PRESIDENT'S FISCAL 2004 SUPPLEMENTAL
REQUEST FOR IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

Hearing of the
Senate Committee on Appropriations

September 24, 2003

OPENING STATEMENT BY

TED STEVENS
Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee

STEVENS: Good morning, Mr. Secretary, General Myers, General Abizaid, and I note that Dr. Zakheim is with us. I thank you for coming.

We're here to discuss the administration's request for the 2004 supplemental and it would be my wish that we'd hear from the secretary first and then proceed with our questions or statements. Mr. Secretary?

RUMSFELD: Mr. Chairman, thank you and members of the committee. We've been requested to have our statement submitted for the record and that only I make a brief opening statement, which I will do.

STEVENS: I'm pleased that you've complied with that request. All of your statements for the permanent record as so read.

STATEMENT BY

DONALD H. RUMSFELD
Defense Secretary

RUMSFELD: Earlier this month the American people marked the anniversary of September 11th. And thanks to the courage of the men and women in uniform, two brutal regimes have been removed from power, two nations have been rescued from tyranny.

And thanks to those who fight the battles, thousands of terrorists have been captured or killed, including nearly two-thirds of known senior Al Qaida operatives and most of those responsible for the September 11th attacks.

With the support of some 90 nations, a number of planned attacks have been stopped, terrorist assets seized.

RUMSFELD: But perhaps the greatest blessing is the fine men and women who wear the uniform. Each volunteered for service and in the course of the war many have given their lives; still others have suffered serious wounds. As many of you, we visit them in Bethesda, Walter Reed and other hospitals around the country. Our hearts go out to their families and to all those who have been injured or killed in this war, both U.S. and coalition alike.

We're grateful also for the brave soldiers and the fine civilian staffs from the coalition countries that now serve in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the global war on terror. Together we've accomplished a great deal, but a good deal remains. Not withstanding the successes, dangers persist. Many terrorists are behind bars but those that remain at large are planning future attacks.

As a sign of his conviction, the president has requested $87 billion in emergency funds to fight the war on terror. The vast majority of the funds that the president has requested will go to the troops who are risking their lives in this struggle. Of the $87 billion, $66 billion is to support ongoing military operations: money for military pay, fuel, transportation, maintenance, weapons, equipment, life-saving body armor, ammunition and other military needs.

He requested $51 billion for military operations in Iraq, $11 billion for military operations in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa and other Operation Enduring Freedom missions; $2.2 billion for defending the U.S. homeland; $1.4 billion to support coalition partners, many of whom are stepping forward with troops willing to risk their lives in this effort, but whose governments lack the resources to support those deployment. So $66 billion, or 75 percent, of the request is for the troops. They need it and they will need it soon.

The remaining $21 billion is to help Afghanistan and Iraq secure their nations for freedom so that they can get on a path to stability, self-government and self-reliance. For the Afghanistan request, it's for $300 million for roads, schools, clinics; $400 million to train and support the Afghan national army and highway patrol, border patrol and national police; $120 million to train, demobilize militia, and help them find jobs and support other private sector initiatives; and nearly $300 million to support the rule of law, elections and other critical support for the Afghan national government.

This support is in addition to the $1.8 billion previously appropriated and the $5 billion that has been pledged thus far by the international community.

Since Ambassador was here before this committee on Monday, I will not address the request for the $20 billion for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, except to say that a major portion is to help the Iraqis assume responsibility for the security of their country, including the training of Iraqi police, border guards, facility protection services, a new Iraqi army and a new Iraqi civil defense corps, and for the Iraqi justice system.

The funds for the Department of Defense and the $20 billion for the Coalition Provisional Authority are linked inextricably; both are needed.

RUMSFELD: All of the CPA requests -- investments are critical for the efforts that General Abizaid and General Sanchez and their troops are engaged in.

Helping Iraqis provide for their own security is critical. The investments the president is requesting are in a very real sense a critical element of the coalition's exit strategy. The sooner Iraq can defend its own people, the sooner the U.S. and the coalition forces can turn over the security responsibility to the Iraqis.

But reaching our goal requires some investments now to restore critical infrastructure and basic services necessary to jump start the economy. Iraq cannot make those improvements today without assistance from the U.S. and the international community. But the purpose of this assistance is to help the Iraqis get on a path where they can rebuild their own country.

The president has requested a $20 billion investment in the future of Iraq. To put that in context, the Marshall Plan after World War II cost roughly $90 billion in today's dollars. Those investments helped transform a region that has since been a source of -- that had been a source of violent war and instability for centuries and turned it into a place of peace, prosperity and mutually beneficial trade.

I recently returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, as did Secretary Powell, and I know a number of you have been there very recently as well. I am convinced that progress is being achieved in both countries.

Afghanistan is on the road to a more stable, democratic self- government. After two years of training, the Afghan national army has recently been fighting side by side with coalition forces in our most recent anti-terrorist campaigns, Operations Mountain Viper and Warrior Sweep. The central government is working to extend authority to these provinces. Together with the Afghan authorities, the coalition is deployed what we call provincial reconstruction teams, or PRTs, to four provinces with four more on the way.

Afghanistan faces challenges to be sure, but the progress has been measurable. The terrorist training camps are gone, Al Qaida is on the run, the Afghan people are liberated and the country is on a path to democracy.

In Iraq, the coalition forces also face difficulties and dangers, let there be no doubt, including the threat from regime remnants, criminals and foreign fighters who have come into the country to oppose the coalition forces. What's remarkable is that, despite the significant dangers they face, the coalition's civil and military staff in Iraq has in less than five months racked up a series of achievements in both security and civil reconstruction that may very well be without precedent.

RUMSFELD: Consider a few of their accomplishments. In less than five months, virtually all major Iraqi hospitals and universities have been reopened, hundred of secondary schools -- until a few months ago, those schools were used often as weapon caches for the Baath Party. They've been rebuilt and they were ready for the start of the fall semester.

Fifty-six thousand Iraqis have been armed and trained in just a few months and they are contributing to the security and defense of their country. Another 14,000 have been recruited and are currently in training for a total of 70,000.

Today a new Iraqi army is being trained and more than 40,000 Iraqi police are conducting joint patrols with coalition forces. By contrast, it took 14 months to establish a police force in postwar Germany and 10 years to begin training a new German army.

As security improves, so does commerce. And some 5,000 Iraqi small businesses opened since liberation on May 1st. The independent central bank of Iraq was established and a new currency announced in just two months, accomplishments that took three years in postwar Germany. The Iraqi Governing Council has appointed an Iraqi cabinet of ministers, something that took 14 months in Germany. And all of this was is less than five months.

In all major cities in most towns and villages, Iraqi municipal councils have been formed, something that took eight months in Germany. To date, the coalition has completed 8,000 civil affairs projects with many more under way.

All of this has taken place in less than five months. The speed and breadth of what Ambassador Bremer, General Abizaid, General Sanchez and the coalition military and civilian teams has accomplished is impressive. It may, in fact, be without parallel, whether compared to postwar Japan, postwar Germany, or postwar Bosnia or Kosovo.

I keep hearing that the United States should not go it alone. Well, the U.S. is not going it alone. There are, at this moment, some 17 nations represented in Ambassador Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority. They're participating in that authority.

Moreover, there are currently 32 countries with troops in Iraq today. They include Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, Ukraine and the U.K. Portugal is at this moment preparing to deploy forces in Iraq, as well.

Of the 19 NATO nations, 11 have already committed troops to Iraq. We're currently in discussions with 14 other countries.

Now, do they equal our forces or do their financial contributions equal ours? No, they don't. But do they represent a significant, military commitment and do they represent a significant political commitment of those nations?

RUMSFELD: Yes, they do. And we are, and we should be equally grateful for their contributions, for their political courage as well as for their friendship.

A great many of the forces of those countries, I should add, are also volunteers, as are all of ours.

In Afghanistan, NATO has just taken over command of ISAF, the alliance's first mission outside of Europe in its entire history. I met with the new German commander of ISAF forces in Kabul. What they're doing is important for Afghanistan and for the NATO alliance as well.

So between Iraq and Afghanistan, there are now 49 countries with forces on the ground, with many others making important contributions in other ways. So this business that America is going it alone, it seems to me, is not factual at all.

Let me conclude by recalling why we're spending this money, why we are proposing it, why the president is requesting it. The Wall Street Journal recently tallied the cost to our country and the economy after the September 11th attacks: $7.8 billion in lost income for the families of more than 3,000 victims; $21 billion sent to New York City for direct damage costs; $4 billion for the victims' fund; $18 billion to clean up the World Trade Center site; $700 million to repair the Pentagon; $6.4 billion in reduced lost wages or salaries for workers in New York industries; $1.3 million net job loss nationwide; $50 billion in costs to the insurance industry; $11 billion in lost business to the airline industry; the bankruptcy of two airlines even after a $15 billion federal bailout; $38 billion in costs for new border security, protection against biological threats, and emergency preparedness; $1.3 billion in costs to state governments for homeland security; $33 billion in spending by the private sector for new protective services.

So even assuming some overlap, which there undoubtedly is, the 9/11 attack very likely cost the American people hundreds of billions of dollars. And that's not counting the price paid in lives and the immense suffering of their families and their loved ones.

I believe our nation can afford whatever it needs to defend our people, to defend our way of life, and to defend our vital interests. At the height of the Cold War, in the Eisenhower and Kennedy years, we spent roughly 10 percent of GDP on defense. The last time I was secretary of defense, in the 1970s, we spent something in the neighborhood of 5 percent. Today, we spend a little over 3 percent. That's a great deal of money, let there be no doubt, but it's a modest fraction of our nation's wealth.

To defend freedom in the 21st century, we need to root out terrorists. We need to take the battle to the terrorists. And we need to help the now free people in Iraq and Afghanistan rebuild from the rubble of tyranny and claim their places as responsible members of the community of nations.

A British author wrote, quote, "If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom. And the irony is, that if it is comfort or money that it values more it will lose that too."

RUMSFELD: Is $87 billion a great deal of money? The answer is yes. Can our country afford it? The answer is also yes. We believe it is necessary for the security of our country and the stability of the world, and that the price of sending terrorists a message that we're not willing to spend what it takes, that we value comfort or money more than freedom, would be far greater.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STEVENS: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

This hearing is particularly related to the $66 billion, the request for the defense activities. The full amount of $87 billion, of course, is subject to questions from the members of this committee.

It would be my intention to yield time to every member of the committee eight minutes each on the first round, and we'll see how many people here for the second, see how much time we have.

On Monday, Mr. Secretary, Ambassador Bremer, as you indicated, testified before the committee on reconstruction efforts in Iraq. His perspectives to me were invaluable in helping the committee better understand the importance and the critical need for the supplemental funding as a whole. During his testimony, as a World War II veteran, I was struck by the strong parallel between what occurred at the end of the Second World War and what's going on in Iraq now.

As we all know, the Marshall Plan in 1948 -- that's three years after the war was over -- was created to address the dire economic circumstances in Europe following that war. The plan ran for a period of four years and cost approximately $88 billion in 1997 -- we'll just use the current dollars at $90 billion.

Of that amount, West Germany was provided approximately $9.2 billion to assist in their recovery efforts. The population of West Germany at that time was between 15 million and 18 million; Iraq's population today is estimated between 24 million and 27 million.

At the end of World War II, the United States was one of the major war powers to occupy Germany. By the end of 1945, after a massive demobilization, we still had over 402,000 soldiers in Germany alone. Over a four-year period, the number of soldiers dropped from 162,000 to 82,000 and we currently now, as I've been informed, have about 128,000 soldiers in Iraq.

STEVENS: The Army estimates that they spent about $10 billion to $40 billion in Germany alone for occupation costs in 2002 dollars. The supplemental request before the committee for $66 billion to support ongoing operation in Iraq and Afghanistan and continue the war on terrorism, I think, has to be taken in perspective.

The key difference is that in 1945, we has a conscript army. For the most part, they were not married, had -- nor did they have families. They were young men who were drafted, primarily.

In contrast today, we have an all-volunteer force that costs a great deal more to recruit and train. Approximately 70 percent of the force is married and has a family.

The scope of the occupation duties in Germany would be very similar to what's happening in Iraq, however the degree of difficulty is very different. Our U.S. service personnel face difficult challenges in Iraq. The security situation is fluid and their ability to protect both themselves and Iraqi people while carrying out their missions is a daunting one to me.

After World War II, the United States showed we had learned that the military victory must be followed by a program to secure peace. Democracy could not flourish unless Europe's devastated economies were rebuilt.

The United States assisted our allies in their reconstruction efforts. The Iraqi people are our allies now. We need to offer them the same assistance we offered to the Europeans after World War II.

Iraq offers us a unique challenge. Iraq is not a highly industrialized nation, nor does it have an underpinning of democracy in its history. And more importantly, it has suffered for years under a brutal dictator who conducted war against his neighbors and against his own people.

We cannot afford to fail the people of Iraq. We must complete our two-fold mission to provide stability to Iraq, to let democracy take hold. And to give this new democracy the economic assistance it needs to succeed is an absolute requirement, in my judgment.

I believe your supplemental will address the needs of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines to fulfill these critical tasks. In order for them to do the job, we need to do ours and approve this as soon as possible.

I'll retain the balance of my time.

I yield to Senator Byrd.

BYRD: How much do I have?

STEVENS: Eight minutes, sir.

BYRD: How much?

STEVENS: Eight minutes, sir.

BYRD: Eight minutes. (OFF-MIKE)

STEVENS: As many as needed.

BYRD: (OFF-MIKE)

STEVENS: I have no idea, Senator.

BYRD: (OFF-MIKE)

STEVENS: We have 19 members here. At eight minutes apiece that's a long time just for one round.

STEVENS: I don't know how long we'll go.

BYRD: Thank you for your illuminating answer.

Are you going to have any outside witness? Why not have some outside witnesses?

STEVENS: Senator, I cannot remember an outside witness at an emergency supplemental hearing.

BYRD: Well, you can't remember an emergency supplemental like this one either. I urge you to make provisions to call outside witnesses so that the committee will have more than just the administration line.

STEVENS: Senator, it would be my intention to call witnesses to testify at the request of the president of the United States and no one else.

BYRD: Which would not include outside witnesses?

STEVENS: That's correct, sir.

BYRD: Well, I hope you'll think that over, take it under consideration, don't rule it out.

Now, Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this very important hearing on the president's $87 billion supplemental budget request for Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terrorism. The American people deserve to know more about what the administration has planned. But rather than explanations of the administration's long-term plan for Iraq, the American people only get comparisons to the Marshall Plan.

I can understand the administration's desire to equate in the minds of the American public Saddam Hussein's Iraq to Nazi Germany or imperial Japan. World War II evokes images of the greatest generation, of which I am one, but not of the greatest generation. I am one of the so-called greatest generation, and it was a great one, as designated by Tom Brokaw. But there was a greater generation, that generation which founded this republic and wrote the Constitution. That was the greatest generation.

The entire country united to defeat the brutally aggressive Axis powers and then after victory staying behind to rebuild the cities of their conquered foes. But with World War II, Japan had attacked us, the Axis powers had declared war on us. The U.S. occupation of Germany and Japan took place in the wake of a widely supported defensive war -- and there is a difference -- with a commitment to internationalism and multi-lateralism.

We are seeing none of this in Iraq. The war in Iraq was not a defensive war.

BYRD: It was a preemptive attack. We have alienated most of the international community in fighting this preemptive war. The Germans and the Japanese did not resist the U.S. occupation after World War II. They did not commit sabotage, assassinations and guerrilla warfare.

The Marshall Plan was not presented to Congress for its rubber- stamp approval.

Now, we want to talk about the Marshall Plan and an attempt to equate it with this same situation here. Let's talk about these things.

The Marshall Plan was not presented to Congress for its rubber- stamp approval. It was a comprehensive bipartisan strategy, developed after extensive cooperation with Congress, to provide $13.3 billion to 16 countries over four years to aid their reconstruction.

When the Congress considered the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, the Foreign Relations Committee held five weeks of hearings -- five weeks -- with the chairman calling 90 witnesses to testify. Think about that.

After the Foreign Relations Committee reported legislation, the Senate further debated it for an additional two weeks. We see nothing like that in this Senate.

Senator Arthur Vandenberg, the Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Chairman, called the aid plan, quote, "the final product of eight months."

Now you want to talk about World War II? If you want to equate it with this, let's bring in these matters which I'm discussing.

I quote Arthur Vandenberg: "The final product of eight months of more intensive study by more devoted minds than I have ever known to concentrate upon any one objective in all my 20 years in Congress." That was Arthur Vandenberg.

If this administration today truly believed in the Marshall Plan and what it stood for, it would be more open to working with Congress before committing vast sums for foreign aid as was done half a century ago.

The reconstruction of Europe was undertaken in the context of the spirit of internationalism, multi-lateralism and collective security that led to the formation of the United Nations, NATO, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The same can hardly be said, hardly be said, today. Come on.

Yet today we're asked to appropriate $20.3 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq for the next year alone. The president's $87 billion request is larger than the economies of 166 countries.

BYRD: These funds are not just for rebuilding bridges. It's an attempt to transform a political culture very different, very different, from our own into a democracy; a form of government never before seen in those ancients lands.

It is the beginning of an enormous commitment to Iraq. Let me say that again. It is the beginning of an enormous commitment to Iraq.

We have the duty to understand the enormity of the potential consequences and to insist on an explanation of those consequences for the American people before we act.

Now, it will be a huge task to attempt to build a republic in Iraq. The American people, from whom the power of our government originates, have never been asked for their mandate for democratizing Iraq or for making an even greater generational commitment to democratizing the Middle East.

Secretary Rumsfeld, where is the mandate from the American people to carry out the reconstruction of Iraq? Who has set the parameters for how extensive this nation-building effort should be? And when did the American people give their assent, Mr. Secretary?

And thank you for coming before the committee again. Thank you.

RUMSFELD: Thank you, Senator.

BYRD: I always enjoy having you before this committee. Wish we could have you more.

(LAUGHTER)

RUMSFELD: Thank you, Senator Byrd.

The answer to your question is that in our constitutional process, the president came to the Congress, as we all know, sought a resolution, received a resolution. He recognizes that, under Article 1 on the Constitution, the Congress controls the purse strings.

And therefore he has made this request to the Congress and certainly the deliberations that we're currently engaged in, and the seven or eight or nine hearings that'll take place in -- previously and in the coming days on these subjects will reflect the role of the Congress. And certainly the Congress represents the American people.

BYRD: But now, Mr. Secretary, if I may keep to the question, you mentioned the resolution that was passed by the Congress on October 14, I believe it was, of last year. But where is the mandate from the American people to carry out the reconstruction of Iraq and to democratize that government?

RUMSFELD: It certainly is correct for -- as you say, and suggest, that there is a need to transform a country that does not have experience with democracy. That is correct.

The way I would respond to your question, Senator Byrd, is this: We have 130,000 troops there. Our friends and allies have still additional troops. The Iraqis now are up to close to 70,000 people providing security.

The goal for the United States is not to stay there or for the coalition. It's to turn that country back over to the Iraqi people, which is, as Ambassador Bremer pointed out, a seven-point plan to do that, through a constitution and elections and then passing of sovereignty at a pace as rapidly as is reasonable.

BYRD: Now, Mr. Secretary, my time is very limited. I'm trying to get at the bottom of the idea that the American people are supposed to carry out the reconstruction of Iraq and that we are to build a democracy there and democratize the Middle East.

BYRD: Where is the mandate for that? The American people have never been told that.

RUMSFELD: Well, the last thought I could suggest is this: that the task we're engaged in -- the bulk of the funds here are for the purpose of providing security and to enable the political process to move forward so that sovereignty can be transferred to the Iraqi people. The way that we can leave that country better than we found it, a lot better: no more mass graves, no more prisons filled with people...

BYRD: We know all about that...

RUMSFELD: We can leave it by investing in the kinds of security that we're talking about here. And that is what this request is overwhelmingly about.

Admittedly, there has to be some funds for the political side and some for the economic side as well as the security side because all three of those things have to go forward together.

BYRD: But still, I haven't had an answer to my question as to where the mandate comes from the American people. The American people never been told that we're going into that country to build a new nation, to build a new government, to democratize the country and to democratize the Middle East.

RUMSFELD: The American people...

BYRD: The American people haven't been told that. They were told we're going in there because of weapons of mass destruction.

RUMSFELD: The American people were told by the president of the United States, at the U.N. and here in the United States, the reasons for going in. Once having gone in, the last thing we need to do is to turn that country over to another dictator like Saddam Hussein. The least we can do is...

BYRD: Nobody is suggesting that.

RUMSFELD: Well, the least we can do is to attempt to put into place a political process where they can migrate toward something that will not be a threat to their neighbors, that will not repress their people, that will be representative and reflective of the people in that country.

BYRD: If I may just pursue this for a brief moment, if I can follow this question, what will the United States do if the so-called democracy we're building in Iraq takes a wrong turn? Will the United States override an Iraqi constitution if we don't think it's a good basis for a republic?

RUMSFELD: I think that the answer to that question is very clear. The president's made it very clear that there are certain red lines, in answer to your question. The red lines are that the country be a country that does not have weapons of mass destruction, a country that's at peace with its neighbors, and a country that is not repressing its people and is reasonably represented and respectful of the various diverse ethic and religious elements in the country.

Beyond that, the Iraqi people are going to have to fashion that constitution and they're going to have to rebuild their own country.

STEVENS: Senator, we must move on. You're using some of my time again (OFF-MIKE)

BYRD: I respectfully point out to you that the last whereas clause of the resolution was adopted by the Senate 77 to 23 reads as follows: "Whereas it is in the national security interest of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region."

STEVENS: That was what we stated as the ultimate goal of the activities that we authorized the president to undertake.

Senator Cochran...

BYRD: Mr. Chairman...

STEVENS: Senator Cochran is recognized for eight minutes, Senator.

BYRD: Might I respond to that?

STEVENS: Senator, I was talking on my own time. You'll have time later.

Senator Cochran, it's your time.

BYRD: All right, thank you. Thank you for your courtesy.

COCHRAN: Mr. Chairman...

STEVENS: Senator, I was courteous to you. You went seven minutes over your time.

BYRD: Seven minutes. Think of that, on an $87 billion request, $87 billion. Here I am the ranking member of the committee, I have seniority over all Democrats over here. As a matter of fact, I have seniority over all Republicans really. I've been around here a long time. I have seven minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Chairman, you're in charge.

STEVENS: Is the senator finished?

BYRD: Go ahead, Mr. Chairman, you're in charge.

STEVENS: Thank you very much.

Mr. Cochran?

COCHRAN: Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for the outstanding leadership you're providing to the Department of Defense in our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world to protect our security interests and the freedom of the American people.

I think the address to the United Nations by President Bush yesterday set the right tone for the world community, in terms of the fact that this is a challenge in Iraq, this is a challenge to the will of mankind, and the United Nations in particular.

Do you have any early reaction from your friends or contacts in the United Nations about the willingness of the U.N. to act in a favorable way to the call that President Bush made yesterday for more involvement, more support by countries from around the world and in the United Nations, in particular, to help us in our goal in Iraq?

RUMSFELD: Senator, I don't. Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to talk to either the president or Secretary Powell since their time in New York, where each of them had been engaged in a series of bilateral discussions, as well as the more public activities that they have been engaged in. I'm sure we'll know more in the next day or two.

COCHRAN: Are there funds in this supplemental request that will help us defray some of the expenses of countries that might be willing to participate but don't have the financial resources to commit troops or to pay for training and equipping them?

RUMSFELD: I'll come right back to that if I may. I do want to finish answering the other question.

I neglected to say that any thought that we have a modest coalition already -- there may very well be additional countries from the U.N. as a result of events in recent days, but the United States already has a coalition of 32 nations in the country and 90 nations in the global war on terror.

With respect to your questions, the answer is yes. There are some funds. My recollection is it's about $1.4 billion. And there are some countries that have stepped forward, offered troops and assistance that did not have sufficient funds to pay for some aspects of their transportation or equipment or intelligence and that type of thing, so that there are instances where the United States is assisting them, just as we're assisting in developing the Afghan national army and the Iraqi national army and the Iraqi police forces. Because the more we can get other countries providing that kind of security, in the case of Iraq particularly Iraqis, that means there's less of a burden on General Abizaid and his troops.

COCHRAN: I notice that part of this request is for funding that would actually go to the Department of Homeland Security: $2.2 billion for homeland security activities. Is that going to the department or is that for the Department of Defense to use to assist in homeland security?

RUMSFELD: The latter. I think it involves Noble Eagle and the air CAPs and a variety of other things that DOD does to support the security of the United States.

COCHRAN: One item as I understand it is a reimbursement to the Coast Guard for activities that they have engaged in in support of the Iraqi war. It's $80 million, I think. And there's a question that has come to my attention about the sufficiency of that and whether or not the Coast Guard would actually have to use fiscal year 2004 funds that we have just appropriated in a bill passed by House and Senate. It's now in a conference report. Probably be before the Senate this week.

I would hate to see the Coast Guard have to use FY 2004 monies if we can provide those funds that are allocatable to the Iraqi operation.

RUMSFELD: I don't know the answer. We'd have to supply an answer for the record.

There are some instances where the Coast Guard provides critical assistance to the Department of Defense. And in this case, I know for a fact they did with respect to Iraq.

And I'm told that the money for the Coast Guard is in the CENTCOM piece of the budget. So that shouldn't be a problem.

COCHRAN: OK.

Well, we'd appreciate your reviewing that and giving us some assurance that it is sufficient to meet the needs of the Coast Guard.

RUMSFELD: We'll do that. Thank you.

COCHRAN: General Myers, I have a question about the National Guard and reserve forces. I wonder if there are sufficient funds in this supplemental request that will help ensure that those forces have the training and the equipment they need to protect themselves as well as to carry out their missions in Iraq.

ABIZAID: Sir, that's accounted for in this supplemental. Your supposition there is exactly right.

COCHRAN: Well, how many National Guard and Reserve troops do we have in the theater at this time? Do you have that figure for us?

ABIZAID: Yes, sir. I do. Currently, we have approximately 170,000 reservists called up. When I say reserve component, both National Guard and Reserves in all the services. That's down from a high of 223,000 during major combat operations in Iraq.

Before major combat operations started in Iraq, our baseline after the attacks of September 11th, 2001 was about 50,000. That was what we had protecting the skies over the United States and helping with events in Afghanistan and other places in the world.

So steady state war on terrorism would be somewhere between 45,000 and 50,000. So that difference between that and the 170,000 that we have today is focused, pretty much, for the contingency in Iraq.

And I think, you know, as you look forward, you could probably expect that number to come down a little bit. But there's -- those are the numbers.

COCHRAN: Will the involvement of additional countries with more troops and more support help us to reduce the need for National Guard and Reserve forces?

ABIZAID: It certainly could. If we got a -- it certainly could. If we got a third multinational division, which, as you know, we're working very hard and it's being worked at the U.N. as well, as you mentioned. If we got a third multinational division, that might reduce the active or reserve component call-up that we'd have to have to fulfill that need.

COCHRAN: Let me ask General Abizaid, what is your assessment of the effectiveness of our National Guard and Reserve forces in the theater?

ABIZAID: Well, sir, there's no doubt that the National Guard and reserve component forces have been doing an outstanding job. They have been absolutely essential. We couldn't get the job done without them. It isn't a matter of nice to have; it's a matter of must have.

They've been doing great work, all the way from combat operations to support operations. They're all over the theater. I saw some National Guardsmen in places as far away as Yemen and I've seen them in faraway places like Afghanistan, and they're certainly in Iraq in very large numbers. They're doing great work.

COCHRAN: Let me ask you a question, too, about the Iraqi forces you're trying to recruit and train and get involved in the protection of their own homeland. Do you think the Iraqi people have the courage and fortitude to see this mission through to a successful conclusion?

ABIZAID: Sir, the Iraqi people have the courage to see this through. It's very, very clear to me that, as you look at the country, as you look at the enthusiasm of people trying to build a new future, that they are both courageous and optimistic in most of the country.

ABIZAID: They have the courage, they have the tenacity, they have the education, they have what it takes to get the job done, but they can't do it without our help. Every day they get stronger, every day they get better. There's no doubt that they're prepared to risk their lives against those people that are trying to cause the mission to fail. And I have great, great faith in the Iraqi people, along with us, to make this mission successful. As do, by the way, Senator, our soldiers.

TURNER: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STEVENS: Thank you.

Senator Inouye? Senator Inouye is recognized for eight minutes.

INOUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, before proceeding with my question, I would like to agree with you that every life is precious, every life is sacred, and whatever contributions are made, whether it's a division or a squad, they're important.

But having said that, I'm looking over the supplemental request now, there's an item of $390 million to pay the cost of supporting the Polish division and another $390 million to support a potential second multinational division. What would be the impact if we did not appropriate this money?

RUMSFELD: The impact would be that the support that we were getting, have been getting from the forces of other countries, would be in some measure denied us.

INOUYE: They would leave the theater?

RUMSFELD: Senator, I can't answer that. I don't know what they would do.

The one division has, of course, already been paid for, the Polish division, and the various countries that are participating in that, I don't -- I think it's 11 or 16 countries are involved in that particular one. The funds would, for the most part, relate to the second division, and it would clearly make it more difficult to encourage countries to participate in that second division.

INOUYE: Mr. Secretary, there is another item, $1.4 billion to support our coalition forces. What is that for?

RUMSFELD: This -- Dr. Zakheim, why don't you respond to that?

It involves a whole kludge of things. Among other things, for example, the assistance that is being provided us by Pakistan in connection with the Afghanistan operation. And we use their bases, we use their fuel, we use various types of services from them. And we have an arrangement whereby we can reimburse for those types of things, as, of course, this committee knows.

Dov, do you want to elaborate?

ZAKHEIM: Yes, sir.

Senator, these arrangements began almost -- shortly after the war in Afghanistan. The Pakistanis have been dispatching forces in what are called the tribal areas in the northwest which border Afghanistan. They in the past have not even sent their forces in, and the alternative, quite frankly, would have been our having to go in there.

ZAKHEIM: We didn't know if we'd get the permission. We certainly would not know the territory anything like the Pakistanis do.

When they come in -- and not just Pakistan, Jordan and other countries -- when they come with requests for reimbursement for operations they would not otherwise have undertaken if we would not have requested them to, we do not automatically reimburse them. We have a very, very rigorous system of reviewing those requests for reimbursement, and in some cases we've denied them.

It has to be a direct support for the United States efforts in support of our efforts in the global war on terrorism for activities that these countries would not have undertaken had we not asked them to.

INOUYE: Mr. Secretary, I get the understanding, in reading the supplemental request, that there will be a decrease in U.S. troop level if we increase foreign involvement from three to four divisions. Is that correct?

RUMSFELD: I think that the way I would respond -- and then, I'd like General Abizaid, who is the combatant commander for the Central Command, to elaborate -- I look at it not in two pieces, Senator, but in three pieces. There is the U.S. forces, there are international forces and there are Iraqi security forces, that are made up of an Iraqi army, police, border guards, site protection people.

Then there are the facts on the ground, and what will determine the total number of forces and capabilities will be the facts on the ground. It will require more or less. Then the balance among those three elements will determine which forces are there to deal with those facts on the ground.

Our goal, our purpose is not to assume a permanent responsibility for the security of Iraq. It's certainly not to create a dependency on the part of Iraq that they must have our assistance or international assistance. It is to invest enough in the Iraqi security forces so that they are the ones that take over the responsibility for both the U.S. and for the coalition forces.

John Abizaid, do you want to comment?

ABIZAID: Well, yes.

Senator, we have for a long while looked forward to the opportunity to bring in a coalition division primarily in the north. One reason is that the north is relatively calm.

Another reason is that we thought we could attract some Muslim forces. We want to internationalize the force. As you know, the high percentage of Americans to coalition forces leads to this notion that this is an American occupation, at least in the eyes of people in the Arab world and within Iraq.

But more importantly, we knew that we could get some capability up there that would then allow us to concentrate American forces where we would need them in other areas.

Under the current circumstances, it is possible -- of course, it's always difficult to predict the security situation, but it is possible to contemplate that additional coalition forces would lead to withdrawal of American forces over time.

INOUYE: Further reading the request, I get the impression that if we're not successful in encouraging three multinational divisions to join us, we would replace that group with four Reserve enhanced brigades. Is that correct? American brigades.

MYERS: Senator Inouye, just to answer that question, I'll just piggyback on what John said.

What John tries to figure out with his commanders and his folks every day is the needs for the future. And you can only look out so far in this business, as you're well aware. So that's one of the options.

If we don't get a third multinational division, there are several options for filling that need.

One is the security situation can improve to the point where you don't need it.

Another is, as the secretary said, you could have enough Iraqis on board by that time that you don't need it.

There are certainly active duty options that we're looking at. And there are also in the supplemental the options to bring on reserve component forces to fill that need, given that it materializes.

INOUYE: What are the odds? Are we going to reduce our forces?

MYERS: I'll let General Abizaid talk about that.

ABIZAID: Sir, I think there are four things that play here. One of them is the current security situation. The other thing has to do with the number of international forces.

But by far the most important element is the ability of Iraqis to take care of the security situation. And that's really split in two. It has to do with paramilitary forces and military forces on the Iraqi side and police forces on the Iraqi side.

If we can bring the Iraqi paramilitary and police forces up to both a strength and a capability that would allow them to take over certain urban areas, then I think we can contemplate bringing American force levels down over time. And I think it's not impossible to believe that that could happen next year provided that there's not a spike in violence that is unanticipated.

INOUYE: Mr. Secretary, if I may just follow up, prior question, this request includes $1.4 billion for the support of coalition forces. But I gather that the $1.4 billion we appropriated for '03 has not been spent. Is that correct? About only half has been obligated?

ZAKHEIM: I think it's been spent.

About half has been obligated so far. We anticipate that over the next few months, we will be continuing to reimburse the Pakistanis roughly at the rate of about $70 million a month.

ZAKHEIM: That is basically what we have verified, in terms of their costs that...

INOUYE: So the amount we appropriated will be spent?

ZAKHEIM: It will be fully spent, sir, yes.

ABIZAID: Senator, if I may just add to the answer, I would like to point out that it's not just a matter of military forces. It's clearly a matter of also bringing economic and political activity forward in such a manner that it sets the conditions that allow us to be able to be successful.

So it's very difficult to say there's a strictly military solution to the force levels. It depends upon all the aspects of national power.

STEVENS: Thank you, Senator.

Senator Specter is recognized for eight minutes.

SPECTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your service and we thank the men and women of the armed forces for the outstanding job which they have done.

Mr. Secretary, there has been a great of discussion among senators about the possibility of advancing these funds with loans or perhaps involving the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank. As I travel through my state and elsewhere, there is obvious concern about an $87 billion request. I believe the Congress will support the president and support the administration and support the armed forces. We are looking for ways to lighten the burden, if we can reasonably.

Inevitably, we move through the appropriations process and we just finished the subcommittee which I chair, which had appropriations for health and education and worker safety. And as you might expect, there were many arguments raised on the Senate floor about why not more money for a given item, when we are being asked to spend $87 billion on a supplemental?

Where you deal with infrastructure -- water, sewer, electricity -- customarily, it is a capital investment and funding is looked for perhaps to the IMF or the World Bank. It is realistic, Mr. Secretary, to try to structure some of this with loans from others or looking to the Iraqi oil, where I think it is fair to use Iraqi resources to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq? We don't want that oil. Is there some way we can offset this request in loans or IMF or World Bank?

RUMSFELD: Senator, I know that this is subject that's been looked at very hard by the administration and by the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Treasury.

The concern is that the Iraqis currently have something in the neighborhood of $200 billion of various types of obligations, whether reparations or debt. They have a relatively modest amount of oil revenues this year. They go up substantially next year and they're estimated to be up, I think, around $15 billion to $20 billion within a matter of two, two and a half or three years.

They have immediate needs and we are having a donors' conference to get other countries to participate in, I believe, Madrid next month.

You're quite right about the international lending organizations. The goal is to get them to participate, as well. The goal also is to get private-sector investments in that country as the security situation improves.

It's going to take all of that. And the idea of adding an additional burden to the debts they already have was concluded to be the kind of thing that didn't work very well after World War I. And after World War II, the effort was to help them get started, kick- start them and let them go and it worked.

RUMSFELD: It worked a lot better than it did after World War I. And so the conclusion on the part of the administration is that they believe that this portion should definitely be grants.

SPECTER: Let me move to another question and just an observation. The $200 billion in debt expended by a tyrant, they're really bankrupt. I don't think we have to look toward repayment of that. We're starting anew. And it seems to me that we can appropriately, by analogy, the commercial transactions, look to their assets into the future.

But let me move to another question, Mr. Secretary. This issue of unilateralism and multilateralism is a big, big point. I know that the coalition of the willing was a multilateral approach; did not get the United Nations' support.

When we were considering the resolution for the use of force, there were many of us -- and I expressed this on Senate floor -- of concern to involve the United Nations as much as that could be done. And Senator Lugar had an amendment, which I had co-sponsored along with others, which would have conditioned the use of force on greater involvement of the United Nations. That amendment ultimately was not offered in a very complex procedural setting.

And as we -- as the president is moving -- and I compliment him for his efforts to bring in the United Nations -- we have the continuing feeling that in many quarters -- and with the French I think totally unjustifiable; they still haven't forgiven us for saving them in two world wars -- but that sense is there as we're trying to get cooperation.

And I'm just wondering, as we look at the historical impact of what has been done here and concern that the United Nations was weakened because the United States moved without the approval of the Security Council -- I don't believe that the United States has anything to apologize for -- but I wonder if in hindsight -- and I don't think this is Monday morning quarterbacking, because we're looking at two points: one is the precedent as to what we have done here and looking at the secretary general's concern that other nations may want to act unilaterally as the -- not unilaterally as we did, but without the consent of the Security Council.

And also, in an effort to try to get more support from the international community, if it might not be advisable to take a look at it and comment on whether, in retrospect, we might have done it a little differently. Not to apologize, not to mea culpa or to say we made a mistake necessarily, but if you had it all to do over again, Mr. Secretary, would you have approached it with a little more effort to get more involved, including the Security Council?

RUMSFELD: Senator, the amount of effort that was made by the Department of Defense, Department of State, the president personally to get other countries involved was enormous. It began from very beginning to -- CENTCOM was engaged in relationships to include other countries. We ended up with 32 other countries involved in that activity with troops on the ground.

RUMSFELD: Now that's not a small number of U.N. members, it's quite a few.

You're quite right: The president, initially and yesterday, has indicated his conviction that it would be helpful to have a role played by the U.N. greater than is currently the case. And that's why he spoke there, that's why he and Secretary Powell were up there engaging in all those bilaterals.

To say that the U.N. was weakened by the U.N. action, I think that has to consider how the U.N. would have been weakened if Saddam Hussein had been able to ignore 18 straight resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. It would have to make one wonder what is the value of a U.N. Security Council resolution if a dictator could with impunity ignore 17 or 18 such resolutions.

I think that one could argue that that would have weakened the United Nations more.

The president has demonstrated, unambiguously, that he wants to work with the United Nations and is attempting to do so.

SPECTER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STEVENS: Senator Hollings, you're recognized for eight minutes.

HOLLINGS: Well, let me try to be helpful in my eight minutes because this is a complicated situation, Mr. Secretary.

Iraq was a tremendous military victory, and you folks at the table ought to be congratulated.

Thus far it's a political failure. I'm hearing all kinds of nonsense here, but complimenting the president on trying to bring in the U.N. -- I know the senator from Pennsylvania and I know how to politic. I wouldn't say, "It's a really important thing for you to try to help me," I'd go out and ask for your help. And yesterday, you can see that the United Nations feels that it was an assault on their principles as well as an assault on Iraq.

And we were chastised there, and instead of sitting and listening -- it's just like if you got up and left the room right now -- the president got up and left the room with the secretary of state and everything else, so I don't compliment the president a darn bit. He has not been helpful to the military.

Starting at that thing, let's get away from trying to connect with this long litany of bankruptcy of two airlines, insurance industry $7 billion, lost income and all -- trying to connect Al Qaida with Iraq or 9/11 with Iraq, because even President Bush says there's no connection. That's number one.

Number two, let's get away from the co-called coalition: Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, come on. President Bush, the father Bush that you served with, secretary of defense and so forth, he got 144 nations.

HOLLINGS: This 32 is not a corporal's guard. We're in trouble. That's your trouble.

I'm getting right to my point. It's not money. I said months ago, it's not a money supplemental, it's a manpower supplemental.

And you've got a heck of a job over there, that if they had a constitution this afternoon and an assembly and everything else, they'd still be -- those borders are porous. We got a Lebanon on our hands. They're going to be blowing up each other out there for years on end.

And how can we be helpful? Well, number one, I think when you talk about getting these two brigades in there, multinational brigades, it's going to be tough. Turkey, at the best, it'll have 10,000. That's not quite a brigade. And then you'll bring in a little bit of Bangladesh and maybe a couple of hundred from India or something else like that.

And I'm looking to this time September next year, it's not going to fly having the majority of the Reserves and the Guard on duty in Iraq in the United States defense establishment back home or elsewhere.

And I don't know how you can do it. I've got the budget for 11 peacekeeper operations, plus, you know, now with Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq. I still think you're going to need that kind of supplemental of manpower.

Now, the news is good. The headlines with the economy is, you've got a full complement in the volunteer army. Let some more volunteer; I'd rather be paying them than running around paying Poles to get there or whatever else we're trying to do.

But let's look at that. I think we can pass that and get a manpower supplemental and really get on top of it, because we're destroying our National Guard and Reserves, I can tell you. They're exhausted. They were called up right after 9/11. I've got them. They're doing an outstanding job and everything else like that, but there's so much that we can get done. And you folks in the military have been taking on our political mistakes.

There were two resolve clauses. Don't get away from that two pages of "whereases." The one resolve clause was to enforce the U.N. resolutions, and we overrode that. The U.N. was trying to do it, Hans Blix was there. We said, "You're irrelevant, you're a debating society, get out of the way, we coming in." And, of course, so far they've been proved right: We haven't found any weapons of mass destruction. So you can't blame Hans Blix for not finding them; we've had five months to find them. And paying off people and giving rewards and everything else.

We hadn't gotten rid of Saddam. He's killing us every day out there. I don't know where the heck he is, but we getting killed.

So let's don't run around, "We've gotten rid of Saddam, we've gotten rid of the tyrant." This has been a political flop and it's our task to make it a political success. And let's understand that in the initial instance.

And one way to try to do it is start to build up the military, and then, incidentally, get the dickens the military out there, turn it over to the State Department and AID. Then we'll have our military properly supported.

But we don't have a money problem, we got a political problem. You folks did your job and did it in an -- and you're trying to do it the best you can. But when the president makes his speech and then walks out and doesn't even listen to the people who are talking and you're asking to get their help, that isn't any politics, I can tell you that right now; that's how to make enemies out of people.

RUMSFELD: Senator, I certainly agree with you that the men and women in uniform achieved an impressive military victory.

HOLLINGS: Yes, sir.

RUMSFELD: I cannot agree that it's a political failure after four and a half months.

RUMSFELD: It seems to me that that would be premature.

I do agree with you that it is a manpower supplemental. And I'd like General Abizaid to elaborate, because he's there dealing with this every day.

But the reality is that we have a choice. We could go out -- and I agree with you further that we're not going to get a lot of international troops with or without a U.N. resolution. I think somewhere between zero and 10,000 or 15,000 is probably the ball park. It's going to change the drill dramatically.

HOLLINGS: But then we'll have the majority of the Guard and Reserve on duty there this time next year.

RUMSFELD: Well, that's my point. When I agreed that it's a manpower, I don't think it's a U.S. manpower supplemental as much as it is an Iraqi manpower supplemental.

I think that there is no -- the United States has no desire whatsoever to become the assurer of security for that country. We do have an obligation to try to help the Iraqis become capable of handling their own security. And we've found that as we've gone from zero to 56,000 Iraqis providing for their own security in four and a half months, that's impressive. That's an accomplishment. That's not a political failure.

And the goal is to keep investing in them so that they will be able to assume that responsibility, and we'll not only not have to put more Americans in there or more coalition troops, but we'll be able to pull Americans and coalitions down as the Iraqis assume responsibility for their own security.

John Abizaid, would you...

HOLLINGS: Well, let me -- I agree with you it's, sort of, premature. I'm trying to make it a political success. We don't have the final word on it.

But we were running around. I was misled. I voted for that thing. But how was I misled?

Number one, you had aluminum tubes. You had mushroom clouds. You had yellow cake. You had the vice president saying "reconstituted nuclear." And I really thought we were doing it for Israel.

If there were any real security threat by Saddam Hussein, Israel would knock it out in the next two hours, like they did at Baghdad. That's a little country, they're surrounded and they got no time for debate in the United Nations and everything else like that. And I'm with them.

But I thought that's the kind of security -- we didn't have any security threat. Al Qaida is not connected to 9/11.

Excuse me, General. Go right ahead.

ABIZAID: Well, sir, it's not my place to comment on the political success or failure of anything, but it is my place to comment on the success of the mission.

We can be successful in Iraq. And while people with different opinions might be able to argue about what happened before in Iraq before the war, there is no doubt now that Iraq is at the center of the global war on terrorism in a way that we can't deny. And so political success and military success in my mind have to be achieved if we're going to win the global war on terrorism.

I believe that there is no doubt that our military forces are up to the task. There's no doubt that we must achieve success politically with Iraqis. But we also must show political will to stay the course, in my mind, in order to achieve success there.

ABIZAID: And I think it's possible that we can.

HOLLINGS: But, General, get my point. Deputy Secretary Hamre, and we all have high respect, and I think you've got high respect for him, he's just in the morning papers saying it's not you, it's the political entity -- namely, us, the Congress, the State Department, AID and everything else ought to be doing what you're doing. That's my point. That's what I'm talking about politically.

I don't see how in the world you're going to ever get really good security, because two Republican Guard units folded back into the city of 5 million. You can't find them. You can't go door-to-door and deweaponize them, and everything else of that kind.

So we've got a problem, a real problem on there, and the quicker we can get it over, as the secretary says, to the Iraqis -- I agree with you on that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STEVENS: Senator Specter is recognized for eight minutes.

Senator Domenici, pardon me.

Senator Domenici?

DOMENICI: Push my button. I tell you, my button has been pushed already today. The problem is I'm not going to let it push me, I'm going to just forget about a few things I've heard today that would cause me to get off the path of what I came here today to do.

First, I would tell you and tell Senator Byrd, I'm not a member of the greatest generation. I'd like you to know I'm a member of a much lesser generation than you. For I'm too young to be a member of the great generation. But I've been here 33 years, and I believe I'm entitled to my time just as you're entitled to yours: no more and no less for both of us.

Now, let me say to you, we voted here October 12th --- 11th or 12th -- late at night. We gave the president authority to go to war, if war we had to have with Iraq. When did we invade? When did the bombardment start? Anybody remember?

(UNKNOWN): March 19th.

DOMENICI: March 19th. Both events, the voting by 77 senators and the invasion of the country, are less than one year old, and we already have people here and across this land, and media people, who see no success other than they don't want to say to the military, "You did a bad job," because they wouldn't dare do that, because they did a tremendous job.

But other than that, all of a sudden, from October the 11th to March to this date a few months later, everything has gone wrong. We are doing everything wrong.

Well, to all four of you, and to anyone that's listening, I think those who say that are wrong.

DOMENICI: I believe we're doing a tremendous job. We have an option. We can pull out. And I would say, for anybody who wants to make that recommendation, make it. Take it to the floor of the Senate and say, "We ought to pull out, because we have so many things going wrong, we just ought to quit." I don't think they'd get 10 votes.

Now since that's the case, we have to take a look at what's going on. I want to tell you that in the New York Times today, there's some very good news. I know that sounds strange to all of you: the New York Times, good news about this war. Maybe their presses went awry.

But they printed a poll, that's why it was good news. And the poll said that something's happening for the better in Iraq. The polls said two-thirds of the Iraqi people expect their lives to better as a result of removing Saddam Hussein. Two-thirds.

And they went on to say, Mr. Secretary and generals, the Iraqi view of the job being done by Ambassador Bremer, and then these two words, quote, "are remarkably positive," close quote, with 47 percent of the respondents lauding him for the recovery process in place.

Now you wouldn't guess from what we're hearing, both from the media and some senators, you wouldn't guess that anything like that is going on in this country.

Now Mr. Secretary, when you undertook this job, did you think it was going to be easy?

RUMSFELD: No, sir.

DOMENICI: Did you think...

RUMSFELD: I was right.

(LAUGHTER)

DOMENICI: Did you think it was going to be easy to change their government, Mr. Secretary?

RUMSFELD: No, indeed. They have no real experience with democracy. It's a hard thing to do, change your culture.

DOMENICI: Now, Mr. Secretary, do you -- because it's hard and because it's never been done, did you choose to say with our president, "Let's try"?

RUMSFELD: Absolutely.

DOMENICI: Why?

RUMSFELD: For several reasons. I think a peaceful, responsible Iraq could have an enormous effect in that part of the world. And it's an important country. It's a large country. It's a country that has resources. And it -- a country there that has that position and is not threatening to its neighbors, not invading Kuwait, not giving $25,000 to every family that does suicide bombing and killing innocent men, women and children -- it would be a good thing for the world.

DOMENICI: Generals, whichever one of you choose to answer, you committed our military men there and you're its leader. Chief of staff, was it worth it, this war?

MYERS: I think, as General Abizaid has said, that our troops over there know exactly what the mission is. If you would ask them individually, like many of you have, they think it's worth it. They understand...

DOMENICI: Do you think it's worth it?

MYERS: Absolutely.

DOMENICI: Can we win? Can we complete our mission?

MYERS: Sir, we can win. We can win.

And let me just take off on that a minute. We can win. But to win, we need several other things to happen, in my view. We've got to have the will to win.

And that's what the terrorists, by the way, are betting on on this high-stakes game in Iraq. They're betting that we can be made to leave -- we the coalition. They've seen it before in Somalia. They saw it in Lebanon. They've seen it in other places. And they're hoping that they can outlast us, that they will have the will to win.

And that's -- that is a -- that's an issue we need to confront, not only as an American people, but as a coalition against this. Commitment is important and patience, I would say. As you pointed out, Senator, we've only been at this now for a -- relatively, scope of human history, a relatively short period of time.

DOMENICI: And let me move over to the other general, please.

ABIZAID: Well, Senator, you know, a lot today has been made about the greatest generation, and my father's a member of that generation.

ABIZAID: And I think there's something to be said for that.

But when you talk to our young people in places like Afghanistan, in places like Iraq, downtown Baghdad, and you hear what they say about how they're doing and you see their confidence and you see their dedication and you see their ability to withstand great dangers, you have to ask yourself whether or not they're not the greatest generation.

They are fighting and winning the global war on terrorism and they know it won't be easy. They know it won't be without casualties and they know it won't be without sacrifice.

But we've got to win this war, we've got to be tough, we've got to be tougher than our enemies because they think we're weak, and we're not.

DOMENICI: General, do our troops think we can win?

ABIZAID: Our troops know we can win.

DOMENICI: And how do you assess the situation today? Is it better than two months ago?

ABIZAID: The situation is better than it was two months ago, it's better than it was four months ago, and it will be better two months from now. But it will be a slow process, it will be a dangerous process.

And you, Senator, really, this is a battle of moderation versus extremism that we're engaged in. If we can win in Iraq, we can win the battle of moderation.

And it's just not the battle for the United States, it's the battle for the Arab world as well. They crave the opportunity to move forward in a moderate way.

Every leader in that part of the world believes that. People believe that. There aren't 60,00 Iraqis coming to serve with us under arms because they're betting that they're going to lose.

True, there are people that are against us and they are dedicated against us in a way that's going to make us fight and fight hard. But I have asked every brigade commander that I have met -- and I've met almost everyone of them in the field out there -- "Are we winning?" And I've put it in no uncertain terms, and they say, to a man and to woman, "Yes, we are."

STEVENS: Thank you very much, General.

Senator Leahy is recognized for eight minutes.

LEAHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm struck here by the little bit of testimony we're getting up here on these matters. The talking points seem to always be on the Marshall Plan, the Marshall Plan and so on. Let's just make sure that we understand a few of the facts. Much of the Marshall Plan was on a dollar per dollar match by the European nations; it wasn't direct out from us, much a dollar/dollar match. Keep hearing about what it did for Germany. Germany was not the largest recipient: They were about 11 percent, England was around 25 percent.

Loans made up almost 10 percent of the Marshall Plan. Now Secretary Rumsfeld has testified -- and very accurately -- that about $200 billion owed to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. I would hope that we're not paying off loans to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Especially, I remind everybody who keeps trying to tie Saddam Hussein to September 11th, and I commend the president finally stopping that by saying there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th.

There is a major connection between Saudi Arabia and September 11th. Most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Most of them were protected and funded from Saudi Arabia. And there are a lot of Al Qaida -- we both know -- still in Saudi Arabia, not withstanding some of the crackdown done by Saudi Arabia after attacks in their own part. There are still members of Al Qaida, they're protected by the Saudi royal family and they're still getting funded there.

LEAHY: So I would hope we're not going to be paying off loans to Saudi Arabia.

President Truman urged sacrifice. He, among other things, had a personal broadcast appeal to the American people to keep down our grain consumption because we were shipping grain -- I use that as just one example -- so there would not be inflationary things here.

He had thorough review of it. And instead of eight-minute photo- ops for review, the Senate -- Senator Byrd, mentioned this -- the Senate held 30 days of hearing. There were 100 non-governmental witnesses. There was 1,466 pages of testimony. The House had 29 days of hearings with 85 witnesses. They set up with the administration and a bipartisan -- there's been very little reaching out to both sides of the aisle up here on this issue -- a bipartisan effort to go by one-year authorizations -- authorizations, as well as appropriations -- to see where it went.

So I just want people to understand what the Marshall Plan was.

I'm worried -- and General Myers as I've told you before, I am extraordinarily proud of our men and women that are over there. It shows the finest Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps anywhere in the world. But I'm concerned that more are being killed every day. They announced some time ago that mission was accomplished there. And since then, we've lost more people than there had been in the war.

I'm afraid that Iraqi people don't feel safe. Now I understand what polls say, but we find many of them still turned against us. I would hope that they would be our friends, but friendly fire incidents don't help.

I worry that some of this is a Viet Nam like search-and-destroy things brute strength, instead of doing more efforts to bring Iraqi people onto our side.

Foreign troop contributions, no matter how much we say, they've been meager at best. Some of these countries that we listed -- and I'm glad to have Moldova and Estonia and Azerbaijan in there shoulder to shoulder with us. But I would suggest that some of these countries are seeking out more loans and foreign aid for us to pay for it, and also some of their contributions are about the size of a rural police department in my state of Vermont.

So I worry about the expenses. Now we've been told by the administration -- former OMB director Mitch Daniels said the total cost would be between $50 billion and $60 billion. The Department of Defense told us the oil revenues of that country could bring in between $50 billion and $100 billion over the next two or three years, and that would finance the reconstruction. Well, that didn't work.

Everybody up here will support the money for the troops. None of us, whether we're for or against the war, are going to leave our men and women unprotected, unprepared and without the equipment they need. We all know that.

But there is going to be a real question about the money to rebuild schools, hospitals, roads, electrical infrastructure and so forth. In Iraq, I think one plan is to build a $50,000-a-bed new prisons.

I think that we need to know a lot more. So, Secretary Rumsfeld, I worry about what this supplemental doesn't request.

LEAHY: The National Guard and Reserves are critical to the security and reconstruction efforts. Everybody knows that. In fact, the Department of Defense recently extended Reserve deployments in Iraq for a year. They are going to deploy upwards of four and a half brigades.

Now, the Senate recently voted overwhelmingly to make non- activated reservists eligible for TRICARE on a cost-share basis to try to keep our Reserves as healthy as possible. That's a bipartisan coalition. And this coalition, Republicans and Democrats, expressed willingness to work with the department to develop a cost-effective program.

Why didn't the department request funds for this program in the supplemental? Why not -- to the Senate -- when there is overwhelming support here for TRICARE for our Guard and Reserves? Why isn't that in your supplemental request?

RUMSFELD: Senator, let me respond to several of those points.

LEAHY: Could you do that -- in case we run out of time, could you do the TRICARE one first?

RUMSFELD: I'll sure get to it. The short answer is that the decision was made, I think in cooperation with the Congress, to restrict the supplemental to the global war on terror.

LEAHY: But we're talking about the money for our forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, where we have more and more Guard and Reserve being called up.

RUMSFELD: I'm told we already paid for TRICARE for Reserves when they're on active duty.

LEAHY: No, I'm talking about for Guard and Reserve -- prior to being on active Reserve, why can they not be part of TRICARE?

STEVENS: Will the senator yield?

LEAHY: Yes.

STEVENS: As chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, I'll tell you, we tried to do that. It was not authorized yet.

LEAHY: We got a whole lot in here that's not authorized. I mean, we don't even have an authorization bill for this.

We're building electrical grids. We're building schools, hospitals, everything else, all of which may be very good. We're putting millions of people back to work in Iraq, and there hasn't been an authorization bill on this part yet.

RUMSFELD: May I respond to some of the points you made?

First, let me say that you're quite right, we have no interest in paying off anyone else's debts or loans that they had to Saddam Hussein's regime. All debt payments have been deferred until 2004 through an international agreement and understanding. And clearly with that kind of debt the country is going to require substantial debt reconstructing.

With respect to Saudi Arabia, you're correct. There were a great many of the 9/11 terrorists who happened to be Saudis. It is also correct, however, to say that the Saudi government has been working increasingly closely with us, and that, in fact, this week they either arrested or killed an additional high-level Al Qaida and they have been focusing on that problem to our benefit.

LEAHY: I wish they had earlier.

RUMSFELD: The president's comment about major combat operation was over was correct. He did not say mission accomplished. There was a sign there that said that, but his comments were correct. The mission...

LEAHY: I wonder how that sign got there. That's amazing. Go ahead, sorry.

RUMSFELD: The mission is clearly not over. General Abizaid has been describing the difficulty of the mission and the danger of the mission, and we understand that.

I have to say something about the comment you made about the countries that have relatively small contributions. They are also relatively small countries, and hundreds of people -- there's six countries with over thousand, to say nothing of the Iraqis that are getting killed and wounded just as coalition forces are. The Iraqis have 70,000 involved.

Now, the fact that a country has only a few hundred, it may be that that country as a proportion is roughly the same as other countries. And I think that we ought to be respectful for their contributions and we ought to be grateful for their contributions.

RUMSFELD: I will make one last comment and that's about the prisons. We need those prisons. Saddam Hussein let something like 100,000 to 150,000 criminals out on the streets against the Iraqi people. They are out there doing damage. The looting that took place was essentially against the Iraqi institutions, the Saddam Hussein institutions. It was against the ministries. It was against the prisons. It was against the things that repressed those people.

The prisons were destroyed. There are places where in the latrines, they didn't just take out the toilets, they took out the pipes. They took out every aspect of tiles that were in there. They have destroyed most of what was left of Saddam Hussein's regime, purposely. You can tell the way the looting took place that it was focused on that regime.

We need prisons and that's why the money's in there for it.

LEAHY: That's why we're spending more than we do in the United States for our prisons?

RUMSFELD: I don't...

LEAHY: My time's up.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STEVENS: The senator's time is up.

I'm going to use another minute of my time, just for a little bit of memory here. You know, I left the military and went to college and through -- halfway through law school before the Marshall Plan started. We had a military occupation of the areas in Europe for over three years before the Marshall Plan suggested.

Is the other side suggesting we should go to a military occupation for a period of time? Do you want to do that? Do you really want military occupation and not a progress toward democracy in Iraq?

I'm supporting this because I believe we'll get our people home sooner if we move now to create something will create democracy in Iraq.

LEAHY: Well, if the chairman's addressed a question to me, let me say this.

STEVENS: I'm not suggesting a question, I'm making my statement.

LEAHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, to answer your question...

STEVENS: I didn't give you a question, Senator.

LEAHY: ... if we're going to have a Marshall Plan, then we ought to have hearings on a Marshall Plan.

STEVENS: There were hearings yesterday before the Foreign Relations Committee. There are going to be hearings before the Armed Service Committee.

This is the Appropriations Committee, responding to a request from the president of the United States for emergency appropriations. This is not a committee to develop the policy of the United States in terms of authorization. This is not the place for that.

Senator Burns is recognized.

BURNS: I thought Senator Shelby wanted to follow that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And first of all, let me...

STEVENS: Senator, would you yield?

BURNS: Yes.

STEVENS: Just for information, everyone's concerned, we're going down the list of the appropriators by seniority, not by the time people came in. Too many people come in and go out, come in, go out, so we're going down the list as they appear on the roll call. Thank you.

BURNS: Well, I thank the chairman for that.

I just want to thank the leaders that we have at the table today. You have carried out your daily operations and your daily challenges that fulfills the wisdom, the vision of freedom that all people who live and die for daily and for that great human endeavor. I think we lose vision of what we are all about in a little bit.

To your credit, I think our men and women in uniform now serving on the ground, that has served on the ground, have been and remain the best ambassadors we have in Iraq. To your credit, they've upheld the American tradition. Once we were attacked, and we were, they've taken the battle against terrorism to the enemy on his ground.

BURNS: Americans do not want, nor can ill afford, the terrorists bringing the battle to us on our ground. That has never been the tradition of the American people since the Civil War.

And we must understand in the vision of this president that no nation, no society, no government, no economy is exempt from the acts of terrorism and the damage that it can do. That's what this mission is all about.

Now, saying that, we are in the business of appropriating money to carry out that mission. I know we have money in here to replace ordnance that was used, e