Senate Appropriations Committee Holds Hearing on FY2003 Supplemental Appropriations

DURBIN:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us with your colleagues here today.

I may be one of the last to ask questions, but yesterday there was a vote on the floor of the Senate relative to imminent danger pay, combat pay, as well as family separation allowances. The original amendment, which I offered, suggested $500 for each, which would have been an increase from $150 for combat pay to $500 a month and an increase on family separation allowance from $100 a month to $500 a month.

With some negotiations, that was brought down. I wasn't happy with the outcome. But we believe we have arrived at a figure of $250 for each and put provisions in the budget resolution for that and a vote -- 100 to nothing—of the Senate in support of it.

I raise that issue because others have raised the question of quality of life for the families that are affected here, not just the active personnel, but the reserves and guard, who are playing a much larger role. I would like to ask you whether there is provision within this supplemental for that type of an increase, so that we could offer imminent danger pay and an increase in the family separation allowance to the men and women fighting, as well as those at home waiting for their return?

WOLFOWITZ:

There is a considerable amount, I think, in the supplemental for special pays. I don't know how it allocates among different types of special pay. Do you, Dov?

ZAKHEIM:

I can get you that for the record. We have money for all the various categories of special pay—whether it's danger, whether it's overseas, all of that.

To your question, though, obviously our estimates are based on what is current law. And therefore, we have postulated the request to the Congress based on what are the current rates. But we do have them in there. And that is actually the bulk of the active pay because the regular pay is already in the baseline budget.

DURBIN:

And I can also add that I'm sure you've been in contact with the families of those who have been activated and those who are in combat. Some of them are facing extraordinary hardships that we've talked about earlier here. And I hope that the chairman, as well as other members of the committee and, I hope, the Department of Defense, will be open to a change in the supplemental that will accommodate an increased family separation allowance, as well as increased imminent danger pay.

We can never compensate the men and women in uniform enough for the dangers that they are facing. But I think this would be an excellent show of support from Congress and the American people at this important time.

May I ask you, Mr. Secretary, when it comes to this appropriation request, relative to the war, how much of this relates to the War on Terrorism? How much of this would have been asked for were there no war in Iraq underway?

WOLFOWITZ:

There is roughly $6 billion in there that covers forces that—particularly things like aircraft carries, Marine forces—that we would still need out there, even if there were no conflict in Iraq.

DURBIN:

So roughly 10 percent of it is for the War on Terrorism?

WOLFOWITZ:

Dr. Zakheim is telling me it's more than $6 billion.

ZAKHEIM:

It's more than that because the $1.5 billion, which includes the money to Pakistan...

WOLFOWITZ:

Correct.

ZAKHEIM:

...and other countries is also related to the global War on Terrorism. In addition, there is about $500 million to replenish munitions that have already been expended in the global War on Terrorism.

So roughly, the $6 billion that Secretary Wolfowitz just mentioned, plus about an additional $2 billion.

DURBIN:

Another question that's been asked of me: why are we giving $1 billion to Turkey if they were so uncooperative?

WOLFOWITZ:

They were not nearly as cooperative as we had hoped. But I think it's a little unfair to say they were uncooperative. And they have become much more cooperative in the last couple of weeks.

The over flight that we're getting from Turkey is enormously important. And while it's true that all our other NATO allies, even France and Germany, have given us over flight, it's also fair to point out that Turkey is the only NATO ally that shares a border with Iraq. So we're over flying Turkey with Tomahawk cruise missiles, with fighter bombers, with B-2s. And most importantly, we're flying special forces and airborne troops in through Turkish airspace.

Now that's not the reason there's $1 billion in there, though. Let me make it clear. The Turks granted us that over flight unconditionally.

But the view is and this is now really into—I'm running the risk of explaining a piece of the State Department's supplemental—but we have a big stake in Turkey getting through this crisis without suffering an economic crisis on top of it. And while we would have hoped for a higher level of cooperation, Turkey remains a very valuable ally.

And a country, particularly in a period when promoting moderation and democracy in the Muslim world is particularly important to America's interest, Turkey's success as one of the few democratic countries in the Muslim world, I think, is important. So it's not a payment for something. It's not a reward for something.

It's a recognition that Turkey as a frontline state stands to suffer some significant short-term economic losses as a result of this conflict. But let me say one more things, especially those Turks who might be listening, this is going to bring a huge economic benefit to Turkey in the medium and in the long run. And I wish they had recognized that a long time ago.

DURBIN:

Mr. Chairman, may I ask one last question?

STEVENS:

Yes, sir. You have waited a long time. We all remember sitting down at the end of the table, by the way, Senator Durbin.

DURBIN:

Many years ago.

Secretary Wolfowitz, much has been written about an article that you wrote many years ago, with others, relative to our relationship with Iraq and whether or not we should be engaged in taking out Saddam Hussein as leader of that country and on the issue of the policy of preemption.

I would like to ask you whether, now that you have seen what it has taken to bring us to the point of this invasion of Iraq, do you feel that your rationale, written many years ago, was justifiable? And secondly, where does this take us in the future, by that same rationale?

WOLFOWITZ:

We could discuss which particular paper you're referring to. I think you're referring to something that I never wrote and, in fact, I never read. It was written by a staff member of mine and appeared in the "New York Times" before I saw it. But that's the famous 1992 Defense Planning Guidance draft.

But on the broader question, my views of Iraq have changed over time. And I would never have thought, before September 11, that the kind of activity we're undertaking would be justified or necessary.

It's an unfortunate fact of history that, had we taken stronger actions of a more limited kind over the last 12 years, we wouldn't be facing this problem today, starting with the end of the Gulf War and going throughout most of the 1990s, I believe. But we're where we are now.

We have a regime that is an extreme threat to the United States. And I think we have learned from September 11 that those are threats that you simply can't afford to live with. And fortunately, we have incredibly brave men and women who are putting their lives, literally, on the line to free this country from that threat.

And in the process, I believe—and this is important—they will also free the Iraqi people from a terrible regime. Some people have commented, "Well, if that's the case, why aren't the people of Basra rising up and greeting us as liberators?" And the answer, I think, is increasingly clear. It's because Saddam and the regime, whether Saddam's alive or not, the regime has its death squads operating in Basra.

We heard a report that one Iraqi commander who tried to surrender—or at least not fight—was taken, executed. His head was chopped off and paraded around the city on a pole. And when you have a regime like that, it takes a little while before people get their stomach up to oppose it.

But I am absolutely sure when it's gone, people will be cheering its absence. And we will be the better for it.

DURBIN:

Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.