STATEMENT OF R. THOMAS BUFFENBARGER
INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS
PRESENTED AT THE NATIONAL
PRESS CLUB
WASHINGTON, DC
JULY 20, 2001
When it comes to the
views of the labor movement in general --- and of my union in particular
--- there are people in this city (and maybe even in this room) who believe
the conventional wisdom.
On labor, they've read
the headlines.
On all the great issues
of our times, they assume that they know where labor --- and the Machinists
in particular --- are going to be.
I understand that.
If you've ever covered
the labor movement, I'm sure you know that I have the honor of serving
as International President of one of this country's toughest, strongest
and most progressive unions.
Over a period of many
years, the men and women of the IAM have earned for themselves a title.
They call us "the fighting
Machinists."
And let me tell you
--- we're damn proud of it.
We're Bill Winpisinger's
union --- and we know where we stand.
With passion, we're
for civil rights and for women's rights. We are pro-environment and pro-consumer.
We want to strengthen public education at every level. And we're not about
to sit still for any effort by anyone to turn back the clock.
None of this, I am
sure, comes as any surprise to you.
But here's something
that might.
There's one major
issue --- National Missile Defense --- on which we strongly disagree with
some of our best friends in the Senate and the House.
Let me explain.
Machinists number over
half million highly skilled workers.
We're the folks who
actually build the world's most sophisticated high tech products.
For example?
I myself spent fifteen
years working at the GE jet engine plant near Cincinnati.
At first hand, I witnessed
the evolution of an exceptionally complex technology.
By the time I left
that plant, the engines we built were performing at levels that once seemed
out of reach. To get it right took years and years.
When I think back on
it --- well, it's just tremendously impressive.
Our Machinists today
are out there on the cutting edge of technology.
They are smart ---
experienced --- savvy.
They do not miss a
trick.
And when Machinists
--- and I am talking here about lots of Machinists from lots of different
places --- say that big things are happening in missile defense technology,
I know that I'd better listen up --- and so should you.
What are they telling
me?
Well, we don't have
in this union a whole lot of Pollyannas.
Our members recognize
that in missile defense, the engineering and production challenges are
tremendous.
They know that to work
out the bugs and the glitches and the unforeseen problems will take time
and lots of rigorous testing.
If you ask the folks
who are doing the actual work on NMD, they'll tell you that the systems
right now are not --- repeat, not ---ready for prime time ... even with
last Saturday's successful intercept.
They'll tell you that,
in the strongest of terms, they disagree with politicians who think that
quicker is better and who want to deploy prematurely.
From experience, our
people know that complex systems like the NMD cannot be developed on a
political timetable.
Careful, painstaking
testing --- that's the bottom line. It's the way to get it right. And we're
not the only ones who think so.
Last fall, Lt. Gen.
Ronald T. Kadish, director of the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization, laid it on the line in testimony before a House panel.
"The technologies we
are using in our sensors, interceptors and BM|C3," General Kadish said,
"are not what make this a high-risk program. Rather, it is our short development
schedule that compels us to work with so much risk,"
At that same House
hearing, Phillip E. Coyle, the DOD Director of Operational Test and Development,
was even more blunt.
"The NMD Program,"
he said, "has demonstrated considerable progress during the past two
years ," but "deployment
means the fielding of an operational system with some military utility
which is effective under realistic combat conditions and against realistic
threats and countermeasures.
"Such a capability,"
Mr. Coyle continued, "has yet to be shown to be practical for NMD."
And that's not all
he had to say.
"NMD acquisition and
construction schedules need to be linked to capability achievements demonstrated
in a robust test program, not to schedule per se."
With that point of
view, we fully agree.
But times change.
So do Administrations.
Now, the President
and the Secretary of Defense are pushing for a quick deployment.
Secretary Rumsfeld
has even been quoted in the press as saying that our systems don't even
have to work. All that is necessary is for a potential attacker to
think that they might.
Why are they doing
this?
Maybe they know something
that the rest of us do not about some potential threat that is gathering
strength out there.
But I doubt that.
It could also be that
we are looking at a bargaining tactic --- put out a large, controversial
program and let Congress cut it back to what you really wanted to begin
with.
That, I'd guess, is
possible.
Or maybe --- and my
instincts tell me that this might be it --- the Bush Administration is
having another one of its ideological spasms.
They are moving this
way, perhaps, not because it is necessary or will advance the program,
but because it will please vocal elements on the right.
That's bad thinking.
It seems to me that moving
with undue haste to deploy an untested or semi-tested or dubiously tested
system has the potential to turn Congress and the American public decisively
against the whole concept of a national missile defense. And that, I say
to you, would be a very great shame.
At the Machinists,
we are of the opinion that given time, resources and an honest, systematic,
painstaking and robust testing program, NMD will come together.
Our members who are
working on this project are excited.
They see progress and
potential --- and a chance, perhaps, to do something important for the
country.
And they know what
they are talking about.
NMD is not rooted in
wishful thinking.
It is not science fiction.
This is a "system
of systems."
It brings together
a range of complex technologies, each of them of demonstrated, proven effectiveness.
But the problem --- and it's a very big one --- is to integrate the various
elements and get them working together.
That was the problem
with America's early rockets, too.
I've seen the footage
from the 1950s --- and I'm sure that you have, too --- of American rockets
blowing up and tipping over and flying off out of control. Meanwhile, in
orbit above, old sputnik went beeping merrily along.
The evolution from
Redstone to Saturn V, from Polaris to Poseidon, was not without spectacular
failures.
We persisted.
We prevailed.
And we overcame.
At the Machinists,
we're convinced that sooner or later --- and I personally would guess
sooner given last Saturday's success --- missile defense technology
will follow that same track."
In spite of political
deadlines and interference, we can do it.
I don't doubt that
--- not for a moment.
But should we?
Once we have a missile
defense system that works, should we put it in place?
That's the issue.
"The most fundamental
question that must be answered before deciding whether to deploy is simple,"
says Senator Carl Levin, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"Will such defenses make America more or less secure?
"If national missile
defenses will make America more secure," says Senator Levin, " then it
makes sense to deploy them. But if they will leave the nation less secure,
then they should not be deployed."
That makes sense to
me.
And to that question
of whether the system is likely to make our country more secure,
my answer is a resounding "Yes!" But before telling you why I think so,
let me comment briefly on two related issues
First off, some very
smart people --- good friends of ours among them --- say that to go forward
with a national missile defense program would inevitably require this country
unilaterally to scrap the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972.
Is that necessarily
true?
Well - I've got to
admit that some of the belligerent words we've heard on this subject from
President Bush and others in his Administration suggest that they may,
in fact, be prepared to go bulling ahead on this thing.
The right-wingers who
dominate this Administration positively want to dump this treaty --- and
to do it right away.
Why?
Well, I wouldn't want
to be accused of practicing psychiatry without a license, but I get the
feeling that maybe these fellows watched a tad too many John Wayne movies.
They sure do like to
talk tough.
But here's the question.
Are tough people impressed?
I don't think so.
That way, I think,
lies trouble --- trouble for the country internationally and trouble for
the national missile defense program in Congress and with public opinion.
If the hard cases from
the Administration were to ask my opinion, which they won't, I'd tell them:
Get a grip. Calm down. Slow down.
I'm no diplomat ---
far from it. But about negotiations, I know a thing or two. And when
I look at what we want to do and what the Russians and others are concerned
about, I can see the makings of a deal.
NMD is designed to
protect us against the low end of the potential threat --- a dozen missiles
or so.
Against an all-out
attack by Russia, which currently has in excess of 6,000 nuclear weapons,
the NMD system would be of virtually no value. The system, therefore, does
not in any way threaten the Russian deterrent.
And if NMD does not
threaten them, then why wouldn't the Russians --- for a price of some kind,
no doubt --- be willing to renegotiate the ABM treaty in order to permit
us to deploy a limited defensive system?
I am inclined to believe
that ultimately, the Russians will go along.
Why shouldn't they?
And even if, in the
end, the Russians say "No," the United States, in my judgement, has absolutely,
positively got to be seen here at home and around the world as having made
a good faith effort to get it done.
The second issue I
want to address is cost.
According to Pentagon
estimates, which are not famous for their reliability, total program cost
for NMD over the next few years will come to approximately $60 billion.
Unfortunately the Bush
Administration has not told us how they plan to pay for it.
What will they do?
Frankly, I do not have
any idea.
But if the President
is as committed to this program as he says he is --- and I don't doubt
that --- then he'll just have to find a way. That's what leadership is
all about.
Clearly, it won't be
easy.
Given a slowing economy,
falling revenues and the very large size of his tax cuts, the President
could go fishing for money elsewhere in the Defense budget. If and when
he does, he will learn the meaning of the phrase "entrenched resistance."
Alternatively, the
President could try to raid the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
But he'd better not.
Mr. Bush could consider
taking a page from the old Reagan-Bush playbook and going the deficit route.
Will that fly? Nope.
So, is a budget battle
over NMD inevitable?
Probably.
As a union man and
a Democrat, I may feel a certain glee at seeing the Bush Administration
ensnarled in a trap of its own making. And as much as I want to jump up
and down and say "I told you so" the fact is that I must put my partisanship
aside. We must find a constructive way out of this trap.
In spite of what the
right wing ideologues in the Bush Administration want to believe, there
are things that the government of the United States has simply got to do.
And I am convinced
that one of those things is to develop and to test and yes, to deploy an
effective missile defense system.
On that subject, let
us talk a little turkey.
In the world today,
America's the dominant military power.
It is safe to say,
I think, that no country in the world would want to pick a head-to head
fight with us.
We'd mop the floor
with 'em --- and that's a fact.
Everybody knows it.
But it is also safe
to say that there are countries in the world --- and political and religious
movements, too and maybe even criminal groups --- who do not, as President
Kennedy used to say, wish our country well.
If they cannot take
us on in a direct, military sense, our adversaries will find other ways.
They'll look for vulnerabilities
--- chinks in the armor --- ways to threaten this country with unacceptable
consequences and to impose upon us unbearable pain.
In the world as it
is today, all manner of countries, movements and criminal conspiracies
have the potential to gain access to chemical, biological and even nuclear
weapons.
And yes, there are
many ways in which such weapons might be delivered. Timothy McVeigh taught
us that.
But a primary threat---
and one that is increasing exponentially --- is surely the ballistic missile.
Missile technology
today is a genie that is out of the bottle.
North Korea, for example,
is not my idea of an advanced technological society. But by using your
basic SCUD and adding to it rocket technology developed in Russia, China
and Egypt, North Korea produced a missile that can threaten Japan and will
soon have another one that can reach American territory.
Missiles, in fact,
are one of North Korea's very few exports.
And its missile technology
--- enhanced SCUDS, basically --- is migrating steadily towards the Middle
East.
Syria, for example,
successfully tested a SCUD tipped with a chemical warhead only last month.
But you know, we're
not just talking about rogue governments in North East Asia and the Middle
East.
Thirty-five nations
around the world are now known to possess some form of ballistic missile
--- and most of others, no doubt, know where to buy them.
At least ten countries
in the world possess chemical or biological weapons --- and one of the
terrible truths of our times is that weapons of this kind are not all that
hard to make.
At least eight countries
are known to have nuclear weapons.
Between three and five
others are knocking on the door.
And if it's true what
we hear about what's been going on in the former Soviet Union, then who
knows what in the way of weapons and fissionable materials may reach ---or
have reached already --- the international black market.
Listen --- I mentioned
to you before the name of Timothy Mc Veigh.
This was a guy, who
with calculation and great malice, committed a horrible, unspeakable atrocity.
But Mc Veigh was an
American --- a Catholic kid from a blue collar family in Buffalo.
Whatever the crazy
place he wound up, the guy started out in life exposed to a set of values
that we all understand, honor and respect.
Out in the world as
it is today, there are a lot of folks who don't start with values like
ours.
There are people ---
people who run or will run countries and major movements --- who start
out where Mc Veigh wound up.
And if they don't have such
things already, they soon may be able get their hands on really terrible
weapons --- and on the missiles to deliver them on American targets.
Which of our cities
might be the target?
Would it be Anchorage?
Honolulu? Seattle? Portland? San Francisco? Los Angeles?
Do you think that this
is far-fetched? Improbable?
Who, you might ask,
would be crazy enough to risk his or her own personal survival?
Well --- the surviving
crew members of the U.S.S. Cole know the answer. So do the parents of the
twenty-odd Israeli teenagers who went out dancing one night not long ago
and never came home.
What I am saying to
you is that we are no longer dealing with predictable threats.
The Soviet Union was
a truly nasty regime --- and a ruthless one to boot. I, for one, rejoiced
to see it go away.
But in a strategic
sense, the USSR was a known quantity.
It had leaders who
were cautious and who were interested in this world, not the next.
They understood what weapons of mass destruction really are. And in their
own sphere, they were in complete control.
For better or for worse,
that's not the world in which we live today.
It is not the world
in which our children and grandchildren will be growing up.
Seven. Ten. Fifteen
years from now, they will face graver and more unpredictable threats.
So, to my Democratic
friends on Capitol Hill, I would urge them to forego the short-term, tactical,
partisan advantage.
I know how easy it would
be to craft a maze of budgetary and diplomatic obstacles that could stall
development of a national missile defense. But can our party really afford
to be seen as weak on the defense of America's cities?
I think not. I hope
my party's leaders will come to agree with me.
And, to those Republicans
whose anti-union credentials are impeccable, I would urge you to go slow.
Speed is not the imperative here. The successful defense of America's cities
is.
In your haste to win political
points, you may jeopardize the entire missile defense program. And that
would be a travesty.
Even though he's a
man with whom I have often disagreed, I've got to say that in my judgement,
Henry Kissinger had it right in a recent article. He wrote:
"No president can take
the responsibility, in a world of proliferating nuclear and missile technology,
for leaving the American people vulnerable to attacks for which a demonstrated
and growing capacity exists --- not when he has available an emerging technology
that shows promise in protecting at least against the lower end of these
dangers."
That, for me, is the
bottom line.
In the end, we've got
to do this.
We've got to do it
right
And if there's a way
that I and the people I represent can help move this issue out of the realm
of ideology and partisan politics, then I say to anyone who may be listening
that we stand ready to try our best.
Return to the current version of
imail |
|