priorities.

America's Armed Forces are performing superbly in their fight against terrorism. The creativity and ingenuity we have seen in the campaign against al Qaeda in Afghanistan shows that our military leadership resisted the temptation to fight the last war. They are fighting today's war, and now we in Congress must resist the temptation to fund the last war. That is, to add money to this budget for programs that are a holdover from the Cold War and do not help build the kind of military that we need to meet the threats of the 21st century. We will continue to do, as a committee, all in our power to ensure that our Armed Forces have the right resources, tools, and technologies to meet those threats.

Senator Warner.


Senator Warner. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, so that we can move ahead, I am going to ask to include my statement in the record and I will just make a few observations.

First, I certainly join you in expressing my sympathy and gratitude to those families who are grieving today for the loss of their loved ones and for those injured. I am going to comment at the end of my remarks about a period in history 57 years ago, to give some perspective to the contributions that have been made through halfa-century by the men and women of the Armed Forces to maintain the freedom of this country.

Each year, our committee looks forward to this important hearing, and with no disrespect to the concept of civilian management of the Department of Defense, there has to be in any system checks and balances, and traditionally the chiefs have come before Congress and given that perspective. I join my chairman in asking each of you today to give us not only your professional views, but also your personal views, which each of you agreed to do at the time of your confirmation. In that way, we can get at times a different perspective from that presented by the civilian control of the Department of Defense. That civilian control, of course, is key. It goes back to the very beginning of our history, and yesterday Secretary Rumsfeld came to the Senate and met privately with, I believe, 70 Senators. He spent an hour-and-a-half and responded to each and every question asked by those present.

I stayed from the beginning until the very end. It was a full coverage of all aspects of the operation now in the Afghan area of responsibility (AOR) and in other parts of the world. He clearly enunciated the goals of President Bush, a very courageous President.

At this critical time in our history I think he is surprising the world with the brilliance of his leadership and the strong conviction he has about the need to rid the world of terrorism. Your men and women of the Armed Forces are right there in the front lines, and also a number of other nations are very much involved in this operation. For various reasons, we cannot give all the details on it, but the American public, and especially the Muslim world, should understand this is not the U.S. versus the Muslim world, this is the free world versus small, unrepresentative elements of the Muslim world, and we are joined by an extraordinary coalition of forces in this engagement.

Our committee has a very heavy responsibility this year. We face the largest increase percentagewise in defense spending since Ronald Reagan was President and we are going to go about that in a very careful and methodical way. First, we will start with the oversight, and then with other means to hopefully convince all members of the Senate that this budget submitted by this courageous President is the one that we need at this time, not only for the projection of our forces abroad to deter attack, but for our homeland defense, the President's highest priority, this Senator's highest priority, and each of you in various ways are participating in that.

In my judgment, not since World War II has this Nation been so unified behind its President, the men and women in uniform, and the vast array of civilians who work directly to support the men and women in uniform in your respective departments. We are exceedingly grateful to all.

Further, this war has truly been a joint operation. That has been a goal we have been trying to achieve for many years. I think at long last we go onto the battlefields, onto the ships, and into the air in every respect proud of the various units and respective services, but fully accepting joint responsibility to prosecute this very difficult war.

Lastly, these past 2 weeks, as I visited with families and others that have been hit by these casualty situations, and as I traveled through my state talking to my constituents about this conflict, I remind them of our history, of what has gone before us. Every casualty, one single individual, is a frightful loss to our Nation, to their families, and to their services. I remember so well 57 years ago in that period in history when two great battles raged between the United States and our adversaries in Europe and in the Pacific.

Take the Battle of Iwo Jima: in 30 days from February 19, 1945, until March 26, 1945, the total American casualties were 25,851, with 6,800 dead and 19,000 wounded. That was in the Pacific. In Europe, during the Battle of the Bulge, from December 16, 1944 to January 19, 1945, approximately 83,000 of the Eighth Corps were

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »