alone. If it starts down that road, actually, of a war with a State, a sovereign state, it will need the support of the Congress. And it will need it at takeoff as well as on the landing. And the American people have to be behind it, and the way to have the American people behind it is to come forth to the American people and make the case and ask the Congress for a declaration of war. And I maybe will vote for that if a case can be made for it. I may not. But I am thinking, one, there is a country here or there that I might do that at a given time. But it is certainly needed that Congress cannot be just a silent partner that is consulted. The Constitution doesn't say anything about "consultation."

So take that, think about it, if you will, and as you are within the high councils of the Administration and pondering these deep matters, consider the fact that there are some people up on the Hill who have been elected by the people, and there is a Constitution. And what would you think? Do you think if we venture into a situation like that the Administration should have a declaration of war? I am talking about an attack on any one of these "three evil states."

Mr. WOLFOWITZ. Senator, I am in the medium-level councils, and I take very seriously everything you have said. I think we are talking about the gravest possible issues, and they are deep constitutional issues.

I would point out-and you have already said it-there is a bit too much loose talk on the subject. I don't want to add any embellishments of my own. I think what the President did do was to identify three countries that pose serious problems for us because of the nature of their policies and the capabilities they possess. And I think it gives an opportunity-I have said this to some of our allies, who say as though he went from that to immediately deciding what to do, I think it is an opportunity for a debate, for registering the kind of fundamental points that you have just registered. don't think he meant it all, but because they share those common characteristics that, therefore, you have the same policy for all three of them. I don't think he has drawn conclusions on any of them about exactly what to do. But I think we would all agree that countries that are hostile to us and that are developing weapons capable of killing hundreds of thousands of people are a serious problem, and that it seemed a bit theoretical before September 11th. It is not theoretical at all, anymore, and I think that is the important point.

Senator BYRD. But let's all keep in mind that diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy, might and patience, along with preparations, might save us from having to use the weapons of war.

I thank you, Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WOLFOWITZ. Thank you, Senator Byrd.

Chairman CONRAD. Thank you. And I would say to the Senator, West Virginia always has wise advice.

Let me just say this to you: We are together. And no adversary should doubt that Congress stands shoulder to shoulder with the President and this Administration on this question of combating terrorism. And I hope it is very, very clear that we are going to provide the resources necessary to defend this Nation.

At the same time, we have got an obligation and you have an obligation, the Administration has an obligation to use the funds entrusted to us carefully. And when I look at the out-year effect of the President's request, as we look at it, the is asking for, when inflation is considered, the largest amount of money in the year 2012 for defense that we have had in any year in 50 years, with the exception of 1985. That is a lot of money.

I think we are going to have to as a body look very carefully at the long-term impact of what is being recommended. But I want to make it very clear to anyone who is listening that we are going to stand very clearly with this President and this Administration in prosecuting this war against terror. Let there be no doubt that the resources to defend this Nation are going to be provided by this Congress and certainly by this Committee.

Again, we thank you

Senator BYRD. Mr. Chairman, would the Chairman allow me just a postscript?

Chairman CONRAD. Certainly. I just would alert the Senator that we are now down to seven and a half minutes on a vote.

Senator BYRD. OK. I thank you.

Let me also join the Chairman in reassuring the Secretary, I hope I didn't say anything that would leave any doubt as to where I stand. I have pretty good credentials when it comes to supporting the defense of this country. I was fighting communism a long time ago, 50 years ago, when I came here, when I started. I was very opposed to the entry of Red China into the United Nations. I supported Mr. Johnson in the war in Vietnam. I was practically the last man out of Vietnam. I offered an amendment in the Senate to express support for President Nixon in his attacks on the Viet Cong enclaves in Cambodia that were allowing men to slip across the border of South Vietnam to kill Americans. And I offered an amendment which my own majority leader-I was the Democratic whip at that time. I offered an amendment which my own then-majority leader, Mr. Mansfield, for whom I have great respect for his patriotism, opposed. But I offered it, saying that the President has a duty to do whatever it takes to get our boys back home, to keep them safe. I lost on the amendment because I was-I couldn't beat my own majority leader and the others, Frank Church and so on. So I have a good record of support. I have been on the Appropriations Committee now for 50 years, too. And I think I voted for almost every weapons system that ever came down the pike. I have been on the Armed Services Committee with Senator Russell and Senator Stennis when they were chairmen. So I have good credentials on that.

But I tell you one thing else. I am alarmed by, I am concerned about some of the things that are being said and the words that are being used by this Administration in so high places. And I just want the Administration to just-I just want to call its attention to the fact that there is a Constitution and that unless the American people through their elected representatives are in the takeoff, no President can sustain a prolonged conflict if the American people go sour. These are the things I am asking.

Mr. WOLFOWITZ. I appreciate it, Senator. You have a long memory. I think you have known some of the people who have under

estimated the will of this country in the past. One of my favorite quotes is one from Churchill's memoirs where he describes his feelings on December 7th or December 8th, right after the attack on Pearl Harbor, and he says, "I can't conceal the fact I was overjoyed at this" because it meant the United States was in the war. And he said it reminded him of what Earl Grey, the British Foreign Minister at the time the Americans entered World War I, had said to him. He said, "The United States is like a gigantic boiler, and once you get the fire lighted, there is no estimating the power it can generate."

I think these terrorists will be added to the list of people who underestimated the strength and will of this country, and it comes from our Constitution and this constitutional system. And we will work with you in strengthening it. Thank

Senator BYRD. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kindness and courtesies to me.

Chairman CONRAD. Well, thank you for your wise words, and I thank both the witnesses. I apologize. We are little beyond the time that we had agreed to. I hope it doesn't inconvenience you too much. There are just a few minutes left in this vote, so we will close the hearing.

Mr. WOLFOWITZ. I will tell Secretary Rumsfeld it is all your fault, Senator.

Chairman CONRAD. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 12:41 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

No Senator needs to be reminded that this Nation is at war with terrorism, and no Senator needs to be told that to win this war we must give the men and women in the Armed forces every form of support we can.

I say "no Senator" needs to be reminded of these things because everything I have heard from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress tells me that there is virtually unanimous support for the President's National Defense budget request.

What President Bush has requested for the Department of Defense matches what Ronald Reagan received at the height of the Cold War. Then, we had a super-power opponent, the Soviet Union. Today, no sovereign nation s defense budget even begins to match the United States, and our defense budget exceeds that of just about every major regional power in the world today. . .combined. Moreover, our Armed Forces are now just about half of what they were during the Reagan administration, and we can spread that same amount of money over a smaller force.

These are the arguments that we used to hear when someone wanted to reduce spending for the Armed Forces. Those arguments are now overtaken by the events of September 11. We rarely hear them any more, and when we do, they sound out of place.

The current circumstances-a very large defense budget and overwhelming bipartisan support for it-might make observers think this hearing will be a "love-in” with the representatives we have here from the Defense Department.

I support the President's National Defense budget, but I also believe there are some issues that this Committee must address. In my judgement, those issues are the following:

First, large as it is, is this defense budget large enough? Various defense analysts have identified areas where this budget provides disturbingly low levels of support. These areas include naval ship building, Navy flight hours, training and depot maintenance across all the military services, the "Science and Technology" and Military Construction budgets, and the Defense Activities of the Department of Energy. Second, are there areas in this defense budget that may or may not be getting too much money? The President has requested an emergency $10 billion fund fight the war on terrorism, but the budget materials did not tell us where, when, and how the funds will needed. I am sure whatever the President needs to fight this war Congress will provide-and, at the time of the emergency, $10 billion may not

be enough—but as an emergency must it be provided at this time? Should we attempt to pay for unknown military operations now or only when we all know and can support the President's decision?

Third, do the priorities need to be adjusted? Some have suggested that this budget fails to "skip a generation" of weapons to enable a "transformation" to prepare for the Twenty-first century, as the President promised. Some suggest there remain conceptually obsolete weapons in the budget, such as the Army's "Crusader" artillery system that are designed to fight the last war, not the next one. Can those funds be better used elsewhere? These are criticisms that have to be considered.

We have also heard some ideas I believe we must immediately reject: some have suggested that now that we have fully funded the Defense Health Program, we should raid it for funds for other programs.

Thus, at a time of strong bipartisan support for the increases that the President has requested for the National Defense budget, there are some difficult issues that this Congress and this Committee must consider.

To help us do that it is a pleasure to be able to hear two of the prime architects of this budget. Thank you for being with us today, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz and Under Secretary Zakheim. I look forward to hearing your analysis of the issues before us.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD

Mr. Chairman, thank you. The world is a very different place than it was when we met last July to discuss the President's fiscal year 2002 request for defense. That request included a $26 billion increase that the Administration said was necessary to begin a new military transformation that would modernize our Armed Forces for the new challenges of the 21st century.

Those challenges were deadlier than any of us could have imagined. The events of September 11 galvanized our countray and our allies in a global fight against terrorism and those who would shelter, support, and finance those who carried out these acts. There can be no doubt that Congress should provide the resources necessary to fight and win this war. There should also be no doubt that this war should not be used as an excuse to drastically increase an already bloated defense budget. Mr. Chairman, I commend our men and women in uniform for their tireless efforts to find those responsible for these crimes. But as laudable as it might be for the United States to root out all bad actors around the globe, such action would be both outside the scope of the use-of-force resoulution that Congress passed, and beyond our financial means.

This time of previously unimaginable challenges to our country demands that we scrutinize carefully how we spend our scare resources.

The budget request includes a $48 billion increase for the Department of Defense to $379 billion. And there is an additional $17 billion for defense-related programs at the Department of Energy and at other Federal agencies, for a grand total of a $396 billion for defense activities for next year.

Just how big is this budget request?

This would be the largest one-year increase in defense spending since the height of the Cold War.

This request is 15 percent higher than the average Cold War budget.

It is three times the defense budgets of Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, and Syria combined.

It exceeds the Gross Domestic Product-the whole economy-of two-thirds of the countries of the world, including Cuba, Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Vietnam.

And the Administration projects that the budget request for defense would grow to $451 billion by fiscal year 2007.

Mr. Chairman, we should not allow fiscal responsibility and congressional oversight of the President's budget request to fall by the wayside as fight the war on terrorism. A strong national economy is also importatn to our national security. The war on terrorism does not require Congress to abdicate its responsibility to review closely the funding requests of the President, and it does not prohibit discussions about the direction of Federal spending, including defense spending.

As we begin the discussion of the fiscal year 2003 defense budget, I would like to outline some of my priorities. We should ensure that our National Guard and Reserves, more than 75,000 of whom have been called to active duty as part of Operation Noble Eagle or Operation Enduring Freedom, are adequately compensated for their service and sacrifice. These men and women are one of the cornerstones of our Armed Forces, and we should ensure that they have adequate pay and benefits.

Congress should carefully scrutinize the procurement budget and take a hard look at the utility of continuing to fund Cold War-era weapons systems. We should work to ensure that no weapons systems enters full production before it has been fully test to ensure that it will perform its intended mission in a safe and cost-effective manner and that it does not duplicate the mission of existing weapons systems. We should not spend taxpayer dollars on "next generation" weapons systems that are not significantly better than existing systems.

And we should work with the Department of Defense to make sure that Congeress and the American people get an accurate accounting of how defense budget is being spent. Secretary Rumsfeld told the Armed Services Committee last week that his Senior Executive Council is studying ways to run the Department more efficiently. Time and again we hear about duplication of effort, antiquated accounting practices, and mismanagement at the Pentagon. I am deeply troubled that millions of taxpayer dollars continue to go unaccounted for each year.

A report issued last year by the Business Executives for National Security's Tail to Tooth Commission outlines in detail the myriad accounting and inefficience problems at the Pentagon and offers recommendations onhow these problems could be addressed. While each of usmamy not agree with all of their recommendations, we can all agree that this problem needs to be addressed.

I urge the Department to do more ensure that this situation is rectified. It is possible that the $48 billion increase that they seek for next year-and then some— may already exist within the current the Pentagon budget.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman.