Seal of the Department of Defense U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
On the Web:
Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131/697-5132
Public contact:
or +1 (703) 571-3343

Transcript of Testimony by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld on Homeland Security before Senate Appropriations Committee
As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate Dirksen Office Building, Tuesday, May 07, 2002

SEC. RUMSFELD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman [Senator Robert Byrd – D-WV] members of the committee. I have asked Dr. Dov Zakheim, the comptroller of the Department of Defense, to join me. He has been intimately involved in the details of the supplemental and the budget. And I've also asked Dr. Steve Cambone, the principal undersecretary of the Department of Defense for Policy --

SEN. : Mr. Secretary, I think -- would you turn your microphone on?

SEC. RUMSFELD: How's that, better?

SEN. : Yeah.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I've asked Dr. Steve Cambone to join me also, the principal undersecretary of the Department of Defense for Policy, who has been involved in both the organization of the department with respect to homeland security, and also the Unified Command Plan, which is the document which will stand up the Northern Command later this year.

So I appreciate this opportunity to meet with you on the subject of the Department of Defense and the important subject of homeland defense. While September 11th was a call for the military to do more with regard to homeland defense, defending the United States, of course, has been the number one priority of the U.S. military since the founding of the republic.

In fact, providing for the common defense was so basic an obligation of government that the founding fathers saw fit to place that document, the Constitution, the very words "providing for the common defense."

For most of our history, our security has benefited from excellent geography: two vast oceans, two friendly countries to the north and the south. And with the exception of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, no nation has had the power to destroy our cities or our way of life. But on September 11th, our nation awoke to new dangers. We suffered the first attack on the United States' territory since World War II and the first attack on our capital by a foreign aggressor since the War of 1812. Today Americans will understand that the security of the United States is our top defense priority. In the early days of our nation, the Army and the Navy provided for the nation's defense with internal forts, fixed-harbor defenses and occasional naval cruises abroad.

Since the end of the 19th century, however, U.S. military forces have focused their efforts on engaging enemies abroad. For more than 50 years, defending the nation has entailed the permanent basing and deployment of U.S. forces around the world to deter and defend against attacks on our country, on our forces, on our friends and on our allies. During the Cold War it was clear that physical distance from an adversary, the Soviet Union, no longer assured that we would be safe at home. Accordingly, we developed the forces necessary to deter a Soviet attack. NORAD was created to serve as an early-warning system for aerospace attack, including ballistic missiles. Because of the determination of the West, the Cold War ended without an attack on our people or our territory.

Today the brave men and women waging the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and in other locations around the world are America's first and most important line of defense against homeland attack. By going directly to the source and seeking to root out terrorists and their networks where they are, they prevent and help to deter terrorist attacks before they occur.

September 11 taught us, to our regret, that our people and our territory is still vulnerable to attack. But it's a vulnerability that's different from that of the Cold War. To be sure, we remain vulnerable to missile attack, which is why we're working to develop and deploy defenses against the most likely forms of ballistic and cruise-missile attacks. But the significant difference today is that we are vulnerable not only to external attack but to hostile forces among us who enter our country easily, who remain anonymous and who used the freedom American (sic) affords to plan and execute their violent deeds.

It is this vulnerability that has prompted the president to take the following approach to defend the nation: first, prosecution of the war on terrorism abroad. The president understands that a terrorist can attack at any time, at any place, using any conceivable technique. He also understands that it is physically impossible to defend against every conceivable threat in every place at every time. To successfully defend against terrorism and other 21st-century threats requires that we take the war to the enemy. And our task is to put pressure on terrorists wherever they are -- in Afghanistan, across the globe, to ensure that they have no safe haven, no sanctuary.

That's why the president has marshaled all of the nation's capabilities -- political, economic, financial, law enforcement, military, intelligence -- to attack and destroy and put pressure on terrorist organizations with global reach and those who harbor them. Those organizations threaten the United States, our interest and our allies. And while these organizations have operatives in the U.S., their headquarters and the majority of their people and resources are abroad.

Second, the president established the Office of Homeland Security to coordinate the efforts of federal, state and local agencies to provide for security here at home.

Both efforts are crucial, and the role of the Department of Defense in each differs in important ways.

With respect to the war abroad, U.S. military forces, at the direction of the president, are charged with engaging terrorist forces and the governments or other entities that harbor them. In this effort, the department works closely with other government agencies, including the Department of State, Treasury, Justice and the intelligence community. In military operations, the Department of Defense takes the lead, with other departments and agencies working in support of our efforts.

With regard to supporting the effort to improve security here at home, there are three circumstances under which the Department of Defense would be involved in activity within the United States.

First, under extraordinary circumstances that require the department to execute its traditional military missions. In these circumstances, DOD would;d take the lead. Combat air patrols and maritime defense operations are examples of such missions.

As with military missions abroad, DOD has the lead role in the conduct of traditional military missions in defense of the people and the territory of our country. In these instances, DOD is supported by other federal agencies. Plans for such contingencies, to the extent possible, would be coordinated, as appropriate, with the National Security Council and with the Homeland Security Council.

As an example, in the case of combat air patrols, the FAA, a civilian agency, provides data to assist the efforts of Air Force fighter pilots in the Guard and Reserve in identifying and, if necessary, intercepting suspicious or hostile aircraft.

Also included in the category of extraordinary circumstances are cases in which the president, exercising his constitutional authority as commander in chief and chief executive, authorizes military action. This inherent constitutional authority may be used only in cases, such as a terrorist attack, where normal measures are insufficient to carry out federal functions.

Second, in emergency circumstances of a catastrophic nature -- for example, responding to an attack or assisting in response to forest fires or floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and so forth. In these instances, the Department of Defense may be asked to act quickly to provide or to supply capabilities that other agencies simply do not have.

Third, missions or assignments that are limited in scope, where other agencies have the lead from the outset. An example of this would be security at a special event, like the Olympics, where we literally had more men and women in uniform than -- in the state of Utah for the Salt Lake City Olympics than we had in Afghanistan at the same time. Another example is assisting other federal agencies in developing capabilities to detect chemical and biological threats.

The first of those three categories, extraordinary circumstances, when DOD conducts military missions to defend the people or territory of the United States at the direction of the president, falls under the heading of homeland defense. In these cases, the department is prepared to take the lead.

The second and third categories, which are really emergency or temporary circumstances, in which other federal agencies take the lead, and DOD lends support, are appropriately described as homeland security. In these cases, Governor [Tom] Ridge, as the president's adviser for homeland security, coordinates the planning among civilian federal agencies, as well as state and local agencies. DOD is represented in these deliberations of the Homeland Security Council. DOD is prepared to support the plans that are developed in that process.

In the event of multiple requests to the Department of Defense assets, whether domestic or international, the president would be the one to make the allocation decisions, using the coordinating mechanisms of the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council.

To take another example, in the case of an incident that might exceed the capacity of a state or local authority to address such an attack -- for example, employing chemical weapons -- the federal response plan assigns to FEMA responsibility for coordinating and directing the activities of federal agencies. Under this plan, resources of the Department of Defense could be made available to support these activities. This could include the deployment of soldiers to control crowds or assist in evacuation; the provision of transportation or medical facilities and supplies; or communications equipment.

In sum, the Department of Defense really has two roles to play in providing for the security of the American people where they live and work. The first is to provide forces to conduct those traditional military missions under extraordinary circumstances, such as the defense of the nation's airspace or its maritime approaches; the second is to support the broader efforts of the federal domestic departments and agencies and indeed the state and local government, as coordinated by and in cooperation with the Office of Homeland Security under emergency conditions for special purposes.

Before turning to the steps the department has taken since September 11th, I would like to discuss the role of the National Guard briefly. The National Guard can support homeland security in several ways. First, in state service under the direction of the governors. For example, on September 11th, the National Guard in New York and New Jersey and Connecticut responded to the attacks on the World Trade Center towers. Second, in state service but performing duties of federal interest, the so-called Title 32 status. This is primarily designed to compensate guardsmen for federal training, but most recently it was used also to support patrols in over 400 airports across the country. Third, in federal service, the so-called Title 10 status. For example, when the National Guard is mobilized to serve under the direction of the president or the secretary of Defense.

These arrangements have worked well in the past. The challenge today is to translate them into our new security environment. There are many proposals for doing so, and we'll work with the Congress, the National Guard Bureau, the governors and the Office of Homeland Security to make certain that we have an approach that meets the nation's needs. Having said that, let me be more specific about what the Department of Defense has been doing since September 11th with regard to homeland security and defense. Recognizing that these complex missions demand a comprehensive and coordinated approach, the department has taken a number of steps. The first step has to do with the budget. For fiscal year 2002, $14 billion in supplemental DOD funds have been requested, and an increase of $48 billion in defense spending has been requested for fiscal year 2003. Both are essential for continuing the prosecution of the war on terrorism. That $48 billion represents the largest increase in a generation. However, the war on terrorism is the greatest challenge this nation has faced -- indeed, the greatest challenge the world has faced -- in a generation. Even as we fight today's war on terrorism, we must prepare for the wars of the future: by modernizing our forces for the wars they may have to fight still later in this decade, and by transforming our forces for the wars they may have to fight in 2010 and beyond.

Nothing is more important than our nations's security; on that, we all agree. But if true, nothing can be more important than passing the defense budget. And so, if I may digress, I would like to take this opportunity to urge that you take up the defense budget first, not last, to give our fighting forces the tools they need to do the job, to help us better plan for the war to which we are and must remain committed, and to help us transform the force so we are prepared for the wars of the future.

Second, the Unified Command Plan makes a number of important changes to the military command structure around the world.

Indeed, it is described by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dick Myers, as the most important set of changes in his military career. The president has approved a major revision of the command plan. Of interest today is that it will establish a combatant command for homeland defense, U.S. Northern Command, or what will undoubtedly be called NORTHCOM. NORTHCOM will be devoted to defending the people and territory of the United States against external threats and to coordinating the provision of U.S. military forces to support civil authorities.

In addition, NORTHCOM will be responsible for certain aspects of security, cooperation and coordination with Canada and with Mexico. It will also help DOD coordinate its military support to federal, state and local governments in the event of natural or other disasters. Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado is a site that the department has selected as the preferred location for the new NORTHCOM headquarters.

Third, DOD has established its own interim Office of Homeland Defense and intends to establish by summer a permanent office within the Office of the Secretary of Defense to ensure internal coordination of DOD policy direction, to provide guidance to Northern Command for its military activities in support of homeland defense, and support to civil authorities, and third, to provide for coordination with the Office of Homeland Security and other government agencies.

Fourth, in addition to establishing an internal Office of Homeland Defense and the Northern Command, the department is conducting a study on the DOD role in homeland defense as directed by the 2002 National Defense Authorization Act. The law calls for a comprehensive plan on the organization of the Office of Secretary of Defense that addresses the most beneficial organizational structures for combating terrorism, defending the U.S. homeland, and securing intelligence. We expect the study to be completed this summer.

Where we go in the future will be informed not only by the results of that study, but also by a rigorous examination of the evolving threat environment, our success in the global war on terrorism, and the evolving national homeland security strategy. The department has and will continue to coordinate its plans for supporting lead federal agencies with the Office of Homeland Security just as we do on the other side of the house with the National Security Council. In announcing the creation of a cabinet-rank position to coordinate the nation's homeland security efforts, President Bush said that a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard America against attack and respond to any that might occur is essential. The Department of Defense supports that effort through its assistance to civil authorities and to the Homeland Security Council. But the president also said that the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, to eliminate it, and to destroy it where it grows. And after just returning from visiting with our troops in Afghanistan and the surrounding countries, I can assure you that the men and women in uniform are prepared to accomplish that mission.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. BYRD: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for your appearance before this committee. And we certainly will thank you for any light you may be able to shed on the needs for the appropriations requested. We would also be happy if the director of the Office of Homeland Security would also appear before this committee and make a contribution to our effort.

I have a few questions here before I turn to Senator [Daniel] Inouye [Hawaii]. Of the $14 billion you are requesting for the Defense Department in the supplemental appropriations bill, more than $11 billion is earmarked for a central account called the Defense Emergency Response Fund for loosely defined purposes to support our -- the global war on territory -- on terrorism.

We all support the fight against terrorism, but the Defense Department has a terrible record -- and we've discussed this before, you and I have --

SEC. RUMSFELD: (Chuckles.) We have indeed.

SEN. BYRD: -- a terrible record of managing similar contingency funds used for Kosovo, Bosnia and Southwest Asia. The General Accounting Office has reported that a portion of those contingency funds have been used in the past for repairing facilities here in the United States that were never used in a contingency, to pay for golf course memberships overseas, to pay for sightseeing tours, to pay for the purchase of cappuccino machines, and to pay for ceremonial chinaware.

Funding for the war on terrorism is too important to be wasted. Now, $11 billion is a lot of money. It's more than we can contemplate, coming from a rural state like Mississippi or West Virginia. And I know you're personally opposing this kind of waste. However, under the funding mechanism that is proposed, how can you assure this committee that any supplemental appropriations provided in the Defense Emergency Response Fund will be used only for the costs of the war and not for unrelated or frivolous items?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Mr. Chairman, you're, of course, correct, we have talked about this before. And what has happened in the time that I've been in the department is -- besides bringing Dr. Zakheim in as the comptroller, he has undertaken a major, truly significant effort to try to deal directly with the issues that you've raised about the -- not so much the management of DOD funds but the tracking and ability to connect specific accounts with the expenditures of specific dollars. And I'd be happy to have Dr. Zakheim give a brief update on the progress in that effort. It is not a cheap effort, it's an expensive effort, I'm afraid, but it is something that you and I both agree needs to be done urgently.

Would you like to comment, Dov?


SEN. BYRD: Very well. Dr. Zakheim?

MR. ZAKHEIM: Yes, Mr. Chairman. First of all, on the emergency response fund itself, that actually is a vehicle that allows us to have much more visibility into the way the monies are being spent in connection with the war. And indeed, it actually makes it a little more difficult for us to push all the paper, but the intent was to work more closely with OMB in order to have the kind of scrutiny over the funds that you're talking about.

More generally, Mr. Chairman, I have been working with the General Accounting Office, with the Office of Management and Budget, to completely overhaul the way we manage our financial reporting system. And in fact, we have just let a major contract for developing a new -- what's called an architecture that will allow us to deal with the hundreds upon hundreds of systems that all are supposed to talk to one another, and frequently don't do so. And we're on a strict timetable. We'd be happy to report to you in detail at your convenience.

SEN. BYRD: I think it's well for us from time to time to go back and read the Constitution. In the Constitution we're told, in Section 9, Article 1: "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law, and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time."

So the Constitution requires accountability in the expenditure of these funds. And in the past, Defense officials have been given the flexibility to use the funds where they appear to be needed most. But accountability suffers, accountability suffers as the funds do not go through the traditional appropriations accounts for procurement of items or for specific operations or maintenance activities.

So I wonder what kind of strings we might be able to write into the appropriations bills that will give to the elected representatives of the people in the legislative branch the wherewithal that they be assured that appropriate accountability is being given to the expenditure of the taxpayers' money?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that we have an arrangement with the Office of Management and Budget whereby we are currently providing them with, I believe, monthly reports that are related to war-related expenditures. These reports are also coming up to the Hill, although I honestly don't know where they're going on Capitol Hill -- (to staff) -- but do you?

STAFF: (Off mike) -- staff.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I see. Apparently the staffs -- of which committees? Do you know?

STAFF: This one.

SEC. RUMSFELD: -- this committee is being briefed, not on a monthly basis, I wouldn't think, but --

STAFF: Pretty much on --

SEC. RUMSFELD: Pretty much? In any event, the -- I'm not sure that the reports we're talking about will go directly to your question. But we have in fact been supplying on a monthly basis the war-related expenses.

SEN. BYRD: Very well. I just feel that we ought to be ever vigilant.

This request for $11 billion is a tremendous amount of money, and I think Congress ought to have better strings attached than simply to put this money into a fund and allow the Defense Department to disburse it without further ado, virtually.

Congress has provided the Defense Department $17.4 billion to date to support the war on terrorism. The department has informed us that it will run out of money to prosecute the war by the end of May. But I have been informed that you're not yet able to inform the Congress how much of the $17.4 billion you have expended, how much the department has expended, or how it has been extended. Can someone now tell us how much has been spent on -- and on what it has been spent?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, yes, indeed we can. I think, first, with respect to the fund you were referring to, I believe that is a transfer fund, and that as the money goes into the transfer fund, it then is moved out of the transfer fund for very specific purposes. And that is all knowable and known, to the extent it has thus far been transferred.

The -- Dr. Zakheim is in a position to give you some granularity on your second question.

MR. ZAKHEIM: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We actually -- of that 17-odd billion dollars, the Department of Defense actually got 16.4 (billion). We have already committed nearly 14 billion and actually obligated approximately 12-1/2 billion, and we can provide you, for the record, with the details of exactly where that money has gone, sir.

SEN. BYRD: Very well. If you'll do that -- (pauses) -- we need that information. Otherwise, the committee cannot be expected to approve the additional $11 billion that is being requested and feel confident that the funding is fully justified and will be spent for the purposes for which it was appropriated.

The Department of Defense is subject to almost daily attacks on its computer infrastructure. As our way of fighting wars becomes more dependent on computers, these cyber attacks constitute a growing threat to our national security. Of the thousands of cyber attacks on the Department of Defense each year, how many of the perpetrators of these attacks do we catch? And what do we need in order to track down more of these criminals?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Mr. Chairman, a couple of answers there: First, the -- it's my understanding that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as Defense Investigative Service look into cyber attacks. The exact number of people that are tracked down I can't say. But certainly there's no question but that a number of them are tracked down and caught and stopped. And a number of them aren't. And it's the nature of the beast, I'm afraid, that we live in a time when that's the case.

We are investing funds in the capability to defend against cyber attacks in a variety of different ways, and we have to expect that as a society that's dependent on computers and electronic capabilities and satellites, that we're going to be as vulnerable as any other country on earth to attacks on -- because of the degree of our dependency being what it is.

SEN. BYRD: Now this committee is interested in being of help to you in dealing with these cyber attacks. So if you would, please, give us the response to my first question: How many of the perpetrators of these attacks did we catch? Secondly, what do you need in order to track down more of these criminals? And finally, are you satisfied that the Pentagon has the best cyber security that we can buy? If not, what are we not doing that we should be doing?

And we want to help you here, and we're preparing a supplemental appropriation bill. And if you can think of something we need to help you with, by way of funding, and if you can give us the reasons and the justification, we'd like to be of assistance, because we think this is vital that this country be better able to defend itself against these cyber attacks -- and especially your department.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, thank -- we'll certainly supply the answers to your first question for the record, and I thank you for that suggestion. And we will be happy to respond to it in writing.

SEN. BYRD: Very well.

Senator Inouye.

SEN. DANIEL INOUYE (D-HI): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, traditionally, supplemental requests do not contain much supporting justification material. And accordingly, as you've noted, I instructed my staff to submit to the Department a set of questions relating to the use of funds that have been appropriated. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to advise you, sir, that I have been advised that the responses are now at the final stage of compilation, and we should be receiving these responses by the end of this week, and at that time, I will make certain that every member of the committee is not only made aware but made privy to these responses, because without that information, it might be very difficult for us to tell our colleagues in the full Senate the justifications for such funds.

I'd like to thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, for expediting this request.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Thank you, Senator. I'm told by Dr. Zakheim that he still is working on one of the answers, but all of the others were sent up yesterday, and so the complete package ought to be ready shortly.

SEN. INOUYE: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Secretary, during the Easter recess, Senator Stevens and I visited China, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines to meet with leaders of these countries to discuss the one thing on all of their minds: terrorism. And in Manila, we received an extremely important and informative briefing from General Worcester (sp) of the Pacific Command concerning the Philippine/U.S. action exercise Balikatan.

I'm please to report to you, Mr. Secretary, that the commanders in the Philippines have been very sensitive to their mission. They have struck an appropriate balance in instructing and supporting the Filipinos while letting them focus on the operations. I look upon this not from a military standpoint but from my standpoint as a member of the Committee here, that this has been a success. Do you consider this a military success?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Senator, I do, although it is not completed -- the activities that we have in the Philippines -- but they have gone along very well, and the work that's being done on Basilan Island by way of training in the Philippines has as one of its goals to assist the 4 or 5,000 Philippine Army members in that portion of their country to do a more effective job in dealing with their very serious terrorist problem.

And of course, we do have two Americans still being held hostage, probably on that island, by a terrorist organization. And I guess I'll feel more successful if and when those folks are found and released and the terrorist organization has been dealt with, but all in all, I think it's going along quite well.

SEN. INOUYE: Does this supplemental include sufficient funds to carry on this activity?

SEC. RUMSFELD: It does. We feel -- we not only are doing that, but as I'm sure you were briefed and know, we're also doing some civil affairs work on Basilan Island and assisting with some roads and some other activities that will, we believe, make the Philippine Army more successful and more effective.

SEN. INOUYE: Mr. Secretary, on something else, on the matter of the National Guard, I note in your supplemental that you have requested $4.1 billion for Reserve and Guard personnel called upon on active duty. I presume that this request assumes a mobilization limited to 80,000, but I note that you have 81,000 at this time Is that a sufficient number?

SEC. RUMSFELD: My recollections of the numbers we currently have are that it's 71,500 Guard and Reserves who have been activated. I could be wrong. But at least within recent days, I think it was roughly that. And we believe that we -- we are working with the Office of Management and Budget now to calibrate it. One of the problems is that it's always a moving target. A budget is a budget. It isn't something that actually happens, it's something that people project and intend to have happen if events evolve in exactly that way. But we're, for example, making changes with respect to the Combat Air Patrols over the United States. Now, to the extent the number of patrols goes up, the cost goes up. To the extent it goes down, the cost goes down. And that is a threat-based as opposed to budget-based. And my response to you is that I feel comfortable that at the present time, insofar as I am aware, the work we're doing with the Office of Management and Budget, that we're going to end up with sufficient funds for the Guard and Reserves.

