COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, at the same time that we are deploying troops around the globe for the war against terrorism, as well as to prepare for a potential war in Iraq, we have a number of existing deployments that continue to require extensive resources to maintain. We have, for example, some 37,000 troops in Korea and more than 70,000 troops in Germany. With the increasing demands on our military, I believe that it is time for us to re-evaluate the need for those existing deployments. For instance, our large presence in Germany is largely a legacy of the Cold War, and arguably that threat no longer exists. My question is, is the department re-examining the need for large deployments in Germany and Korea?
RUMSFELD: Senator, the president asked me when he asked me to serve as secretary of defense to review our defense posture and our circumstance around the world. We have been doing that. There''s no question but that the arrangement of our current force deployments have an advantage in that they are forward-deployed and they serve to reassure the world and the nations that we have the ability to deter and defend against various types of threats. It is quite clear to me that you''re correct, that the deployments we have, for example, in Korea, which is one of the places you mentioned, can be reviewed in cooperation with the South Korean government. And as a matter of fact, the new president of South Korea has suggested that we look at our relationship and see that we rebalance it in some way. And I''ve accepted that invitation. We had previously been looking at it on a private basis, a unilateral basis. And General LaPorte has been working on it now for many months. And we''ll very soon--as soon as the new government''s in place--begin somewhat more formal discussions about how we can assure the defense of the peninsula and still have--for one thing, I''d like to see a number of our forces move away for the Seoul area and from the area near the defense DMZ and be more oriented toward an air hub and a sea hub with the ability to reinforce so that there''s still a strong deterrent, and possibly with our improved capabilities of moving people, some of those forces come back home. And we''ll see. Now, General Jones in Europe is doing the same thing. There''s no question but that right now, for example, we''re trying to move some forces from Germany down to Italy. And Austria''s causing a difficulty with respect to moving the forces through Austria by rail, which means we may have to go up to Rotterdam or possibly by train through two or three or four countries instead of directly. Therefore, it''s clear it''s better for us probably not to have such a heavy concentration. I think it would, however, be a mistake to suggest that either of those possible changes, which would be undertaken in close consultation with our allies over a reasonable period of time, it would be a mistake to suggest that if we do end up reducing some of those forces or moving them to other countries that it had anything to do with our relationships with those countries, because it simply doesn''t. It is something that we''ve been involved in over many, many months now and are in the process of working with other countries on.
COLLINS: I''d now like to turn to the shipbuilding budget; that''ll probably come as no surprise to you. I''m pleased that the ''04 budget submission appears to turn the corner on shipbuilding and it is a marked improvement over last year. However, even with budgeting for seven ships, the Navy''s fleet is still going to drop, as you indicated, below 300 ships in the coming years. The chief of naval operations has repeatedly testified, and I talked to him just recently, that our nation requires a fleet of 375 ships in order to fulfill all of the Navy''s mission requirements. Now, I appreciate your testimony that you don''t want to lock the department into a shipbuilding program until you''re certain what kinds of ships you need and what the mix should be. But how are you going to remedy the deficit we have in coming years if we don''t start making more of that investment now? And again, I applaud you for putting seven ships in. That''s a big improvement over a five of last year, but it still is not at the rate we need, which is more like 10 or 11 ships a year.
RUMSFELD: Senator, this is a tough area, as you know, and we are, as we said, pleased that the numbers are coming up. We''re disappointed that the total number of ships are going to drop below 300 for a period and then be back up by the end of the forward year defense plan. The CNO is an enormously able man and is doing a superb job for the country, Vernon Clark. I know he''s testified to the number of 375 for a number of years, if I''m not mistaken. We have a group of people that are looking at doing a shipbuilding study and analyzing not just numbers, but importantly, types of ships and capabilities of ships, lethality; what they bring. And that study--I don''t know when it''ll be through. You''re involved in it, Dov.
ZAKHEIM: Yes. Senator, we''re looking specifically at issues like amphibious shipping, forcible entry and also underwater requirements. And as you know, Senator, we''ve got research and development money for a new littoral combat ship, and that''s why we have some confidence that as the numbers begin to really go up in the out-years--you know, there are 14 by ''09--that those are real numbers because those ships are going to be much less expensive.
COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I have more if you want me to keep going. (LAUGHTER)