[Senate Hearing 111-93]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-93
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2009 WAR SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
APRIL 30, 2009--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-407 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
PATTY MURRAY, Washington ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
JACK REED, Rhode Island LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
BEN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JON TESTER, Montana
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye.................... 1
Statement of Senator Thad Cochran................................ 2
Prepared Statement of Senator Robert C. Byrd..................... 3
Statement of Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State,
Department of State............................................ 4
Prepared Statement........................................... 7
Statement of Hon. Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense,
Department of Defense.......................................... 9
Prepared Statement........................................... 12
Guantanamo Funding............................................... 13
Surge of Civilian Experts........................................ 14
Flu Funding...................................................... 16
Guantanamo--Military Commissions................................. 18
Shutting Down C-17 Line.......................................... 22
Motivating Pakistan.............................................. 24
Public/Private Partnership for Civilian Help..................... 26
Overseeing Contractors........................................... 28
How Many F-22s are Needed?....................................... 29
More Troops for Afghanistan...................................... 30
Situation in Iraq................................................ 30
Support for the Strategy in Afghanistan.......................... 32
Help From Europeans.............................................. 35
Benchmarks for Afghanistan....................................... 35
Greater Accountability on Pakistan............................... 37
Long-range Strategy for Afghanistan.............................. 39
Relocating Detainees............................................. 41
Options for Dealing With Iran.................................... 44
Additional Committee Questions................................... 45
Questions Submitted to Hillary Rodham Clinton.................... 45
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd.................... 45
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy.................. 46
Question Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski................ 49
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl......................... 50
Question Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin.................. 52
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson....................... 52
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg............... 53
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett................. 55
Questions Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback..................... 58
Questions Submitted by Senator George Voinovich.................. 62
Special Envoy to Combat Anti-Semitism............................ 63
Questions Submitted to Hon. Robert M. Gates...................... 63
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd.................... 63
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy.................. 65
Armored Vehicles................................................. 65
Use of National Guard to Counter Drugs From Mexico............... 65
Question Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl.......................... 65
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson....................... 66
H1N1 Flu......................................................... 66
Military Construction in Afghanistan............................. 68
Guantanamo....................................................... 74
AFRICOM.......................................................... 75
Question Submitted by Senator Jack Reed.......................... 75
Department of Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research........................................... 75
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg............... 76
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett................. 77
F-22............................................................. 77
Pakistan......................................................... 77
Guantanamo Bay................................................... 77
National Nuclear Security Administration......................... 78
Missile Defense.................................................. 78
Questions Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback..................... 79
Detainees........................................................ 79
Aid to Lebanon................................................... 79
Questions Submitted by Senator George V. Voinovich............... 80
Budget Process and Supplemental Spending......................... 80
Foreign Military Financing and Defense Trade Cooperation......... 80
DOD Funding for Counternarcotics/Southwest Border Activities..... 80
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2009 WAR SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met at 10:02 a.m., in room SD-106, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Inouye, Leahy, Mikulski, Kohl, Murray,
Dorgan, Feinstein, Johnson, Landrieu, Reed, Lautenberg, Nelson,
Pryor, Tester, Specter, Cochran, Bond, McConnell, Shelby,
Gregg, Bennett, Brownback, Alexander, Collins, Voinovich, and
Murkowski.
opening statement of senator daniel k. inouye
Chairman Inouye. The committee will come to order. This
morning, the committee meets to review the supplemental
appropriations request for fiscal year 2009. The request by the
administration totals $83.4 billion, of which approximately 95
percent is to support military and related security efforts in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
An additional 4 percent is requested for other security
initiatives, with the remaining 1 percent related to other
issues, such as wildlife protection and improved communication
equipment for the Capitol Police.
To discuss the majority of the funding requests, the
committee is pleased to receive testimony from the
distinguished Secretaries of State and Defense, the Honorable
Hillary Clinton and the Honorable Robert Gates. It is good to
see both of you.
The members of the committee know each of you very well. We
hold you both in great esteem and are familiar with and
appreciate your candor. We look forward to your responses to
the many questions, which I'm certain we will have.
As we review the request, I want to note first that I'm
pleased that the President has indicated that this will be the
last increment of funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
that will be requested outside of the regular appropriations
process.