SEN. INOUYE: History has noted, Mr. Secretary, that at times of stress and danger, we may have some difficulty in recruiting personnel for military service. Since September the 11th, has the first term re-applications increased or decreased?

SEC. RUMSFELD: We are -- I would really want to sit down with the numbers by service to answer that perfectly, but we are fully able to attract and retain the numbers that we currently need for end strength. We are doing two things. One, we have about a 71.5 -- 71,500 Reserve and Guard call-up. The second thing we've done is we have something between 20 and 25,000 so-called stop-losses, where people serving were due to get out and have stayed in because of our request that they stay in.

An awful lot of the Guard and Reserve are on a volunteer basis, and a large number of those -- for example, the ones that were helping with the airports -- were in their own locale, so they weren't moved, which is a help in terms of the issue you're asking. But we do have to continuously concern ourselves because we're competing in the civilian manpower market for both full-time people as well as Guard and Reserves, and we have to see that we can attract and retain what we need.

Dov tells me that he doesn't have the hard numbers, but the first term retention has increased, but by how much I don't know.

I know that morale is high. And you know that from your visits, senator. You've been out there visiting with the troops, and I'm sure you've experienced what I have experienced.

SEN. INOUYE: Yes. I know that the -- on active duty, for example, we had a hearing on the Navy. Before September the 11th, it was 55 percent reenlistment on the first term; today it's over 71 percent. And I was just wondering if that's the same in the Reserves and National Guard.

SEC. RUMSFELD: We will check in the other services and in the Reserve and Guard and get back to you.

SEN. INOUYE: Mr. Chairman, I have a few other questions. May I submit them, sir?

SEN. BYRD: Absolutely.

SEN. INOUYE: I thank you very much.

SEN. BYRD: Senator Stevens.

SEN. TED STEVENS (R-AK): Mr. Secretary, first a sort of unrelated question, but when we were in the Philippines, Senator Inouye and I attended the 60th anniversary of the Bataan march. We spoke to quite a few of the veterans who in that time were really considered members of the United States forces. And I learned that -- I did not know this -- that after we removed our forces from Subic Bay and Clark Field -- I believe it was the department -- the department cancelled the eligibility of Filipinos to attend our military academies. Are you aware of that?


SEN. STEVENS: I wish you'd take a look at that. I don't think of any country in the world that suffered more during World War II as a result of having been a friend of the United States to the very end. And that was one of the backbones of the building of their rather superb military in that period of time when they did come here and train with us, their officers trained with us. I would hope we'd re- instate it.

SEC. RUMSFELD: When those bases were closed, of course there was a significant change in the U.S.-Filipino military relationship. And it undoubtedly involved a whole host of educational exchange programs.

SEN. STEVENS: I think it did. But I think this is -- this wasn't IMET, now. They were coming directly in and going through the full academy training. And I think that's a relationship that we ought to maintain with those people who fought so well with us in World War II.

Mr. Secretary, it's my understanding that the budget now before us -- requests now before us with a supplemental is $4.1 billion to pay for Reserve and National Guard personnel. You've already talked about the numbers that have been mobilized. It's my understanding the policy of the department is to just mobilize them for one year as -- the authority is to bring them in for two years. That's a more expensive way to do business. Is that going to continue to be your policy?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I think that -- I can't project on that question. It seems to me that -- we are currently a whole host of things involving personnel. It's pretty clear that the global war on terrorism is not going to end in a matter of months. It is a problem that is -- I'm afraid we're going to live with for a somewhat longer period. And therefore, as that occurs, we do have to address things like end strength, we have to address the demands on the Guard and Reserve, and we have to address the problem of -- as the senator pointed out, of recruiting and retaining people if, in fact, we've got stop losses in that affect their ability to do the things they'd like to do. And it is a very complex situation. It is something that varies from service to service. And I'm not personally in a position to give you a definitive answer.

SEN. STEVENS: Well, let me go back. I made the comment about withdrawing the Guard from airports up my way. It's my understanding that that is going to be a national policy now, you're going to stand down the National Guard's activities at airports?

SEC. RUMSFELD: It is -- I don't know that I would call it a "national policy." What happened was when the United States decided that we needed people quickly in airports, the Department of Defense entered into an agreement, at the request of the president, with the Department of Transportation, whereby we would arrange with the governors to provide the National Guard officials necessary, but that we would have a memorandum of understanding which would recognize the truth, that is not a real military job; it is basically a civilian job, and that we were doing it on an interim basis and that we would have an agreement with them that they would undertake a training program immediately so that they could replace us within a reasonable period of time.

That time is now here, and the month of May is the month when the individuals in the Guard who have been serving -- assisting in the airports will begin being phased out, and their places will be taken by the individuals that the Department of Transportation has either trained or contracted for to take their places.

SEN. STEVENS: I'm going to lead up to a question I'm going to ask at the very last. But can you tell me, is there anything in your policy today that would lead to the activation and deployment of uniformed personnel for homeland security measures on a full-time basis for a prolonged period?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, let me think. The places we're currently doing things, one is the airport; another is Customs, which is temporary, just like the airports. Another is the Border Patrol; we have some military people there. Another is INS. All of those are temporary.

Now, if you think of combat air patrol and characterize that as homeland defense, those are Guard and Reserve and active-duty people. And whether they're flying in AWACS, or flying a combat air patrol, or whether they're on strip alert, that is a job that very likely is going to be a long-term task at some level, depending on the threat level.

SEN. STEVENS: Will you bill those costs to homeland security or will you continue to finance them through the military accounts -- when they're over the United States?

SEC. RUMSFELD: (Confers off mike.)

They would certainly be billed to the Department of Defense, if that's the question.

SEN. STEVENS: Okay. All right. Well then let me ask the final question. The House added $1.4 billion to this supplemental for Guard and Reserve personnel costs, as I understand it, for '02. If these people are being released now and we're not really assigning military personally to the homeland security agency, do you need that money?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I think it's a mischaracterization to say "assigned to homeland security agency" because they never were. The combat air patrols have been a part of the Department of Defense from the beginning to the end; they always would be. They are part of the Defense Department's assets, and the request of the president, those assets were allocated for a task that is characterized as homeland defense, properly so.

But it is -- the same people could within a week be assigned overseas someplace, to Hawaii or to Japan, for another Department of Defense function.

SEN. STEVENS: I understand, and I accept that question -- correction. But I'm looking at the need for the 1.4 billion. I think that's going to be one of the key issues in the supplemental when we get to conference, if the House maintains this 1.4 billion increase for Guard and Reserve personnel costs for '02.

And my question is, in view of the fact that the forces you have been using, the National Guard and Reserve, that they're being -- as I understand, it's -- the policy now is to reduce the use of those people -- will you need $1.4 billion more this year for that activity?

SEC. RUMSFELD: And the answer is, we have not asked for that money. We are working with the Office of Management and Budget, and as we see the levels change, we will know more as we go through the year. But the short answer is that the administration is not requesting the 1.4 billion.

SEN. STEVENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Thank you.

SEN. BYRD: Thank you, Senator.

SEN. STEVENS: Oh, wait. I had one question.

SEN. BYRD: Very well.

SEN. STEVENS: Do you advocate a change in legal status for the military forces assigned to the missions under -- that are within the United States, under the posse comitatus doctrine, or are you looking for any long-term change in posse comitatus?

SEC. RUMSFELD: No, Senator, we're not. We're not looking for any long-term or short-term change with respect to posse comitatus.

SEN. STEVENS: Thank you very much.

SEC. RUMSFELD: The roles and missions of the military will remain exactly as I've stated in the opening statement and as they have been historically, until and unless the president makes a judgment that that's not appropriate, in which case he would have to, under circumstances, make a waiver or come to the Congress.

SEN. STEVENS: Thank you very much.

SEN. BYRD: Thank you.

Senator Gregg.

SEN. JUDD GREGG (R-NH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Following up on that question from Senator Stevens, are there any other laws that you need adjusted in order for you to effectively support homeland security, either in operational areas or in intelligence areas?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I think the answer is yes. There are some laws that have been proposed for amendment by the executive branch. But the Department of Defense, I do not believe, is making any specific requests that I would restrict totally to homeland security. Is that fair?


SEN. GREGG: If you have some, can you get them to us?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Yes, sir.

SEN. GREGG: The -- one of the issues that I've been interested in is the role of the National Guard as we develop homeland defense. And originally the concept was that there were going to be, I think, 34 specialist units, which I call second responders, who were going to come in with weapons of mass destruction capability as a consequence management teams. They would be centered around the country. I think we have 12 up and running, or something like that, now. That would be National Guard units.

That has had fits and starts as an exercise, for a variety of reasons. And one example of the fits and starts was that the one of the units that was up and running during the New York crisis took 12 hours to get from Albany to New York City because of local official problems.

I'm wondering if you still see that as a viable role for the Guard, to have these second-responder teams, which are highly trained in weapons of mass destruction abatement and consequence management. And if so, what sort of progress are we making on that?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Insofar as I'm aware, that's a perfectly appropriate task for the Guard. They're, as I recall, being trained and certified by the -- at the federal level. They can do that task well, and I do think it's appropriate.

SEN. GREGG: Has anybody taken a look at the New York situation and what happened with the CST unit that couldn't get from Albany to New York for 12 hours because of paperwork issues involving local officials?

SEC. RUMSFELD: That's surprising to me, because as I recall, these are under the control of the governors.

SEN. GREGG: Right, that was the problem. It was a local issue, a local political issue.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, I can't address.

SEN. GREGG: (not audible)

SEC. RUMSFELD: But it's not as though it was between two states. It was within a state.

SEN. GREGG: Right. But it happened.

SEC. RUMSFELD: You could be sure I've not addressed it. (Laughs.)

SEN. GREGG: Okay, maybe we -- as you're bringing these units up, it might be worth taking a look at the experience there.

SEC. RUMSFELD: When you say political, you mean bureaucratic or actually disagreements politically?

SEN. GREGG: As I understand it, there was an issue of local officials and the inability to get the Guard units authorized to come into New York as a result of lack of official designation.


SEN. GREGG: Or that it took them 12 hours to get there as a result of that. That's what --

SEC. RUMSFELD: My recollections is it's supposed to be -- they're supposed to be able to respond within six or eight hours, in that range. So 12 sounds long. We'll check it.

SEN. GREGG: Well, it may have been involved with the death of some local officials who had to sign paperwork or something. In fact, that's I think what caused it to happen. The NORTHCOM -- to what extent will NORTHCOM bring into play the issues of border security such as the management of the Coast Guard as it tries to intercept activity coming into our ports that may be a threat?

SEC. RUMSFELD: The precise arrangements for NORTHCOM, needless to say, are in the very early stages. A combatant commander has not been named, as yet. We expect to do that within a very short period of time. And the command would stand up October 1st. Exactly how it would -- right now, the relationship between the defense establishment and the Coast Guard is of course intimate in that regard. And there is a high degree of cooperation, coordination and in some instances deconfliction(?) so that the Coast Guard, which has a significant role in that regard, is able to function.

I don't know that it would necessarily change at all with the standing up of Northern Command. I can't imagine quite how it would change. But that would be premature to prejudge that.

SEN. GREGG: Well it just seems to me that if you've got the Coast Guard, which is essentially responsible for protecting the coasts, for protecting the access to our borders, especially from ships that are coming in that maybe have container units in them that represent a significant threat, which I think we all deem to be one of the more higher-probability threats, and now you've got a Northern Command, which is responsible for protecting North America, that I was just wondering if there was going to be some sort of line of responsibility there, or is it just going to continue to be the two -- the transportation agency and the Defense Department working together?

SEC. RUMSFELD: They've been working together intimately all year in a very effective way and with a division of labor depending on the location and the circumstance.

SEN. GREGG: Is the Crusader artillery piece needed for terrorism defense? (Laughter.)

SEC. RUMSFELD: (Laughs.)

SEN. GREGG: Or any other type of defense, for that matter?

SEN. BYRD: Let the hearing show that the secretary smiled. (Laughter.) And that there were much -- there was much laughter throughout the hearing room.

SEC. RUMSFELD: (Laughs.)

SEN. GREGG: I see my time is up, so you're not even going to get to answer that question, which I thought was a reasonable softball.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I think his time is up. I see the red bulb. (Laughter.)

SEN. BYRD: Mr. Secretary, the time is extended. (Laughter.)

SEC. RUMSFELD: (Laughs.)

SEN. HOLLINGS: (Laughs.) You got him, Bob.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, Mr. Senator, I think that there's a strong probability that the Department of Defense will be commenting on that tomorrow or the next day.

SEN. GREGG: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We look forward with bated breath to that comment.

SEN. BYRD: Thank you, Senator.

Senator Dorgan, I believe you're next on this list.

SEN. BYRON DORGAN (D-ND): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Mr. Secretary, what will we be spending this year on national missile defense, roughly?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I think the -- we -- I doubt -- first of all, we hardly use the phrase anymore, "national missile defense," we really talk about ballistic missile defense, because the division line is imperfect. And I guess "national" depends a bit on where you live. The figure in the budget that I think is concentrated in the Ballistic Missile Defense Office, as opposed to being spread throughout the other portions of the budget, I believe is $7.6 billion as a budget target.

SEN. DORGAN: I wanted to ask that question because there is a range of -- there are a range of threats to this country, one of which is by an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead, another by a cruise missile, and a range of other threats.


SEN. DORGAN: Among those threats represent the threat suggested by Senator Byrd in questioning last week, and it seems to me like it also is a threat. He talked about the number of containers coming into this country at seaports, 5.7 million containers, 15,000 per day coming into our seaports. And I assume they're coming in at two, three, four, five miles an hour; they're not a speeding ballistic missile. But 2 percent of them are inspected; 98 percent are not. And I tried to get some information about what we're spending on that, and I believe it's around $66 million that we're spending on trying to evaluate whether one of these containers might contain a weapon of mass destruction, for example. And I'm wondering how you see that issue on the threat meter. I understand the concern -- many of our colleagues are very anxious to build this system that would defeat a ballistic missile that would be incoming. What approach are we using to defeat a much, much slower vehicle; that would be container with a weapon of mass destruction that comes at a seaport?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, we're spending a good deal more than $7.6 billion if one approaches it the following way. Your question is a critically important one because there's no question but that the success of our army, navies and air forces have been so notable, that the more likely threats that we're going to see -- because of the deterrent effect of our army, navy and air force -- are asymmetrical threats, the kinds that take advantage of not having to compete with armies, navies and air forces. And that means ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, terrorist threats, satchel bombs, cyber attacks, as was raised by the chairman, and other types of attacks.

The amount of money that the United States government is now spending on homeland security in the broadest sense, what you would have to include would be the funds we're spending going after terrorists all over the world, the very people who would be putting something in one of those containers, and then all down across the spectrum to the $66 million which you mentioned. But it is very hard to disaggregate all of that, because when we go out and arrest a terrorist, or we shut down a bank account, or we put pressure on in the Philippines or we put pressure on in Afghanistan, all of that, it seems to me, is addressed to that problem.

SEN. DORGAN: The reason I asked the question: I think September 11th suggests once again that terrorist weapons might well be low-tech rather than high-tech.

SEC. RUMSFELD: You're exactly right.

SEN. DORGAN: Low-tech was an airplane loaded with fuel. Or it could be a container containing a device that could cause mass destruction.

Let me ask you two other very quick questions. The Department of Defense has resisted arming guardsmen mobilized to assist the Customs Service, INS and Border Patrol. The commissioner of the Customs Service, in testimony before my subcommittee a week or so ago, indicated that he had recommended last December that some members of the military and National Guard that had been assigned the role to assist especially in remote locations be armed. He indicated he made that recommendation last December, and there's been a great deal of discussion, as you know, about the advisability of having men and women in uniform out performing duties with Customs and others and not being armed.

Can you tell me what's being -- we may well get beyond that time frame here, May or June. But still, if the recommendation was made in December, and if we continue to use Guard and Reserve in the future, will they be armed? Are you aware of the recommendation by the Customs commissioner?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I am. And I -- the response is this: The initial decision, under the rules of engagement, was that the uniformed personnel would not be armed. The issue was raised, as you suggest, and it was under review in the department, and the initial decision was not based on the military viewpoint, it was based on the INS and the Customs people, as I understand it.

A proposal is pending before, I believe, General Myers at the present time, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to provide an ability for U.S. military to be armed, as you point out, in remote locations. Apparently, to get that accomplished, it has to go through the people that are in charge of the organizations to whom we are loaning military people, and that is the INS and the Border Patrol.

SEN. DORGAN: Well, my time is up. I would just -- the Customs commissioner gave testimony that differs with that. He indicated last December that they had recommend that some be armed.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, let me just check and clear it up.

SEN. DORGAN: If you would, I'd appreciate that.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Go ahead.

MR. CAMBONE: We have, sir, taken that advice. And at the moment, there are some 411 people who are undergoing training for the purposes of being deployed with arms.

SEN. DORGAN: All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

SEN. BYRD: Senator Shelby?

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY (R-AL): Thank you --

SEN. BYRD: Let the chair explain. The chair is attempting to call on senators in the order of their appearance. But also, within that wheel, another wheel, the chair is attempting also to go from side to side and alternate. So I hope the chair will have the understanding of senators. Senator Shelby?

SEN. SHELBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, I welcome you to this committee again, like everyone else has, and I look forward to supporting the supplemental appropriation. I think it's very, very important.

Having said that, when you take a broad look at the department, your department's homeland security responsibilities, where does the chemical demilitarization program appear in your field of view?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, the responsibility for it is with the Undersecretary of Defense, Pete Aldridge, for Acquisition.

SEN. SHELBY: Absolutely.

SEC. RUMSFELD: And your point clearly is a fair one, that the existence of those materials that need to be treated and taken care of could conceivably pose an attraction to somebody.

SEN. SHELBY: Sure. Whether it's in my state or somewhere else; right?

SEC. RUMSFELD: (Chuckles.) And we -- as you know, we have funds in the budget that Dr. Zakheim tells me is being increased by $465 million in the fiscal year '03 DOD budget.

SEN. SHELBY: Mr. Secretary, the chemical demilitarization program was labeled, quote, "ineffective" by the president's '03 budget. And just this week, we see certification by Secretary Aldridge, that you just mentioned, for a Nunn-McCurdy breach. How much funding is included in this supplemental request for the chemical demilitarization program, and for what purpose will the funding will be used?

Doctor, do you know that?

MR. ZAKHEIM: Senator, we don't have money in the supplemental for the chem demil program.

SEN. SHELBY: Do you think there's enough money in the other -- in the regular budget?

MR. ZAKHEIM: We believe that there is money that would get our program moving quite well.

It's something below a billion dollars, I believe. We have added several hundred million in the '03 budget. But as you may know, in terms of the supplemental, we put in money for only two things: one, those items that we knew we would spend that money on before October 1st, and secondly, money that was directly related to the war effort. And obviously, where we felt that we had sufficient funds in our current budget requests, then we just didn't ask for more.

SEN. SHELBY: Do you believe, Mr. Secretary, that the chemical demilitarization program is on the right track and our chemical weapons stockpiles are safe and secure?

SEC. RUMSFELD: (Laughs.)

SEN. SHELBY: We've talked --

SEC. RUMSFELD: Senator, it can't be on the right track if it's in Nunn-McCurdy breach --

SEN. SHELBY: That's right.

SEC. RUMSFELD: -- and requires a waiver. You know that; I know that.

SEN. SHELBY: But I wanted you to say that. (Laughter.)

SEC. RUMSFELD: You wanted me to say that. (Laughs.)

SEN. SHELBY: You did. Thank you.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I was afraid of that. And I would feel a lot better if those stockpiles weren't there --

SEN. SHELBY: Absolutely.

SEC. RUMSFELD: -- in terms of security. Have I responded appropriately and in a wholesome and complete manner?

SEN. SHELBY: Yes, sir. You have responded appropriately, and you have worked with us. And I believe Secretary Aldridge is working with us. But what we want to do is just what you said: you would feel better as a secretary of Defense and as a citizen if these stockpiles were dispensed with safely, right? That's why we keep raising these issues, because some of us, including my home state of Alabama, we have some serious problems in reaching that. And I want to commend you for trying hard to work with us. We're trying to work it out, and that's why I continue to raise it until it's worked out safely.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Thank you, sir.

SEN. SHELBY: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. BYRD: Thank you, senator.

Senator Feinstein?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. BYRD: Thank you.

SEN. FEINSTEIN: I wanted to follow up on --

SEN. : (Off mike) -- the mike --

SEN. FEINSTEIN: Thank you. Thanks, Matt.

-- on Senator Dorgan's comment on port security. Is there anything in this supplemental to meet what is a grievous need in our country, which is increased port security, to be able to search and certify containers coming into our country?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not in the supplemental.

SEN. FEINSTEIN: Is there anything in your budget?

SEC. RUMSFELD: There is. In the --

SEN. FEINSTEIN: And if so, what is it, and how will this money be utilized?

MR. ZAKHEIM: Okay. Senator, we have 43 -- approximately $43 million in the fiscal year '02 budget precisely for port security. We're going to spend about 16 million of that for Coast Guard support, for Navy equipment on Coast Guard ships to ensure interoperability between the Navy and the Coast Guard in these matters. We also have another 26 -- close to $27 million for guarding and monitoring key port harbors, shipping approaches and shoreline facilities. So yes, there is money specifically for the kind of concern you've just raised.

SEN. FEINSTEIN: But actually, a rather small amount of money. I know the ports in California, particularly the southern California ports -- Long Beach, San Pedro, Los Angeles -- where huge amounts -- I mean, it's got to be the biggest incoming port in the United States in terms of cargo. And very few of these containers -- Senator Dorgan pointed out, less than 2 percent -- are searched. We heard from the Customs Department at a prior hearing Senator Byrd held that they were trying to extend the perimeters to get a system in other countries where ports could search, seal and certify containers that would then come into the United States. But the vulnerability at our ports is extreme at the present time. A container can come in, not be opened at Long Beach, go into New Mexico, go all the way back to Missouri and Mississippi, and no one has looked at that container.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Senator Feinstein, Dov Zakheim I'm sure responded correctly with respect to the Department of Defense budget. But, of course, the Department of Treasury budget has Customs, and that is the principal responsibility. And the Coast Guard, of course, is budgeted through the Department of Transportation as, of course, you know. So what he has cited ought not to be taken by anybody as the totality of the federal government's effort with respect to that problem. And I quite agree with you that it is a problem.

SEN. FEINSTEIN: Mr. Secretary, last year's Quadrennial Defense Review stated that homeland defense is the Pentagon's primary mission -- hopefully above ballistic missile defense. But accordingly, a few weeks ago, you announced that a North American Command would be established to coordinate the disparate agencies involved in homeland defense. I understand that many of the statutory and command relationships haven't yet been worked out, but is there funding in this supplemental for that? And if so, what is it, and how it will tie into the Office of Homeland Security?

SEC. RUMSFELD: First, let me say that it won't require statutory adjustment. What has not been worked out precisely is the actual organization and arrangements within the Northern Command, when it is going to be -- I think October 1st is the date that we planned to stand up that command -- and the work is currently being done to determine the number of people and how it ought to be arranged.

The -- there is some money in the supplemental for the Northern Command, and Dov, it is how much?

MR. ZAKHEIM: Well, the supplemental's got $10 million for what we call CINC-identified -- commander-in-chief-identified -- requirements to satisfy immediate war-fighting needs. And the 10 million will support the -- what the task force is currently operated. It's called the Joint Task Force Civil Support. The homeland security director and the NORTHCOM transition team, because NORTHCOM, as you know, doesn't stand up until the next fiscal year. And in the next fiscal year, we've got 81 million to stand up the Northern Command, as well as in a related category, 215 million for secure command, control and communications.

SEC. RUMSFELD: If you think about it, the Northern Command is going to take the existing activities and responsibilities and pull them together under a single command. At the present time, for example, the Space Command has responsibility for NORAD. NORAD will be moved over to Northern Command. Joint Forces Command, down in Norfolk, has a variety of activities that will become part of the new Northern Command.

So it will be in some instances some new funds but in other instances, it will be moving funds from one CINCdom to another.

SEN. FEINSTEIN: So if I understand it, between this supplemental and the '03 budget total, there'll be about $300 million set up for the North American Command. Is that correct?

MR. CAMBONE: Well, let me --

SEC. RUMSFELD: You want to try that?


Senator, that's not quite right. The 10 million for '02 and the 80 million -- $81 million for '03 related to the Northern Command are specifically --

SEN. FEINSTEIN: And the 215 million?

MR. CAMBONE: That $91 million between those two budgets is specifically for Northern Command. The other 215 million is meant for the National Guard, for example, to improve their capability. So it is not specifically earmarked for use by the Northern Command.

MR. ZAKHEIM: Those are all -- there are three categories there for command and control, which, as I said, it was related to the general homeland security effort, but you've got secure communication to reserve components, interstate National Guard Bureau of Communications and equipment to support information systems, security program, all of which is related to homeland security but is not specific to the Northern Command.

SEN. FEINSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, would you allow me just to ask how that interfaces with the director of homeland security?

SEN. BYRD: Very well.

SEN. FEINSTEIN: I appreciate that. Thank you.

SEC. RUMSFELD: The -- in my prepared remarks, I have tried to analyze the relationship between the Northern Command and the Office of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense and the homeland defense piece of it and the Homeland Security Council. And the Homeland Security Council is a coordinating body, as the National Security Council is a coordinating body, and we work very closely with them. The Department of Defense serves on the Homeland Security Council. The Northern Command -- full stop.

The Northern Command is one more combatant command for the United States, just as the Pacific Command in Hawaii and in the European Command General Ralston, Tom Franks in Central Command. And the chain of command there, under the statutes, of course, is from the president to the secretary of Defense to the combatant commander.

And the relationship between the Homeland Security Council would be from the civilian side of the Department of Defense, and the relationship there would be intimate because we serve on the Homeland Security Council.

SEN. FEINSTEIN: Under your -- in other words, that would be under your direct control.



SEC. RUMSFELD: Absolutely.

SEN. FEINSTEIN: Thank you.

SEC. RUMSFELD: And the president's.

SEN. FEINSTEIN: Thank you. Thank you very much.

SEN. BYRD: Thank you, Senator.

Senator Cochran.

SEN. THAD COCHRAN (R-MS): Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Secretary, I want to first compliment you and congratulate you on the outstanding leadership you're providing, as head of the Department of Defense, in defending the security interests of our country and the citizens of the United States.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Thank you very much, Senator.

SEN. COCHRAN: I think we all take very seriously the request that has been submitted to us for consideration -- supplemental funding for the Department of Defense and other departments of the government as well. Almost -- well, a little over half, I think, of the funding is for the Department of Defense, in this supplemental appropriation request of 27 billion, for Defense Emergency Response Fund use. And we have before us an outline of how those funds will be allocated for functions and -- among the services and that kind of thing.

I wonder, does the National Guard end up deriving any financial benefit in terms of training or support in this supplemental appropriation?

SEC. RUMSFELD: That's a hard thing to disaggregate. The National Guard has gotten a lot of exercise since September 11th, and God bless them. They have done a wonderful, wonderful job. They are serving in places like Kosovo and Bosnia. There are National Guard people who are performing all kinds of services here in the United States. There are Guard and Reserve who have been called up providing the combat air patrols over our country. They're flying missions in Afghanistan.

And so it -- the total force concept that the United States has fashioned over the years has -- it exists. It works. It works well. And they are doing a superb job.

So are they deriving any benefit? You bet. They're getting a lot of exercise, a lot of training, a lot of experience, and the country's benefitting enormously from them.

SEN. COCHRAN: In the establishment of the Northern Command, is there any plan to assign specific National Guard units to the Northern Command?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not as such. What we're doing is -- the thing that's -- the biggest thing that's being assigned to Northern Command is NORAD, in terms of numbers of activities and organization structure.

The -- there have been suggestions that the role of the National Guard should be homeland defense. We hear that from time to time. And there's no question but that the Guard does play a role in homeland defense. (Chuckling.) The problem is, it also plays a role in worldwide defense, in national defense, as we all know.

And I think that trying to divide it up and say this is for that particular activity, doesn't really reflect the reality of the world we live in where forces have to be able to function in different theaters for different purposes at different times.

SEN. COCHRAN: I know that one example of a mission that I didn't think we would have to call on NATO for was providing some AWACS flights, overflights of the United States, after the attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. As I understand it, those flights have been discontinued now and those units are no longer flying; is that correct?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I think that takes place this month.

SEN. COCHRAN: This month.

SEC. RUMSFELD: But they have just done a wonderful job for many, many months now, from, you know, any number of countries -- 12, 14 different countries have participated, and it has been an enormous benefit to the United States to have that work being done by our NATO allies and friends.

SEN. COCHRAN: Is there any plan to involve NATO or any units of NATO in our homeland defense effort in the future?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, if you think about it, we have a close and, indeed, intimate relationship with our friends to the north. NORAD is the North American system, and the United States and Canada are connected very closely, to our mutual benefit. So I would say there is an example of homeland defense where a NATO ally, as opposed to NATO as an entire entity, is directly connected to homeland security.

SEN. COCHRAN: One thing that some people may wonder about is local police responsibilities, such as in these pipe bombs that have been put in mailboxes, and other federal agencies have responsibilities for investigating and bringing to justice people who are responsible for things like that, and not necessarily the military. We talked about the posse comitatus statute and restraints on military action in law enforcement activity.

Will there be an effort made to clearly define the difference between police actions? Will we need to modify statutes with respect to the new homeland security responsibilities of the military so people won't get the idea they can call on the military to come in and try to deal with problems of that kind?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, Senator, I don't at the moment know of any statutes we need changed in the Department of Defense with respect to posse comitatus. We have addressed it; we feel it's fair. We can live with that. We don't plan to change the roles or missions of the military in a way that would inject the Department of Defense and uniformed personnel into the responsibilities of state and local governments.

We would do most everything we did in a supporting role, as we did for the Super Bowl, for example. We were asked to help provide some security for the Olympics, various events like that. We do, but we do it as a supporter, as opposed to the entity that is directly in charge.

SEN. COCHRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. BYRD: Thank you.

Senator Murray?

MR. CAMBONE: Mr. Chairman, just to complete that thought --


MR. CAMBONE: Part of the discussion, Senator Cochran, having to do with the assignment of --

SEN. BYRD: Would you pull the mike up closer, please?

MR. CAMBONE: Part of the discussion having to do with the personnel up on the northern border had to do with this issue of what role they would be playing, and part of the issue of whether they were armed or not then entered into this question. I mean, how do you carefully place our people so that they are not caught in that situation.

And I misspoke with Senator Dorgan. We've got the MOAs almost signed, and as soon as those MOAs with INS and Customs are signed, we'll be able to have a small number, who are in isolated places, armed for their self-protection, not for the purposes of law enforcement. And there's an important distinction between those two.

SEN. COCHRAN: Thank you.

SEN. BYRD: Senator Murray?

SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-WA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Thank you.

SEN. MURRAY: I know you were out at Fort Lewis, in my home state of Washington, a few weeks ago and had a chance to see some of the work they are doing in laying a foundation for transformation for the Army. And we're very proud of their work, and I'm really pleased that you had an opportunity to come out and see what they were doing there.

SEC. RUMSFELD: They do a great job.

SEN. MURRAY: I want to follow up on a question Senator Dorgan had, and you just referred to it again, and that is the issue of arming the National Guard. And not to beat a dead horse, but it took three months from the time Attorney General Ashcroft said that we were going to get the National Guard until they were finally deployed, and now it's been six, almost eight, weeks since we were told they were going to be armed so they could be effective. And could you -- we've been told "this close" for so long now that it's become part of the rhetoric of the bureaucratic status of the agencies working together more in my state. So if you could give us a better than "we're this close" estimate of time, I would really appreciate it.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, the last I heard about this subject was about 48 hours ago, and my recollection is I was told it's on General Myers' desk. And he is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and it goes from his desk to my desk. And what it involves is a calibration of the rules of engagement which is required by the Department of Defense before -- supposedly, before military personnel can be deployed, so that there is clarity with respect to whether or not they're armed and under what instances they're supposed to use those weapons.

SEN. MURRAY: That is a bureaucratic response, and I appreciate it, but I hope that we can come to conclusion on this fairly quickly. We do have these people deployed in very difficult situations. They are not armed. We end up having our border guard protecting them rather than having them do the job that they were trained and should be out doing. So I hope we can resolve that.

And let me just follow up quickly with that. It is clear that we may not have the trained personnel in place very quickly to actually be doing the INS and Border Patrol Customs positions that they were sent there to augment. If they are still needed, the National Guard, beyond the 179 days that's in the original MOA, would you support having them stay there until we get those people in place?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I would support doing whatever the president told me to do. But if you want to know my first choice, it's to get the INS and the Customs hustling and find the people they need to do the job that they're statutorily required to do, and to not -- if its' humanly possible, to not put further demands on the defense establishment and the uniformed men and women that we need for lots of other tasks.

SEN. MURRAY: I would completely agree with you that I want the correct people in those positions doing them, but we do have a concern, and I will come back to you if we reach 179 days and we don't have them in place.

Let me also follow up on Senator Feinstein's question on port security. And as chair of transportation appropriations, I'm working with the chairman on dealing with port security. This is a very real concern out there. But I also am concerned about the burden that we have placed on the Coast Guard today. We know that they are not able to fulfill some of their role in search and rescue and fisheries enforcement and drug enforcement and interdiction that we do require of them because they have had to take on significant responsibility elsewhere. And I want to make sure that the Department of Defense, especially the Navy, is providing the necessary personnel and equipment to adequately provide force protection on our naval installations.

And let me just ask you, is the reliance on the Coast Guard a function of mission, or does the Navy need additional assets so that they can secure their naval installations?

SEC. RUMSFELD: So that they can secure what?

SEN. MURRAY: Naval installations. For example, on Puget Sound we have a number of naval installations on the water that we have had to have the Coast Guard doing some of the force protection there. Do you need additional assets directly to the Navy so that they can take back over those functions so we're not pulling the Coast Guard away from their other missions?

SEC. RUMSFELD: When you say "take back over those functions," it's not clear to me they were Navy functions. The Coast Guard's responsibilities are what they are.

And the threat has gone up. And so I suspect the demands on the Coast Guard have gone up because the threat has gone up, not to my knowledge because they have assumed any responsibilities for the Navy that they ought not to have assumed.

The relationship between the Navy and the Coast Guard is, as you know, very, very close. And it works very, very well. I don't doubt for a minute that everybody who has installations along a coast -- indeed, installations anywhere -- we were talking earlier about a chemical installation inside of our country far away from oceans, all of which need greater force protection.

SEN. MURRAY: The challenges that we have now called on our Coast Guard to take care of our ports, to take care of our Navy installations, to do a number of other functions, that have increased dramatically, obviously, since September 11th --


SEN. MURRAY: -- and they are now not doing the safety inspections, or safety -- actually -- mission that they have, inspections, fisheries enforcements, a number of other things. And if the Navy needs additional dollars to secure their naval installations, I think we need to just know where the functions are. You're saying to me it's not the Navy that's responsible for providing naval protection on our installations on the water.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I guess I did -- I hope I did not try to answer definitively. I said to the best of my knowledge no roles or missions have been altered. That is to say, the Coast Guard is continuing to do what it is charged to do, but that the threat level being up, there's more of it being asked of them. The same thing's true of the Department of Defense. I mean, the Navy's being asked to do lots of things they hadn't previously been asked to do all over the world. And so it is more a question of where the government decides they want to increase capabilities, and maybe it's in both.

SEN. MURRAY: Mr. Secretary, I totally understand that. But if it is a matter of we need additional dollars to secure these installations, we can't have different institutions saying it's their problem or it's their problem. We need to know what the costs are so that we can provide them within that --

SEC. RUMSFELD: Sure. That's fair enough. SEN. BYRD: Thank you, Senator Murray.

Senator Domenici?

SEN. PETE DOMENICI (R-NM): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, I apologize for being late. I had responsibility on the floor or I would have been here earlier. And I don't want to keep the committee very long with questions. So I would like to, Mr. Chairman, to submit for Senator Nunn two questions, if he could answer them for us within whatever time you set. And I would just observe that one of the most difficult problems that I think the appropriators are going to end up having is distinguishing -- excuse me -- distinguishing what functions are homeland defense and what functions are defense. And as I understand it, the OMB and the Defense Department have worked that out in terms of if OMB says something is homeland in their requests of us, then it gets attributed to the homeland part of the budget. Is that correct?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I think that the changes in our activities is leading to the issues you're mentioning: that is to say, how do you want to allocate a certain expenditure? And there's no question but that OMB gets involved in that, as does the Congress and this committee.

SEN. DOMENICI: Well, Mr. Secretary, I'm -- it's already being done, and I'm just trying to ask, as they do it, who's in charge?

The national security community or the defense community, in several activities, the Office of Management and Budget has defined -- has defined as homeland defense security in the 2003 budget, and OMB and the national security community requested 7.8 billion for homeland security out of a total of 37. What I'm trying to find out is, when we put our bills together, how do we know that the distinction between that which is defense and that which is homeland security is what we would think? I don't think that should only be a decision of OMB or you. I think we ought to be able to look at it, and how can we do that? Is there some designation? Does Dov have that. Who would have that information?

MR. ZAKHEIM: Well, Senator, basically what you have is OMB has looked at our budget and has essentially identified certain elements of that budget has being homeland security. Now, we have a group of programs, whether they're anti-terrorism or counter-terrorism or consequence management or intelligence, that we have budgeted for, and we work with OMB on those programs. Having put that together, Senator, OMB kind of stars them and says, these are homeland security programs. And this year, the number, as you well know, was 7.9 billion.

But fundamentally, we put our budget together. The secretary approves it. We coordinate with OMB.

SEN. DOMENICI: Okay. So we are going to end up being -- you all are going to end up being happy if we appropriate money for defense, and it's a certain amount, and we appropriate an amount for homeland defense, and it has some of your money in it, you're going to be satisfied with OMB's designation of which will continue on as homeland and which will be defense in subsequent appropriation bills?

MR. ZAKHEIM: Well, Senator, if you appropriate the funds we asked for, then we're certainly going to be happy. In terms of the specifics you've just mentioned, again, if there is a given program, and that was in our budget and the secretary and the president have sent it on up, and OMB then labels that as homeland security, in practice, it's the same program, and therefore, in effect, you're killing two birds with one stone.

SEN. DOMENICI: Well, I have a couple of research-and-development questions that I'll submit for the secretary, and you can do that in due course. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. BYRD: Thank you, Senator Domenici. Your questions are very pertinent. It would have been very helpful to this committee if Director Tom Ridge had appeared before the committee and helped to resolve some of the good questions you've asked.

Senator -- Senator Hollings.

SEN. DOMENICI: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, what I'm concerned about is we have to get to a point where we say, this is a defense budget --


SEN. DOMENICI: -- and this is a non-defense budget.

SEN. BYRD: Absolutely.

SEN. DOMENICI: We're making that designation based on the OMB director putting stars along certain ones and saying that is and that isn't, and then two years from now, will it still be that way, defense and non-defense? I don't know.

SEN. BYRD: Senator Hollings.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it was last September the 10th that you made your appearance and gave a rundown of the reorganization of the Department of Defense. And I commented at the time that that was the perhaps the best presentation by a secretary of Defense in my 35 years.

Harking back -- I want to talk about money. Harking back, I remember well you said, "Now wait a minute. What we're doing is, we taking and going from the old-line defense into this high-tech -- we going to the legacy savings and apply it to the new defense, but we caution you" -- you were telling us to caution the Congress to realize that we still in next year, which is now -- you were going to ask for about 33 billion more, even though you were re-allocating from the old to the new. And that was coming at 347. And now the appropriation for this subcommittee to look at in Defense is at 396. It's almost 100 billion over, and the last two years, it's increased. We have had a 17 billion supplemental emergency last year, 14 billion this year.

Dr. Zakheim, don't worry what the exact figure is. I'm just talking about a lot or money, and I want to help the secretary. I'm going to support him. I'll support getting rid of that Crusader. You can put the V-22 on that list, too. (Laughter.)


SEN. HOLLINGS: Because we got to save some. I know Senator Stevens will have a heart attack, but don't worry about it.

SEC. RUMSFELD: (Laughs; laughter.)

SEN. HOLLINGS: But Mr. Secretary, I -- we going to have a budget here. And Senator Domenici, myself and all others going to be trying to care and get a budget before Memorial Day. I think it's wrong, wrong, wrong to say that "We've got a war now, and therefore, we going to run a deficit. And incidentally, the war's never going to end." I'm ready and been talking around proposing a 2-percent value-added tax allocated to taking care of this terrorism war -- at least part of the expenses moving along. I want to help you with all of these billions more that I think and you think are absolutely necessary, but I can't see -- we're already 162 billion in the red this fiscal year, even with all the revenues from April the 15th. And it's going up. And I'm willing to bet anybody in the room it'll be at least 350 by September the 30th. Now we got to -- and mark that down; I said that publicly. We'll have the bet. We got to pay for these things. Can I get your help while I'm helping you?

SEC. RUMSFELD: No, sir. I want your help, and -- but I'm supporting the president's budget.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Yeah, but you're about the only uncontrolled Cabinet member I know.

SEC. RUMSFELD: (Laughs; laughter.)

SEN. HOLLINGS: And that's why I ask you the question. I mean, heavens above -- we can't get through to the rest of 'em, but you know, Cheney used to work for you.

SEC. RUMSFELD: (Laughs.)

SEN. HOLLINGS: The president's still working for Cheney.

SEC. RUMSFELD: (Laughs; laughter.)

SEN. HOLLINGS: We got to get some money refunded from over there.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Senator --

SEN. HOLLINGS: (Inaudible) -- we got to have sacrifices. We're -- you see, all of this is about seaport security. We passed seaport security before Christmas. It languishes in the House. We've browned our hog. We're not doing anything. We talking about cloning. We talking about estate-tax cuts. We talking about a $4 trillion permanent kind of tax cut. And everything else there is just up, up and away, and nobody wants to talk sense, and yet we supposed to give an honest budget here in the next two or three weeks. And you the only fellow over there that I know I can rely on.

SEC. RUMSFELD: (Laughs.) Senator, we've got a good team down there -- the president and the vice president. And they have spent a lot of time focusing on the overall budget and come to the conclusion that our defense budget is -- I guess -- what is it? Two-point-nine percent or -- of the gross national product --

STAFF: (Off mike) -- yeah, it's a little more now.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Maybe a little more. Three percent. It's a relatively -- it's a big amount of money, and yet, as a fraction of our national --

SEN. HOLLINGS: Oh, I'm not saying it's too much. I'm supporting you and supporting the president. I see I can't -- they're going to cut my time here.

With respect to the Philippines that was mentioned here and having those military exchanges and joint training, let's move along too with the People's Republic of China. That's a billion, 300 million over there. And I've visited there four times now since 1976, and they're making a miraculous drive towards a heck of a lot of capitalism, I can tell you that.

And I've found over the years up here that the best calling card we have is the military friends that we've made through those exchanges and everything else. So anything you can do to stop cussing and talking about communism -- I'll get right to the point. I had to control crowds for all the marry-ins, bury-ins, wade-ins, sit-ins and everything else, and it took up 50 percent of my time as governor. If I had to run the country of China, and they started these demonstrations around, and if you ever let one get out of hand and you got a billion, 300 million, then you've lost the government, you've lost control.

So it's -- unfortunately, it's got to be traumatic in some cases. We all regret Tiananmen Square. But I've got an understanding of trying to control different ideas in a -- where the law says one thing, and yet the demand is otherwise and those kind of things.

So I think we ought to move forward, and you're the best one to move forward with us in trying to get an association and influence -- develop an influence there. We're not developing an influence the way we're going after it now. SEC. RUMSFELD: Senator, I met with the vice president, Mr. Hu, and we discussed this issue of military-to-military relationships. And of course, it was interrupted by the EP-3 -- (pauses) -- disaster --

SEN. HOLLINGS: Incident, yes.

SEC. RUMSFELD: -- where this incident -- they called it an "incident." "Incident" is a little too small a word for me. But it was a terribly dangerous situation, and the relationships were interrupted there. And we had a good discussion about it, and I expect that we will begin to reinitiate some military-to-military relationships. I too they can be important. I think that they can be particularly important in a multinational environment, where people in the region can see the United States involved in military-to-military contact with the countries in that region. So I suspect that, oh, sometime in the months ahead we'll see some movement in that area.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Thank you.

SEN. BYRD: Thank you, Senator Hollings.

Senator Bond.

SEN. CHRISTOPHER BOND (R-MO): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. I'll forgo the normal comments and get right down to the point. You -- as you said that the National Guard's gotten a lot of exercise and -- correct, and we're very proud of the role they played.

As co-chairman of the National Guard Caucus, I would agree with you that the Guard has a very important role in its worldwide mission as well as homeland defense. In homeland defense, as a former governor, I can tell you they're the eyes and the ears. They've done a tremendous job. And I think they ought to be a fully and vibrant coordinated player in homeland security. And I'm a little concerned in your response to Senator Cochran's question about the National Guard and Reserve.

And I'm concerned that in homeland security in the Northern Command, they may not have the role that they should. I had introduced a bill, and I had written to you to urge consideration of making a National Guard officer as a deputy commander of the Northern Command. I think that having the Guard more fully involved -- and we know the tradition in the Pentagon has been to keep the Guard at a rather low level, but when it comes to homeland defense and the Northern Command, these are men and women who live in almost every community in America. They are undoubtedly not only the most readily available, but also the eyes and the ears for national defense. So I would urge you to give a careful consideration to that role for the Guard.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, thank you, Senator. I am aware of that proposal, and it's certainly something that the new commander ought to think about. I have not developed a conviction on the subject, to be perfectly honest. It is -- I think of the National Guard as a national asset. And in that sense, I think of it as an asset to be used anywhere in the world where it's needed for the kinds of functions that are appropriate to it. And certainly one of those is homeland security. I don't think of homeland security as the sole responsibility of the Guard, and I think that it would -- we're not organized and arranged for that to be the case. Clearly, we need to recognize the connection between the Northern Command and the Guard, and I'm sure we'll do that in one way or another.

SEN. BOND: I thank you. I agree with you. And we will -- several of us will work to try to help convince you of the importance of that.

SEC. RUMSFELD: (Laughs.)

SEN. BOND: A couple of questions -- maybe these -- I'll ask you, or perhaps Dr. Zakheim, on Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear -- CBRN -- training. That's a critical part of homeland defense. We are very proud of the U.S. Army chemical school located at Fort Leonard Wood, and they are training all elements. Their first class of Coast Guard personnel went on to perform admirably at the Olympic Games. But as I understand it, the chemical school is only resourced, staffed and equipped to provide traditional training to soldiers programmed for assignment to the field army. The CBRN training is resource-intensive. Given the current needs for training on a much wider scale, can you give a more detailed look at the budgetary requirements and the resources necessary for that training?

MR. ZAKHEIM: Well, Senator, we have, as you know, put quite a bit of money in for the chem-bio defense program generally.

I will give you an answer for the record on your specific question.

SEN. BOND: We'll look forward to working with you.

MR. ZAKHEIM: Absolutely.

SEN. BOND: I just wanted to call this one to you.

MR. ZAKHEIM: Certainly

SEN. BOND: The second question, the GEO report of September '01 said that the specialized National Guard team, the weapons of mass destruction civil support teams are supposed to assist states and local authorities in responding to a terrorist incident. But the GAO found numerous problems with readiness and deployability, and the DoD inspector general said the Army's process for certification lacks rigor; the program schedule slipped; there are no plans to arrange for dedicated aircraft to get the teams in position. Could you tell me what response the Department of Defense has made to the GAO report and whether our troops are being adequately equipped to respond to CBRN attacks here and abroad?

MR. ZAKHEIM: Well, as you know, we've no gone from 27 to 32 of these teams. They're about 22 people each, as I recall. They're supposed to be responsive within six to eight hours, although we heard earlier of some problems took place in New York. My understanding is that we have in fact addressed many of those GAO concerns, and again, I'll give you an answer for the record on that, sir.

SEN. BOND: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. BYRD: Thank you, Senator. Senator Inouye, you had another question?

SEN. INOUYE: Yes. Before I do, if I may just comment, several questions were asked on the port security matter. It is true that there are about 400 visitations on an average per day in our harbors, but I don't want to leave the impression that only 2 percent of the containers on these ships are being inspected, because we do have memorandums of understanding and agreements with all -- many other countries, most of them. And most of these companies -- countries do monitor and inspect these vessels and these containers, and as a results, many of the inspections that we make in the 2 percent are done out on high seas, because of our fear that if you bring it into the inspector, it may just explode. Our Coast Guard is inspecting containers out on the high seas. That's how we find smugglers coming in. That's how we find drug dealers.

So our containers are inspected, and they are monitored. So -- not all of them. It's not perfect. It's just like the airlines.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Thank you.

SEN. INOUYE: I have just one question, because of the importance of the person who had made the statement during this weekend. Mr. Warren Buffet said that it's not whether it's going to happen, it will happen, he said, and this country will be hit by a nuclear attack. Now, is he privy to classified information?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Senator, not to my knowledge. I know of no particular information he would have. I think the -- if you'd like me just to comment on the subject broadly, the reality is that weapons of mass destructions -- chemical, biological, nuclear, radiation weapons -- have been around a long time.

And the longer things are around, the more information is available and the more the technologies are available and the more people with the technical competence to make them and deliver them are around to assist people who may want them.

We know there are six or seven terrorist states that exist. We know that there are -- they have active weapons of mass destruction programs. We know they test them. We know they weaponize these things. We know they trade among themselves. And one's comparative advantage is given to another in exchange for their comparative advantage, and -- we -- the reality is, we are arriving at a time in our world's history where more of these things are available than have been previously. And more of them are in the hands of people who are perfectly willing to use them against their neighbors. And more of them are in the hands of people who have relationship with terrorist networks.

Now what that means and when it might mean it is something that's not knowable. What it does mean is that the task we're embarked on to try to put pressure on these terrorist states and the terrorist organizations is terribly important, because our margin for error is much more modest today. Each of those countries has fewer years before they achieve those, and it seems to me that we have an obligation to ourselves to do everything humanly possible to try to prevent that from happening. If September 11th involved the death of thousands of people, the use of weapons of mass destruction could involve the deaths of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people.

To put a different cast on the question, however -- I think it is useful from time to time to reflect on the fact that nuclear weapons have been around since 1945, and they have not been fired in anger since the end of World War II. That is an amazing accomplishment. I don't know when in history there's been a situation where a weapon -- a major weapon of that kind of power or any major power -- has existed that long and not been used in anger.

So we've got a pretty darn good record. And I'd like to see us extend it a good long time in the future. But I don't think we'll extend it by hoping. I think we need to be very willing to go out and do what we can to see that those weapons don't fall in the wrong hands.

SEN. INOUYE: Thank you very much.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Yes, sir.

SEN. BYRD: Thank you, Senator Inouye.

Senator Stevens, you had another question?

SEN. STEVENS: Well, I really had a comment more than a question, Mr. Chairman.

We've been reading a lot about those tankers that we have tried to deal with in the appropriations bill at the end of last year, the bill that was signed in January. I still have feelings, as a former transport pilot, of people who have to fly airplanes that were made before they were born, some of them made before their fathers were born, and how long they're going to last. And somehow or other, people seem to be getting the idea this is pork. It was my idea. We don't produce those airplanes in my state. We have no interest at all in the manufacturing process. What we're interested in is the safety of the people who fly them, and a lot of them are stationed in my state.

Now, I do think that this is being dragged on a long time, and it seems to me that as every day goes by, there's more and more of those tankers going out every night refueling people, and one of these days, one of those tankers is going to have to abort, and about a whole flight is going to not get home.

Now, people don't seem to be thinking about the military people that are flying that old equipment. I don't know of anything -- anything. Even the Navy ships aren't 44 years old. These tankers are 40-plus years old! And I would hope that somehow the department would get beyond criticism and be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, Mr. Secretary.

And I don't want -- need an answer; I just want you to know I am very disturbed when I read these magazines that are coming out accusing -- my god, one of them that's written this last week says it's because I slipped three items into a budget at midnight for one of the senators, that he didn't object to it anymore. Specious, specious speculation. No connection at all. but I do think about the guys who are flying those airplanes; not just the tankers, the guys that are flying the other planes, that have to be refueled two and three times a night. And I really have serious worry about them at night when I start thinking about those kids over there. (We saw them ?), you know? They're (fairly ?) older than we were in World War II, and we were flying planes that were made 10 or 12 years before. But to fly ones that are 40-plus years before they were -- god, I can't understand opposition to replacing those planes; 135-E should not be in our inventory a year from now. We all know that. And if they're not there, we've lost one-third of our tanker fleet. And the whole concept of deployable force comes down if those tankers aren't there.

I hope you'll help us get some solution. I don't know what. If the solution we came up isn't right, we need a solution. Those boys should not -- and they're not all boys now, there's men and women flying those airplanes, need to know that we're thinking about them and are going to give them better equipment in the future.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Senator, I was in a transport coming out of Afghanistan -- Herat, Afghanistan, en route north to Moscow last week, and it was about 1:00 in the morning -- 12:00, 1:00 in the morning, and they did an in-flight refueling. And I agree with you; those folks do a superb job. And there's no question but that this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Dov, do you want to comment on the --

MR. ZAKHEIM: Yes, sir.

SEN. BYRD: Could we move along quickly? I have another -- we have another witness.

SEN. BYRD: (former) Senator (Sam) Nunn is being kept waiting.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Fair enough.

SEN. STEVENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry to take the time.

SEN. BYRD: That's all right.

SEN. INOUYE: I want to associate myself, sir --

SEN. BYRD: Very well.

Senator Specter.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA): Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, for conducting these hearings, especially this one.

And I thank you, Mr. Secretary, for the job you're doing --

SEC. RUMSFELD: Thank you, Senator.

SEN. SPECTER: -- traveling the world.

I want to ask a question relating to homeland security, which -- as secretary of the Department of Defense, you have a lot of responsibility, perhaps the primary responsibility. But we have a director of homeland security, and from our conversations before, I know you're reluctant to get into territory that's outside of your specific realm. But I think that there is sufficient overlap with the Department of Defense that your view would be valuable as we are struggling with what to do on this subject. Senator Lieberman and I have introduced a bill which would create a Cabinet position, and I have concern that Governor Ridge, who I think is doing an excellent job to date, given the limited power he has, runs into some very, very difficult turf battles.

The air patrols were withdrawn over New York, according to media reports -- and I take them with a grain of salt; I identify them as only "media reports" -- that he was not consulted, and that an assistant secretary of Defense who -- or a DOD official, who was unnamed, not an uncommon reference to officials all over this town, who are unnamed -- said that Governor Ridge is not consulted; he's told, in effect.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Could I stop you there and respond to that piece of it?


SEC. RUMSFELD: It would be helpful, I think. The individual who was so quoted was, in my view, quoted out of context. I've discussed it with him. And it is true; there are instances where Governor Ridge is intimately involved and has the responsibility for coordinating things.

There are also aspects of things where in fact he is not the coordinator; the National Security Council is the coordinator. And you're quite right, each of these things, as we move to a new era, new security environment, need to be sorted through well. And the individual did not mean anything other than the fact that in some instances, the coordinator is the National Security Council, and in some instances, the coordinator is the Homeland Security Council. So I would really love to put that to rest if I could.

SEN. SPECTER: Well, okay, no, I'm glad to have your comment, Mr. Secretary, but I hardly think it puts it to rest because they're overlapping responsibilities. And I'm not picking at that, but there's a pattern here. When there was a terrorist threat against the banks, the attorney general went before the cameras and took charge, and really preempting Governor Ridge. When there was a classified briefing about a so-called dirty bomb, or at least these were according to new reports, again, Tom Ridge was out of the loop.

Now, Governor Ridge has said that he doesn't need any more authority because he can walk down the hall and get the president to arbitrate all of these disputes. But it's a long way down the hall sometimes. And my thinking, and I'm interested in your view, obviously, is that you need to institutionalize the department. The Department of Defense was created by an act of Congress -- not an adviser, an act of Congress -- as were all the other departments. And the next man in charge of homeland security may not have the close personal relationship with the president which Governor Ridge and President Bush enjoy. And I don't have to tell you, Mr. Secretary, about the seriousness of what we're doing here. And I think back about when President (Ronald) Reagan was shot, and Vice President (George H.W.)Bush was flying back home, and Alexander Haig appeared and made the famous statement, "I'm in charge here." Doesn't there have to be somebody beside the president who is in command? Can the National Security Council have part of the responsibility, ala the air patrols over New York, and Governor Ridge have some other responsibility? Shouldn't there be one person who has total control of all facets of homeland security?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, let me address that in three pieces. First, I briefed the National Security Council and I believe the Homeland Security Council combined with Governor Ridge president on the subject of the combat air patrols over the United States.

We -- General Myers and I briefed. It was in the situation room. We explained what we'd been doing, what the alternative possibilities might be. They were discussed, and Governor Ridge was, in my view, not out of the loop on that. Now that's my recollection.

Second, with respect to the broader question: I don't know the answer, except that I've never seen anything where one person is totally in charge. Our government is so big and so complex that when the attorney general gets up and talks about some person that we've captured in Afghanistan in the Department of Defense, and they are prosecuting them or deciding to prosecute them or indict them, that doesn't surprise or bother me at all. When the Department of State gets up and talks about something that is in that blurred area between Defense and State -- which happens every single day -- there are things where we're constantly connected. The Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense -- we're constantly into each other's areas, and there isn't one of us that's in charge in any one of those instances -- nor do I think it's even conceivable that you're going to end up with one single person in charge of homeland security.

Let me give you an example. Let's go to those combat air patrols. The Department of Defense has as its responsibility the defense of our country. And if you took, for example, NORAD and combat air patrols and took them away from the Department of Defense and put one person in charge of everything involving homeland security, you would then have kind of bifurcated responsibilities over assets which need to be allocated across the world, depending on what is the single most important thing that needs to be done then to provide for our country's national security.

And therefore, it's not clear to me that it is ever going to be possible to get perfect clarity and responsibility of a single individual over really any aspect, because our responsibilities do run up and touch very close to each other. But I -- it's not for me to say, and I don't really have a well-developed opinion on it. I just think it's hard to achieve the goal that you've set.

SEN. BYRD: Senator Specter, you had another question?

SEN. SPECTER: I do have one more question.

Mr. Secretary, I'm concerned about access by the Congress to key information, and I took this up with Senator (Fred) Thompson at some length. It was my subcommittee on bioterrorism matters, where we had made a request to the Center for Disease Control, and CDC sent it on to HHS, Health and Human Services. And they sent it on to OMB. We could never get the answer.

And I know there is a considerable controversy now about the chain of command in the Department of Defense and the weapons system. We're not going to get into the details. And I may have a parochial interest, which I'm not pursuing at the moment, as to Pennsylvania's interest. But it seems to me that even where subordinates to the secretary of Defense have information which is critical to a congressional decision, that Congress ought to have access to it. If the secretary and the president disagree with the Congress about a weapons system, Congress has the authority under the Constitution to legislate and make a direction.


SEN. SPECTER: The president can veto it, and then we have the constitutional authority to override the veto.

So my question to you is, shouldn't we have access to information, even if it's from the secretary of the Army, who has disagreed with the secretary of Defense, so that Congress can make the ultimate decision on that question?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, I have no idea what you're referring to, Senator Specter. I -- you say there's a discussion or a debate going on in the Pentagon on this issue, and --

SEN. SPECTER: Well, there's a dispute as to a major weapons systems where you were quoted as saying that you have had a minimal amount of regard --

SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, you're talking about the Crusader issue.


SEC. RUMSFELD: I thought you were talking bioterrorism.

SEN. SPECTER: Well, I started there. (Laughter.)

SEC. RUMSFELD: It's late in the day, and you lost me.

SEN. SPECTER: I started there, Mr. Secretary, because that was one that I had an intimate familiarity with and a detailed responsibility --


SEN. SPECTER: -- and I couldn't find out. And when I talk about the weapons system, it's an analogy. I may come back to you. We have some defense contractors in Pennsylvania. But I'm not on that point now. I'm on the point of having Congress have access to all the information so we can make a decision on the Crusader system -- Crusader weapons system for example.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well there's no question but that Congress can get briefed on weapons systems. We do all the time. The secretaries of all the services are up here frequently. The staffs are briefed. And there's just mountains of information available on these weapons systems.

SEN. SPECTER: Even after the secretary of Defense has made a decision.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, at some point, a decision has to be made.

SEN. SPECTER: By the secretary of Defense.


SEN. SPECTER: But then the Congress has to make a decision.

SEC. RUMSFELD: You bet! That's the way it works!


SEC. RUMSFELD: Absolutely.

SEN. SPECTER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Fair enough. Yes, sir.

SEN. SPECTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. BYRD: Thank you, Senator Specter.

Mr. Secretary, don't close your books yet.

You've been very generous with your time. And we had very good attention by full committee here. That's why you're being kept longer than we had expected to ask you to be here.

I want to go back to my original question. I'm not satisfied at all with the answers that I got with respect to the $14 billion you're requesting for the Defense Department in the supplemental appropriation bill, of which more than $11 billion is earmarked for a central account called the Defense Emergency Response Fund, for loosely defined purposes to support the global war on terrorism.

Congress has provided the Defense Department $17.4 billion to date to support this war on terrorism. And I repeat what I said earlier: The department has informed us it will run out of money to prosecute the war by the end of May. But I've been informed that the department is not yet able to inform the Congress how much of the $17.4 billion has been expended or how it has been expended.

Now, I don't -- I have to tell you that if we don't get some answers, Dr. Zakheim, on this question, I can't be fully supportive of this request. Of the $40 billion that the Congress made available to the administration to support the war on terror, homeland defense and the recovery efforts for New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia, nearly half, $17.4 billion, was for the Defense Department. I'm informed that the DOD comptroller, Dr. Zakheim, has informed the committee that they are not yet able to identify how they have spent the funding.

Now, when I first came to Congress, John Tabor (sp) of New York, a Republican, was chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the House. John Tabor (sp) would not have been satisfied with the answer. And I believe that the last year I was in the House, Stiles Bridges, a Republican, was chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate. And I was in the House. Carl Vinson -- who I believe was the great-uncle, perhaps, of our next witness, former Senator Sam Nunn -- was chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the House. He would not have been satisfied with this answer. And I'm not satisfied with it.

Now, you indicated that you would provide the committee with your analysis of how the $17.4 billion approved by Congress last fall is being spent. Yet as recently as last week, I'm told that Dr. Zakheim told Senator Inouye that information on how the funds are being spent is not available.

I want to stress that it is very important -- it's very important for the committee to have this information this week. Now we won't take no for an answer. We want the information as we prepare to mark up the supplemental.

I want to be supportive. I want to help the Defense Department. But I also have a responsibility to the taxpayers and to the Senate and to the other members of the committee. We want this information. If you have it, let us have it. Otherwise, you're not going to get the support from this chairman for what you're asking for. I'm just not made that way. I came here 50 years ago, and I'm a little bit of the old school. So we just can't slide by on these answers. I say this in a good spirit. I don't -- I'm not mean-spirited. But we have a responsibility to our people who send us here, and we have a responsibility to ask these questions, and we expect to get the answers, if they're available at all.

MR. ZAKHEIM: Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate your concern. To the best of my knowledge, the answers were sent up yesterday. These were the answers, I believe, Senator Inouye has referred to.

I -- it's difficult for me to have discussed anything with Senator Inouye last week, since I wasn't in the country last week. To the -- again, I will ensure -- and I've given you my word before, Senator, and I believe you know that I've kept it -- you will get what you need this week. And I will double-check to make sure that what I was told -- (to staff) -- it went up yesterday? I was told it went up -- they went up yesterday. I will double-check again today. We will get you the final answer. And if you or your staff feel, as the week moves on, that you still do not have what you need, please let me know, and I will respond immediately.

SEN. BYRD: Thank you. We will do that.

Mr. Secretary, thank you. You're a very busy man, and we have a great deal of confidence in you. We apologize for keeping you as late as you've been here, but we do thank you.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. BYRD: The committee will stay in recess for three minutes. Senator Nunn will then appear before the committee. Thank you. (Strikes gavel.)