Sea Power: Senator Kennedy, this is your 20th year serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee. How would you describe the principal national-security challenges facing the United States today?

Editor in Chief James D. Hessman and Senior Editor Gordon I. Peterson interviewed Senator Kennedy for this issue of Sea Power.

Sea Power: Senator Kennedy, this is your 20th year serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee. How would you describe the principal national-security challenges facing the United States today?

KENNEDY: Our number-one priority is to stand together as one nation in the war against terror. We must do all we can to protect our homeland against possible new attacks and additional acts of terror. That means having the best-trained and best-led men and women in the United States Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and the other armed services.

It also means that our men and women in uniform need the benefit of the best military research and new technology that can be offered to make them more effective in their missions and to ensure greater security for them. We need a sound economy to be able to afford a strengthened national security structure, and we need the will and determination to understand our security interests--and the resolve to continue to pursue them.

I appreciate your mentioning the Coast Guard, because it has a substantial domestic role in the war on terrorism. What were your emotions when you visited "Ground Zero" at the World Trade Center?

KENNEDY: My first reaction was an outpouring of the human emotion at the unspeakable tragedy these attacks were for all Americans. This nation won't be the same again. There is a new anxiety as a result of the events of September 11th, but beyond this anxiety, there also is an extraordinary demonstration of heroism, bravery, and courage by many men and women.

I also see an enormous sense of generosity resulting from September 11th. Part of this is a resolute understanding that we now must be alert to this new threat that can come in a variety of forms. There is also a greater appreciation by the American people for their families, their loved ones, and for each other--and a sense of expectation that political institutions must be responsive to our nation's needs.

The performance of the Navy and Marine Corps team and their comrades in the Army and Air Force during Operation Enduring Freedom has been magnificent. Have there been any surprises?

KENNEDY: I was not surprised about the great performance of our service men and women. I try to visit our bases regularly, and I have had a good variety of experience visiting ships and talking to Sailors and Marines--on submarines and on the Theodore Roosevelt [nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt] and the JFK [conventionally powered aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy].

I am always very impressed, as anyone is when they have an opportunity to visit a ship, to meet the men and women of the crew and understand the extraordinary responsibility we demand of our military's young people--18- and 19-year-olds in most cases--who are running some of the most complex and sophisticated machinery and systems in the world. They do it with precision, expertise, and professionalism of the highest quality--and they do it day-in and day-out.

That is why I feel so strongly that they should have the right kind of support, and why we must be sensitive to OPTEMPO [operational tempo] rates. We also have to be concerned about the welfare of their families to ensure that they're not worrying about whether their wife or husband back home is able to get childcare, housing, and medical care. This is something that I've tried to give a priority to on the committee.

You also played an important role in seeing that military retirees receive continued health care as one of their retirement benefits.

KENNEDY: Yes, retirees deserve the best health care we can offer.

Since September you have faced an extraordinary profusion of legislative issues relating to national security and homeland defense, and you have cosponsored legislation for enhanced border security and visa-entry requirements. Are you satisfied with the status of the homeland-defense legislation that has been signed into law or that is still working its way through the legislative process?

KENNEDY: There are five dimensions to our security challenge today. One is military. The armed forces are performing superbly, and they are well-led. I am a strong supporter of the president and how he is leading the war against terrorism. Secondly, we have a new intelligence challenge that relates primarily to the control of nuclear and biological materials in the former Soviet Union. There also needs to be a much greater investment in human intelligence to fill the gaps in what we know about terrorist groups. That challenge will be difficult to meet in the short term, but our response must remain focused and leadership must be given in this matter.

A third challenge involves cracking down on money-laundering and improving the ability to follow the financial trail of terrorist groups through the international monetary system and other banking systems.

Fourth is bioterrorism. I believe that Senator Frist [Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.)] and I have made good progress working the building on the bioterrorism bill, the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act, signed by the president in 2000. We're in conference now, with the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act, and we have good bipartisan support for this legislation.

Fifth and finally, we have the immigration reform bill which Senator Brownback [Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.)] and I are cosponsoring. The bill is on the Senate calendar and has broad bipartisan support. The legislation recognizes that we have 550 million people who come in and out of the United States every year. An extremely small number in that total--perhaps 200, maybe more--threaten our security, but trying to identify and locate them is like finding a needle in a haystack.

We must rely more on technology and ensure that there is cooperation between the FBI, the CIA, and the INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service]. In this way technology will allow for more effective allocation of visas through a well-trained consular corps in different countries around the world, particularly in the Middle East. Biometric technology, in particular, will allow for more effective detection, identification, pursuit, and follow-up of potential terrorists once they're here in the United States or when they leave.

Also included in the Immigration Bill is a homeland-security provision for additional resources for our northern border. That's very important. I know we can work with Canada to extend our cooperation so that we are able to keep unsavory individuals out of the whole of North America. Steps are being taken in that direction at the present time. They should be encouraged and furthered, because we have a long border with Canada.

And the Coast Guard?

KENNEDY: Quite frankly, I think that the Coast Guard has been short-changed. What others are doing to secure the air space over the United States, our Coast Guard is doing every single day in ports all over this nation. While their personnel strength is not greatly higher than what it was in the early 1960s, the demands placed on them have increased dramatically. Unfortunately, their resources have not kept pace. The Coast Guard is essential to our homeland security.

The Coast Guard is key in terms of securing our seaports and areas offshore. In New England, for example, we have seen an increase in illegal drug traffic because the Coast Guard is being stretched to its limits with homeland security. That's just a small indication of the pressure they are under.

The Bush administration has proposed a large increase in Coast Guard funding, including funds for the Deepwater recapitalization program for its aging helicopters, aircraft, and cutters. As one former Coast Guard officer told me, the United States does not want to play goal-line defense in the war on terrorism. Do you agree that the United States also needs its Coast Guard cutters forward-deployed to board and inspect suspect vessels in the Middle East and other regions?

KENNEDY: There is that, but I think their first responsibility is to secure and protect our coastal areas and ports of entry. I am personally concerned about the ease with which a terrorist could bring a nuclear weapon into this country by ship. In fact, I'm more concerned about that than the possibility of another nation launching a ballistic missile against our country.

If you consider the comparatively small percentage of containers entering this country by ship that are inspected, it gives you an indication of the potential dangers. The Coast Guard has been stretched too far and for too long a time, and I think they need the support and resources they require to do their job.

On the floor of the Senate on the 7th of December, you spoke of the "massive" failure of U.S. counterterrorist intelligence associated with the events of 9/11. What direction would you like the congressional investigation of this breakdown to take?

KENNEDY: If we are going to strengthen national security and make our intelligence system more effective in the future, it's important for us to understand where our weaknesses were and currently are. I'm not interested in looking for scapegoats, but in understanding the weaknesses in the intelligence system so that we can plug them and make a stronger system. The accountability of the past is there, but I'm much more interested in what we're doing now and what we're going to be doing in the future to deal with the current threat.

The Congress was subjected to a bioterrorist attack last autumn, and five Americans were killed in separate incidents on the East Coast. What were your impressions following your recent visit with Army bioterrorism experts at Fort Detrick [Md.]?

KENNEDY: We are fortunate to have superbly trained men and women like those I met at Fort Detrick. They are experienced--not only as researchers, but as very knowledgeable and professional military personnel. I found them to have a keen awareness and understanding of the nature of the bioterrorist threat around the world. Clearly the most numerous sources of biological agents that terrorists might use are found in the former republics of the Soviet Union, where materials were produced in both military and civilian facilities.

Should the United States and other countries cooperate more with Russia and other republics of the former USSR to reduce the threat of bioterrorism around the world?

KENNEDY: One of the most important things we can do is to make sure that such materials are secure today. We have been focused in the past, as we should, on the dangers posed by unsecured nuclear missiles and nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. I strongly believe that we should also be concerned about the safety and security of the biological agents that exist in Russia and the other former republics. It's my understanding that the Soviet Union developed a number of weapons using different types of biological materials. But, they also developed vaccines for them.

Individuals who worked on the Soviet Union's biological weapons programs still reside in the republics of the former Soviet Union and, much like the scientists and researchers who have a great deal of knowledge regarding nuclear weapons, these individuals are experts about how to manipulate biological agents..

The successful efforts that we are making with the Nunn-Lugar program [U.S. programs to prevent the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons in the former republics of the Soviet Union, named for former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.)] should be expanded and directed toward the security of not only nuclear materials and chemical agents, but also biological agents as well. I understand that this is a matter that Presidents Bush and Putin have discussed. I welcome the fact that they both understand the importance of the problem.

Turning to some issues tied directly to the sea services, you assumed chairmanship of the SASC's Seapower Subcommittee last year. What issues are of greatest concern to you and your colleagues?

KENNEDY: The United States must be able to project power forward. To be able to do that, we must have a strong Navy and Marine Corps. The nation must have a shipbuilding capability that will ensure that the Navy has modern ships with the diversification necessary to maintain a balanced fleet needed to be able to project force overseas.

I am concerned that no additional funding for shipbuilding was included in the very sizable increase for national security. The current shipbuilding plan for fiscal year 2003 does not even measure up to the previous administration's shipbuilding for this year. Despite very generous increases for defense, additional funding for new ships isn't planned for several years. Unfortunately, by the time you get to the outyears, shipbuilding is again deferred to the future. That seems to be the process that has been followed under recent Republican as well as Democratic administrations, and this isn't the way we should be dealing with this challenge.

We are going to need both the right numbers and kinds of ships to project force in the future. We must also ensure that the Marines have the proper resources and support they need so that they can continue to be an effective fighting force. They, without a doubt, are central to forward presence and our force-projection capabilities.

What do you see as the top issues facing today's Marine Corps?

KENNEDY: The Marines have an important mission to carry out, and one area of concern I have is the amount of naval fire support that will be available to them in the future. I've also been particularly interested in mine warfare because of the Marine Corps' emphasis on amphibious operations in littoral areas around the world.

During the Gulf War, we saw that the use of sea mines could be devastating to ships and personnel, so research and improved capabilities in this area are very important. The Navy hasn't been giving this area the priority it deserves.

I'm also interested in following the progress of the MV-22 [Osprey tiltrotor aircraft]. It has enormous potential, but it also poses some serious technical challenges.

There appears to be a great deal of bipartisan concern over the continued failure to recapitalize Navy ships and aircraft in the right numbers. Sixty years ago the House and Senate led the way to rebuild the Navy on the eve of World War II. Is the Congress prepared to lead the way again today?

KENNEDY: We have followed the recommendations of the 1997 QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review] that said that the minimum number of ships in the fleet should be approximately 310 ships. We have to look at the current challenges and potential dangers to determine what the numbers and mix of ships should be for the future Navy.

Unfortunately, we are somewhat strapped in terms of the Navy's budget. We are still paying for ships built in previous years, and this has drawn down the resources available for new ship construction. We also must provide for the upkeep of today's ships, but this obviously competes for funds that could be spent on new ships as well.

Dr. Ron Sugar, Northrop Grumman's president and chief operating officer, told us that he is very concerned with the industrial-base ramifications of the nation's "roller-coaster" investment in shipbuilding. He's also very concerned that the administration's proposal to delay work on the CVNX [next-generation aircraft carrier] for a year will force him to lay off highly trained and experienced shipyard workers. How serious are the industrial-base ramifications of inadequate shipbuilding?

KENNEDY: This has been a continuing issue that we've had to face in recent times. We saw similar concerns with submarine procurement schedules. Obviously, the issue is important to the committee. We ought to be able to work through and understand the relationship of current and projected shipbuilding to the industrial base--it's a key element of our national security.

Isn't it feasible for Congress to authorize advance multiyear procurement of ships? The chief of naval operations, Admiral Vern Clark, recently said that he thinks that a fleet of about 375 ships is closer to the Navy's real needs right now.

KENNEDY: We're going to monitor the recommendations of last year's QDR, and we're going to do what needs to be done to follow its recommendations. We will also hold our own hearings on this matter. The administration's current shipbuilding proposal is disappointing.

The U.S.-flag merchant fleet also faces severe problems today. Do you have any thoughts on what is needed to revitalize it?

KENNEDY: As I believe you know, my father [Joseph P. Kennedy Sr.] was the chairman of the U.S. Maritime Commission in the 1930s [1936 to 1937] and he had a strong hand in rebuilding the Merchant Marine fleet in anticipation of hostilities in Europe. After World War II the merchant fleet faced steady deterioration. I have an old Fortune Magazine article that described what was happening to the U.S. Merchant Marine with charts projecting out for 50 years, and all of it was really true. The decline of the Merchant Marine is a continuing and perplexing challenge.

Different initiatives have been tried to help the shipbuilders deal with some of the issues, and I think there is certainly an openness to try to find an efficient and effective way to help and assist them, but there are no easy or quick answers. The Merchant Marine is enormously important. The United States requires very strong sealift capability as well as airlift capability.

You have been very generous with your time, Senator Kennedy. Is there any issue that we did not raise in this field that you would like to discuss?

KENNEDY: I want to thank the Navy League. They perform an enormously important function in terms of the support provided to the naval services and in educating the American people. As I say, I had three brothers who served in the United States Navy, and they all wore the uniform with great pride and they were very honored to serve in the United States Navy.

There is a great maritime tradition in my state of Massachusetts and a great naval tradition in Boston. Ships making a port visit there are moored next to the frigate USS Constitution and the John Quincy Adams drydock at the old Charlestown Navy Yard. In fact, service men and women are often invited out to private homes in Boston when their ships visit. The crews have a terrific time. I would just like to close by thanking again all the people in the Navy League who make such support possible for our men and women in uniform.*

KENNEDY: Our number-one priority is to stand together as one nation in the war against terror. We must do all we can to protect our homeland against possible new attacks and additional acts of terror. That means having the best-trained and best-led men and women in the United States Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and the other armed services.

It also means that our men and women in uniform need the benefit of the best military research and new technology that can be offered to make them more effective in their missions and to ensure greater security for them. We need a sound economy to be able to afford a strengthened national security structure, and we need the will and determination to understand our security interests--and the resolve to continue to pursue them.

I appreciate your mentioning the Coast Guard, because it has a substantial domestic role in the war on terrorism. What were your emotions when you visited "Ground Zero" at the World Trade Center?

KENNEDY: My first reaction was an outpouring of the human emotion at the unspeakable tragedy these attacks were for all Americans. This nation won't be the same again. There is a new anxiety as a result of the events of September 11th, but beyond this anxiety, there also is an extraordinary demonstration of heroism, bravery, and courage by many men and women.

I also see an enormous sense of generosity resulting from September 11th. Part of this is a resolute understanding that we now must be alert to this new threat that can come in a variety of forms. There is also a greater appreciation by the American people for their families, their loved ones, and for each other--and a sense of expectation that political institutions must be responsive to our nation's needs.

The performance of the Navy and Marine Corps team and their comrades in the Army and Air Force during Operation Enduring Freedom has been magnificent. Have there been any surprises?

KENNEDY: I was not surprised about the great performance of our service men and women. I try to visit our bases regularly, and I have had a good variety of experience visiting ships and talking to Sailors and Marines--on submarines and on the Theodore Roosevelt [nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt] and the JFK [conventionally powered aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy].