While we recognize that no one can predict what other new
requirements might emerge which would require the
administration or Congress to seek additional funding, it is
clearly a positive step that beginning in fiscal year 2010, we
can expect to see the cost of these ongoing efforts will be
contained in the regular budget.
I believe it is also a positive step that the request for
this last increment is not listed as an emergency. For several
years, led by Chairman Byrd, this committee has urged the
administration to get rid of that gimmick, declaring war
supplementals as emergencies. We very much appreciate the
willingness of the new administration to put these costs on
budget.
In general, it is my belief that the Senate is likely to be
supportive of this request. Funding contained in the proposal
will provide very necessary funds to support our troops in
harm's way, and almost as critical, provide funding to assist
our allies and support the Governments of Iraq, Afghanistan,
and Pakistan.
There are several areas, however, which I believe the
committee will need additional clarification or justification
before it can recommend funding. For example, many of my
colleagues are concerned for the precise plan involved in the
closure of the prison at Guantanamo.
We wonder about the potential plan to station our war-weary
National Guard troops on the Southwest border, and we question
the appropriateness of providing foreign assistance for
Pakistan under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense.
So, too, will we be seeking assurances that the administration
is not attempting to provide any assistance to Hamas.
Hopefully, these issues will be among those addressed
either in your statements or in the questions which will
follow. I would note to my colleagues that I recognize that
there are many issues which you want to address, and remind you
that today's hearing is on the 2009 supplemental request and
not on the 2010 budget request, which we will be receiving next
week. So I would urge my colleagues to refrain from trying to
discuss items in the 2010 request.
We will be inviting both Secretaries back before the
committee at later dates to discuss the 2010 budget. I thank
both of you for appearing today. Without objection, your full
statements will be made a part of the record. At this point, I
would like to yield to the vice chairman of this committee, the
Honorable Thad Cochran, for any opening remarks he may wish to
make.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I'm
pleased to join you in welcoming our distinguished witnesses,
Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates, to our committee today
as we consider the request for supplemental appropriations.
These are national security issues of great import, and we are
going to carefully review the request to be sure that we
provide the resources needed to deal with these critical
international challenges.
We're at a critical juncture for the future security of our
country as we begin to draw down forces in Iraq and shift our
focus to dismantling Al Qaeda and extremist networks in
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The security environment in both Iraq and Afghanistan
remain tenuous. In Iraq, we need to watch for signs the
security situation does not degrade as our forces withdraw. I'm
pleased to see the greater emphasis that the administration has
placed on eliminating terrorist safe havens in Pakistan's
federally administered tribal areas using greater cooperation
and counterinsurgency training of Pakistani security forces.
In considering the administration's request for overseas
contingency operations, we must be mindful of our duty to
provide our servicemembers and diplomatic officers with the
resources needed to conduct their missions successfully.
They're asked to do much in support of our national security,
and we must provide them the resources necessary to accomplish
their missions.
We look forward to the testimony today and your estimates,
if you can provide us that, of when the Department will need
these additional funds. Thank you.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chairman.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD
Before you proceed, the committee has received a statement
from Senator Byrd that I will insert into the record at this
point.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement Senator Robert C. Byrd
Thank you, Chairman Inouye, for holding this hearing. Thank you,
Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates, for coming today to discuss with
the Committee the details regarding your supplemental request. The
ongoing costs of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and elsewhere
around the world, are important--not only for the goals that we aim to
achieve in these volatile spots, but also for the nation and our
economy here at home. It is even more important during these difficult
economic times that funding requests be justified and clearly
contribute to the national security of the United States.
I was pleased to learn that the fiscal year 2010 Department of
Defense and Department of State budget requests are expected to include
funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the co-author of the
Byrd-McCain Amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, which required regular budgeting for military
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, I will be glad to see this.
Like many Americans, I have grown increasingly concerned about the
situation in Pakistan, which bears so heavily on the prospects for
success in Afghanistan. I note that the supplemental request includes
funding for assistance to Pakistan, and for increased diplomatic
operations in Pakistan. I have also noted the increase in funding
requested for additional diplomatic and civilian personnel in
Afghanistan, to supplement the growth in the American military presence
there. I will be watching their activities carefully. Recent press
reports that many of these civilian positions might be filled by
military reservists is something I find worrisome. Our military
reserves have been stretched to the limit; to call them into a war zone
because of their civilian background, rather than their military
training, may cause fewer people to consider serving in the reserves.
Surely, in this economic climate, many people with the right kinds of
skills would be willing to consider work in Afghanistan. The bottom
line, however, is that the systemic problems in both Afghanistan and
Pakistan cannot be solved simply by more activity, and more money. It
must be smart activity, targeted and focused on achievable goals that
fit within an overarching strategy that is not yet, I fear, clearly
defined.
As the U.S. presence and activities in Afghanistan increase, and
our troops redeploy from Iraq, I also expect to see that some of the
lessons learned in Iraq transfer to Afghanistan. Much has been learned
about force protection in Iraq that might usefully be applied in
Afghanistan. Over the last few months, I have worked with the
Department of Defense to correct deficiencies in emergency medical
evacuation and forward surgical capabilities to treat wounded service
men and women in Afghanistan. I thank you, Secretary Gates, for your
personal attention to this matter. I will be carefully monitoring the
changes you have implemented that will, I hope, greatly reduce the
amount of time expended before wounded soldiers receive critical
medical care.
I remain concerned, however, about the ground medical evacuation
vehicle capability in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I understand that a
majority of the ground evacuation vehicles in use were designed around
1960. Given the new realities of operating in an IED environment, this
unnecessarily puts our wounded and our medical specialists in harm's
way. Medical corpsmen responding to a roadside IED attack should be at
least as well protected as other soldiers. I understand that
consideration is being given to purchasing upgraded ground evacuation
vehicles. In fact, the Army had requested 323 such vehicles in the
draft supplemental request, but that funding was not included in the
request that was sent to Congress. I look forward to seeing that
funding included in the fiscal year 2010 budget request.
I also urge both Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates to remain
vigilant against corruption and contract fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Last year, the Committee held a series of hearings examining corruption
and contract fraud that is wasting taxpayer dollars and, even worse,
might be financing the activities of our adversaries. I expressed
concern then that inadequate resources were being put against this
issue, and I challenged the Departments of State, Defense, and Justice
to increase their investigative and capacity-building capabilities to
address these extremely critical problems. I look forward to hearing
from each of you what has been done to step up efforts to identify,
investigate, and prosecute individuals involved in fraudulent and
corrupt activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the many other concerns
before you, a new problem has emerged to challenge both the Department
of Defense and the Department of State. That new, or reemerging,
problem is that of piracy. The recent seizure of an American-crewed
freighter by pirates off the coast of Africa raises new challenges for
both of you. New or expanded international efforts must be undertaken
to protect commerce and our citizens on the high seas, and new rules of
engagement must be developed to address the activities of the pirates.
The United States cannot, and should not, act alone in most instances,
but our activities will require careful coordination with the other
nations that have ships on patrol in those waters. Somalia, home to
many of these pirates, is a lawless place with weak government control.
I have doubts that the conditions in Somalia will allow the government
there to effectively address the problem of piracy, and I would
strongly caution those who think that we can do it for them. I know
that you will both be struggling with this issue, as will the Congress.
I suggest that the Administration work closely with Congress in
addressing this challenge.
Chairman Inouye. It is now my pleasure and great honor to
introduce the Secretary of State.
STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, SECRETARY OF
STATE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, Senator Cochran, members of the committee, former
colleagues, and friends. I thank you for this opportunity to
appear before you, and I also thank you for your stalwart
support of the men and women of the State Department and the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID), who
serve in critical and often dangerous missions in all corners
of the world.
I'm honored to be here with Secretary Gates. I appreciate
the partnership that we have developed in the first 100 days of
this administration. And today, on day 101, I look forward to
our further collaboration in the months ahead.
Before turning to the topic of today's hearing, let me just
give you a brief update on how the State Department is
supporting the Federal Government's response to the H1N1 flu
virus.
We have established an influenza monitoring group within
our operations center. We are tracking how other governments
are responding to the threat and what assistance we might
offer. We are constantly reviewing and refining our advice to
Americans traveling or living abroad.
Our pandemic influenza unit set up in the last years is
providing valuable expertise. Its director, Ambassador Robert
Loftis, is keeping us apprised of their work and their
interaction with health agencies and the World Health
Organization (WHO).
Earlier this week, USAID announced it is giving $5 million
to the World Health Organization and the Pan America Health
Organization to help detect and contain the disease in Mexico.
We will continue to coordinate closely with the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), and other agencies, and I'm very cognizant of
the role that we all must play in attempting to stem and
contain this influenza outbreak.
Secretary Gates and I are here together because our
departments' missions are aligned and our plans are integrated.
The foreign policy of the United States is built on the three
Ds: defense, diplomacy, and development.
The men and women in our armed forces perform their duties
with courage and skill, putting their lives on the line time
and time again on behalf of our Nation. In many regions, they
serve alongside civilians from the State Department and USAID,
as well as other Government agencies, like the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
We work with the military in two crucial ways. First,
civilians complement and build upon our military's efforts in
conflict areas like Iraq and Afghanistan. Second, they use
diplomatic and development tools to build more stable and
peaceful societies, hopefully to avert or end conflict. That is
far less costly in lives and dollars than military action.
As you know, the United States is facing serious challenges
around the world. Two wars, political uncertainty in the Middle
East, irresponsible nations led by Iran and North Korea with
nuclear ambitions, an economic crisis that is pushing more
people into poverty, and 21st century threats, such as
terrorism, climate change, trafficking in drugs and human
beings. These challenges require new forms of outreach and
cooperation within our own Government and then with others as
well.
To achieve this, we have launched a new diplomacy powered
by partnership, pragmatism, and principle. We are strengthening
historic alliances and reaching out to create new ones, and
we're bringing governments, the private sector, and civil
society together to find global solutions to global problems.
The 2009 supplemental budget request for the Department of
State and the U.S. Agency for International Development is a
significant sum, yet our investment in diplomacy and
development is only about 6 percent of our total national
security budget.
For Secretary Gates and myself, it is critically important
that we give our civilian workers, as well as our military, the
resources they need to do their jobs well.
In Iraq, as we prepare to withdraw our troops, our mission
is changing, but it is no less urgent. We must reinforce
security gains while supporting the Iraqi Government and people
as they strengthen public institutions and promote job creation
and assist those Iraqis who have fled because of violence and
want to return home.
Last weekend, I visited Iraq, meeting on the ground our new
Ambassador who was confirmed the night before. We visited the
leadership. We visited with a cross-section of Iraqis in a town
hall setting, and clearly, there are signs of progress, but
there is much work that remains.
In meeting with Iraqis who are working with our provincial
reconstruction teams and our Embassy, I was struck by the
courage and determination to reconstruct their country, not
just physically, but really through the reweaving of their
society.
We have requested $482 million in the supplemental for our
civilian efforts to help Iraq move forward--we want to create a
future of stability, sovereignty, and self-reliance--and
another $108 million to assist Iraqi refugees.
In Afghanistan, as you know, the President has ordered
additional troops. Our mission is very clear: to disrupt,
dismantle, and destroy Al Qaeda. But bringing stability to that
region is not only a military mission. It requires more than a
military response.
So we have requested $980 million in assistance to focus on
rebuilding the agricultural sector, having more political
progress, helping the local and provincial leadership deliver
services for their people.
As President Obama has consistently maintained, success in
Afghanistan depends on success in Pakistan, and we have seen
how difficult it is for the government there to make progress,
as the Taliban and their allies continue to make inroads.
Counterinsurgency training is critical, but of equal importance
are diplomacy and development, to work with the Pakistani
Government, Pakistani civil society, to try to provide more
economic stability and diminish the conditions that feed
extremism.
That is the intent of the comprehensive strategy laid out
by Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, which President Obama and I
have endorsed and which the Senate will be considering in the
next few days.
With this supplemental request, we are seeking funding of
$497 million in assistance for our work in Pakistan, which will
support the government's efforts to stabilize the economy,
strengthen law enforcement, alleviate poverty, and help
displaced citizens find safe shelter. It will also enable us to
begin to keep the pledge we made to Pakistan at the Tokyo
Donors Conference earlier this month.
In addition to our work in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan,
we are committed to helping achieve a comprehensive peace
between Israel and its Arab neighbors and to address the
humanitarian needs in Gaza and the West Bank.
At Sharm el-Sheikh last month on behalf of the President, I
announced a pledge of $900 million for humanitarian, economic,
and security assistance for the Palestinian authority and the
Palestinian people. Our supplemental request is included in
that pledge; it is not in addition to it. And it will be
implemented with stringent requirements to prevent aid from
being diverted into the wrong hands.
Meanwhile, the current economic crisis has put millions of
people in danger of falling further into poverty, and we have
seen again and again that this can destabilize countries as
well as sparking humanitarian crises. So we have requested $448
million to assist developing countries hardest hit by the
global financial crisis.
These efforts will be complemented by investments in the
supplemental budget for emergency food aid, to counter the
destructive effects on the global food crises; to try to help
people who are undernourished; to succeed in school;
participate in their societies. I'm very pleased that the
President has asked the State Department and USAID to lead a
Government-wide effort to address the challenge of food
security.
We must also lead by example when it comes to shared
responsibility. So we have included in this request $837
million for United Nations (U.N.) peacekeeping operations,
which includes funds to cover assessments previously withheld.
I was recently in Haiti, where the U.N. Peacekeeping Force
led by the Brazilians has done an extraordinary job in bringing
security and stability to Haiti. It is still fragile, but
enormous progress has been made. It is a good investment for us
to pay 25 percent of that kind of stability operation instead
of being asked to assume it for 100 percent of the cost.
We're asking also for small investments targeted to
specific concerns: international peacekeeping operations and
stabilization in Africa; humanitarian needs in Burma; the
dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear programs, assuming that
they come back to the Six-Party Talks; assistance for Georgia
that the prior administration promised and we believe we should
fulfill; support for the Lebanese Government, which is facing
serious challenges; and funding for critical air mobility
support in Mexico as part of the Merida Initiative.
Finally, if the State Department is to pursue an ambitious
foreign policy agenda that safeguards our security and advances
our interests and really exemplifies our values, we have to
have a more agile, effective State Department and USAID. We
have to staff those departments well. We have to provide the
resources that are needed. We have to hold ourselves
accountable. Our supplemental includes $747 million to support
State and USAID mission operations around the world.
Secretary Gates and I are also looking at how our
departments can collaborate even more effectively. That
includes identifying pieces of our shared mission that are now
housed at Defense that should move to State.
With the budget support we've outlined in the supplemental
request, we can do the work that this moment demands of us in
regions whose future stability will impact our own.
Secretary Gates and I are committed to working closely
together in an almost unprecedented way to sort out what the
individual responsibilities and missions of Defense and State
and USAID should be, but committed to the overall goal of
promoting stability and long-term progress, which we believe is
in the interest of the United States, and which we are prepared
to address and take on the challenges and seize the
opportunities that confront us at this moment in history. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. [The
statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hillary Rodham Clinton
Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran, and members of the Committee, thank
you for this opportunity. On behalf of President Obama and the entire
Administration, thank you for your support of the men and women of the
State Department and USAID, who serve in critical and often dangerous
missions in all corners of the world.
I am honored to be here with Secretary Gates. I appreciate the
partnership we have developed in the first 100 days of this
Administration--and today, on Day 101, I look forward to further
collaboration in the months ahead.
Before turning to the topic of today's hearing, let me give an
update on how the State Department is supporting the federal
government's response to the H1N1 flu virus.
We have established a monitoring group within our Operations
Center, which is tracking how other governments are responding to the
threat and what assistance we might offer. We are constantly reviewing
and refining our advice to Americans traveling or living abroad. And
our pandemic influenza unit is providing valuable expertise. Its
director, Ambassador Robert Loftis, is keeping me apprised of their
work.
Earlier this week, USAID announced that it is giving $5 million to
the World Health Organization and the Pan America Health Organization
to help detect and contain the disease in Mexico.
We will continue to coordinate with the Departments of Health and
Human Services and Homeland Security, the WHO, and other agencies. The
resources and expertise of the State Department are being fully
mobilized for this vital effort.