I am always very impressed, as anyone is when they have an opportunity to visit a ship, to meet the men and women of the crew and understand the extraordinary responsibility we demand of our military's young people--18- and 19-year-olds in most cases--who are running some of the most complex and sophisticated machinery and systems in the world. They do it with precision, expertise, and professionalism of the highest quality--and they do it day-in and day-out.

That is why I feel so strongly that they should have the right kind of support, and why we must be sensitive to OPTEMPO [operational tempo] rates. We also have to be concerned about the welfare of their families to ensure that they're not worrying about whether their wife or husband back home is able to get childcare, housing, and medical care. This is something that I've tried to give a priority to on the committee.

You also played an important role in seeing that military retirees receive continued health care as one of their retirement benefits.

KENNEDY: Yes, retirees deserve the best health care we can offer.

Since September you have faced an extraordinary profusion of legislative issues relating to national security and homeland defense, and you have cosponsored legislation for enhanced border security and visa-entry requirements. Are you satisfied with the status of the homeland-defense legislation that has been signed into law or that is still working its way through the legislative process?

KENNEDY: There are five dimensions to our security challenge today. One is military. The armed forces are performing superbly, and they are well-led. I am a strong supporter of the president and how he is leading the war against terrorism. Secondly, we have a new intelligence challenge that relates primarily to the control of nuclear and biological materials in the former Soviet Union. There also needs to be a much greater investment in human intelligence to fill the gaps in what we know about terrorist groups. That challenge will be difficult to meet in the short term, but our response must remain focused and leadership must be given in this matter.

A third challenge involves cracking down on money-laundering and improving the ability to follow the financial trail of terrorist groups through the international monetary system and other banking systems.

Fourth is bioterrorism. I believe that Senator Frist [Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.)] and I have made good progress working the building on the bioterrorism bill, the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act, signed by the president in 2000. We're in conference now, with the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act, and we have good bipartisan support for this legislation.

Fifth and finally, we have the immigration reform bill which Senator Brownback [Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.)] and I are cosponsoring. The bill is on the Senate calendar and has broad bipartisan support. The legislation recognizes that we have 550 million people who come in and out of the United States every year. An extremely small number in that total--perhaps 200, maybe more--threaten our security, but trying to identify and locate them is like finding a needle in a haystack.

We must rely more on technology and ensure that there is cooperation between the FBI, the CIA, and the INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service]. In this way technology will allow for more effective allocation of visas through a well-trained consular corps in different countries around the world, particularly in the Middle East. Biometric technology, in particular, will allow for more effective detection, identification, pursuit, and follow-up of potential terrorists once they're here in the United States or when they leave.

Also included in the Immigration Bill is a homeland-security provision for additional resources for our northern border. That's very important. I know we can work with Canada to extend our cooperation so that we are able to keep unsavory individuals out of the whole of North America. Steps are being taken in that direction at the present time. They should be encouraged and furthered, because we have a long border with Canada.

And the Coast Guard?

KENNEDY: Quite frankly, I think that the Coast Guard has been short-changed. What others are doing to secure the air space over the United States, our Coast Guard is doing every single day in ports all over this nation. While their personnel strength is not greatly higher than what it was in the early 1960s, the demands placed on them have increased dramatically. Unfortunately, their resources have not kept pace. The Coast Guard is essential to our homeland security.

The Coast Guard is key in terms of securing our seaports and areas offshore. In New England, for example, we have seen an increase in illegal drug traffic because the Coast Guard is being stretched to its limits with homeland security. That's just a small indication of the pressure they are under.

The Bush administration has proposed a large increase in Coast Guard funding, including funds for the Deepwater recapitalization program for its aging helicopters, aircraft, and cutters. As one former Coast Guard officer told me, the United States does not want to play goal-line defense in the war on terrorism. Do you agree that the United States also needs its Coast Guard cutters forward-deployed to board and inspect suspect vessels in the Middle East and other regions?

KENNEDY: There is that, but I think their first responsibility is to secure and protect our coastal areas and ports of entry. I am personally concerned about the ease with which a terrorist could bring a nuclear weapon into this country by ship. In fact, I'm more concerned about that than the possibility of another nation launching a ballistic missile against our country.

If you consider the comparatively small percentage of containers entering this country by ship that are inspected, it gives you an indication of the potential dangers. The Coast Guard has been stretched too far and for too long a time, and I think they need the support and resources they require to do their job.

On the floor of the Senate on the 7th of December, you spoke of the "massive" failure of U.S. counterterrorist intelligence associated with the events of 9/11. What direction would you like the congressional investigation of this breakdown to take?

KENNEDY: If we are going to strengthen national security and make our intelligence system more effective in the future, it's important for us to understand where our weaknesses were and currently are. I'm not interested in looking for scapegoats, but in understanding the weaknesses in the intelligence system so that we can plug them and make a stronger system. The accountability of the past is there, but I'm much more interested in what we're doing now and what we're going to be doing in the future to deal with the current threat.

The Congress was subjected to a bioterrorist attack last autumn, and five Americans were killed in separate incidents on the East Coast. What were your impressions following your recent visit with Army bioterrorism experts at Fort Detrick [Md.]?

KENNEDY: We are fortunate to have superbly trained men and women like those I met at Fort Detrick. They are experienced--not only as researchers, but as very knowledgeable and professional military personnel. I found them to have a keen awareness and understanding of the nature of the bioterrorist threat around the world. Clearly the most numerous sources of biological agents that terrorists might use are found in the former republics of the Soviet Union, where materials were produced in both military and civilian facilities.

Should the United States and other countries cooperate more with Russia and other republics of the former USSR to reduce the threat of bioterrorism around the world?

KENNEDY: One of the most important things we can do is to make sure that such materials are secure today. We have been focused in the past, as we should, on the dangers posed by unsecured nuclear missiles and nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. I strongly believe that we should also be concerned about the safety and security of the biological agents that exist in Russia and the other former republics. It's my understanding that the Soviet Union developed a number of weapons using different types of biological materials. But, they also developed vaccines for them.

Individuals who worked on the Soviet Union's biological weapons programs still reside in the republics of the former Soviet Union and, much like the scientists and researchers who have a great deal of knowledge regarding nuclear weapons, these individuals are experts about how to manipulate biological agents..

The successful efforts that we are making with the Nunn-Lugar program [U.S. programs to prevent the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons in the former republics of the Soviet Union, named for former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.)] should be expanded and directed toward the security of not only nuclear materials and chemical agents, but also biological agents as well. I understand that this is a matter that Presidents Bush and Putin have discussed. I welcome the fact that they both understand the importance of the problem.

Turning to some issues tied directly to the sea services, you assumed chairmanship of the SASC's Seapower Subcommittee last year. What issues are of greatest concern to you and your colleagues?

KENNEDY: The United States must be able to project power forward. To be able to do that, we must have a strong Navy and Marine Corps. The nation must have a shipbuilding capability that will ensure that the Navy has modern ships with the diversification necessary to maintain a balanced fleet needed to be able to project force overseas.

I am concerned that no additional funding for shipbuilding was included in the very sizable increase for national security. The current shipbuilding plan for fiscal year 2003 does not even measure up to the previous administration's shipbuilding for this year. Despite very generous increases for defense, additional funding for new ships isn't planned for several years. Unfortunately, by the time you get to the outyears, shipbuilding is again deferred to the future. That seems to be the process that has been followed under recent Republican as well as Democratic administrations, and this isn't the way we should be dealing with this challenge.

We are going to need both the right numbers and kinds of ships to project force in the future. We must also ensure that the Marines have the proper resources and support they need so that they can continue to be an effective fighting force. They, without a doubt, are central to forward presence and our force-projection capabilities.

What do you see as the top issues facing today's Marine Corps?

KENNEDY: The Marines have an important mission to carry out, and one area of concern I have is the amount of naval fire support that will be available to them in the future. I've also been particularly interested in mine warfare because of the Marine Corps' emphasis on amphibious operations in littoral areas around the world.

During the Gulf War, we saw that the use of sea mines could be devastating to ships and personnel, so research and improved capabilities in this area are very important. The Navy hasn't been giving this area the priority it deserves.

I'm also interested in following the progress of the MV-22 [Osprey tiltrotor aircraft]. It has enormous potential, but it also poses some serious technical challenges.

There appears to be a great deal of bipartisan concern over the continued failure to recapitalize Navy ships and aircraft in the right numbers. Sixty years ago the House and Senate led the way to rebuild the Navy on the eve of World War II. Is the Congress prepared to lead the way again today?

KENNEDY: We have followed the recommendations of the 1997 QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review] that said that the minimum number of ships in the fleet should be approximately 310 ships. We have to look at the current challenges and potential dangers to determine what the numbers and mix of ships should be for the future Navy.

Unfortunately, we are somewhat strapped in terms of the Navy's budget. We are still paying for ships built in previous years, and this has drawn down the resources available for new ship construction. We also must provide for the upkeep of today's ships, but this obviously competes for funds that could be spent on new ships as well.

Dr. Ron Sugar, Northrop Grumman's president and chief operating officer, told us that he is very concerned with the industrial-base ramifications of the nation's "roller-coaster" investment in shipbuilding. He's also very concerned that the administration's proposal to delay work on the CVNX [next-generation aircraft carrier] for a year will force him to lay off highly trained and experienced shipyard workers. How serious are the industrial-base ramifications of inadequate shipbuilding?

KENNEDY: This has been a continuing issue that we've had to face in recent times. We saw similar concerns with submarine procurement schedules. Obviously, the issue is important to the committee. We ought to be able to work through and understand the relationship of current and projected shipbuilding to the industrial base--it's a key element of our national security.

Isn't it feasible for Congress to authorize advance multiyear procurement of ships? The chief of naval operations, Admiral Vern Clark, recently said that he thinks that a fleet of about 375 ships is closer to the Navy's real needs right now.

KENNEDY: We're going to monitor the recommendations of last year's QDR, and we're going to do what needs to be done to follow its recommendations. We will also hold our own hearings on this matter. The administration's current shipbuilding proposal is disappointing.

The U.S.-flag merchant fleet also faces severe problems today. Do you have any thoughts on what is needed to revitalize it?

KENNEDY: As I believe you know, my father [Joseph P. Kennedy Sr.] was the chairman of the U.S. Maritime Commission in the 1930s [1936 to 1937] and he had a strong hand in rebuilding the Merchant Marine fleet in anticipation of hostilities in Europe. After World War II the merchant fleet faced steady deterioration. I have an old Fortune Magazine article that described what was happening to the U.S. Merchant Marine with charts projecting out for 50 years, and all of it was really true. The decline of the Merchant Marine is a continuing and perplexing challenge.

Different initiatives have been tried to help the shipbuilders deal with some of the issues, and I think there is certainly an openness to try to find an efficient and effective way to help and assist them, but there are no easy or quick answers. The Merchant Marine is enormously important. The United States requires very strong sealift capability as well as airlift capability.

You have been very generous with your time, Senator Kennedy. Is there any issue that we did not raise in this field that you would like to discuss?

KENNEDY: I want to thank the Navy League. They perform an enormously important function in terms of the support provided to the naval services and in educating the American people. As I say, I had three brothers who served in the United States Navy, and they all wore the uniform with great pride and they were very honored to serve in the United States Navy.

There is a great maritime tradition in my state of Massachusetts and a great naval tradition in Boston. Ships making a port visit there are moored next to the frigate USS Constitution and the John Quincy Adams drydock at the old Charlestown Navy Yard. In fact, service men and women are often invited out to private homes in Boston when their ships visit. The crews have a terrific time. I would just like to close by thanking again all the people in the Navy League who make such support possible for our men and women in uniform.