Secretary Gates and I are here together because our departments'
missions are aligned and our plans are integrated. The foreign policy
of the United States is built on the three Ds: defense, diplomacy and
development. The men and women in the armed forces perform their duties
with courage and skill, often putting their lives on the line to keep
our nation safe. And in many regions, they serve alongside civilians
from the State Department and USAID who work with the military in two
crucial ways. First, they complement and build upon our military's
efforts in conflict areas like Iraq and Afghanistan. And second, they
use diplomatic and development tools to build stable and peaceful
societies--work that is far less costly in lives and dollars than
military action down the road.
As you know, the United States is facing serious challenges around
the world: two wars, political uncertainty in the Middle East,
irresponsible nations with nuclear ambitions, an economic crisis that
is pushing more people into poverty, and 21st century threats such as
terrorism, climate change, and trafficking in drugs and human beings--
all of which require new forms of outreach and cooperation.
To achieve this, we have launched a new diplomacy powered by
partnership, pragmatism and principle. We are strengthening historic
alliances and reaching out to create new ones. And we are bringing
governments, the private sector and civil society together to find
global solutions to global problems.
The 2009 supplemental budget request for the Department of State
and the U.S. Agency for International Development is a significant
sum--yet our investment in diplomacy and development is only about 6
percent of our total national security budget. For Secretary Gates and
me, it is critically important that we give our civilian workers, as
well as our military, the resources they need to do their jobs well.
In Iraq, as we prepare to withdraw our troops, our mission is
changing--but it is no less urgent. We must reinforce security gains
while supporting the Iraqi government and people as they strengthen
public institutions, promote economic growth and job creation, and
assist Iraqis who fled their communities because of violence and want
to return home.
Last weekend, I visited Iraq. Despite recent acts of violence in
Baghdad and elsewhere, there are clear signs of progress. But there is
much work that remains. I met with Iraqis who are working with our
Provincial Reconstruction Teams and our Embassy, and I was struck by
their courage and determination to reconstruct their country--not just
physically, but also by re-weaving the fabric of their society.
We have requested $482 million in the supplemental budget for our
civilian efforts to help Iraq move toward a future of stability,
sovereignty and self-reliance, and another $108 million to assist Iraqi
refugees.
In Afghanistan, additional troops are being deployed to disrupt,
dismantle and destroy al Qaeda. But bringing stability to that region
is not only a military mission, and it requires more than a military
response. We have requested $980 million in assistance to help the
Afghans move toward sustained economic and political progress.
As President Obama has consistently maintained, success in
Afghanistan depends on success in Pakistan. We have seen how difficult
it is for the government there to make progress, and the Taliban
continues to make inroads.
Counterinsurgency training is critical. But of equal importance are
diplomacy and development to provide economic stability and diminish
the conditions that feed extremism. This is the intent of the
comprehensive strategy laid out by Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar,
which President Obama has endorsed and which the Senate will be
considering in the coming days. With this supplemental request, we are
seeking funding of $497 million in assistance for our work in Pakistan,
which will support the government's efforts to stabilize the economy,
strengthen law enforcement, alleviate poverty, and help displaced
citizens find safe shelter. It will also allow us to begin to keep the
pledge we made to Pakistan at the Tokyo Donors Conference earlier this
month.
In addition to our work in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, we are
committed to help achieve a comprehensive peace between Israel and its
Arab neighbors and to address the humanitarian needs in Gaza and the
West Bank. At Sharm el-Sheikh last month, I announced a pledge of $900
million for humanitarian, economic, and security assistance for the
Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people. Our supplemental
request of $840 million is included in that pledge; it is not in
addition to it. And it will be implemented with stringent requirements
to prevent aid from being diverted to the wrong hands.
Meanwhile, the current economic crisis has put millions of people
in danger of falling further into poverty. We have seen how poverty can
spark humanitarian crises and destabilize countries. So we have
requested $448 million to assist developing countries hardest hit by
the global financial crisis. This is not merely a moral imperative. It
is an investment in our own security and prosperity.
These efforts will be complemented by investments in the
supplemental budget for emergency food aid, to counter the destructive
effects of global food crises; people who are undernourished are less
able to hold jobs and earn incomes; succeed in school; or participate
fully in their societies. I'm pleased that the State Department and
USAID will be leading a government-wide effort to address this issue.
We are committed not only to providing short-term food relief, but also
to helping nations build their own capacity to meet their long-term
needs.
We also must lead by example when it comes to shared
responsibility. We have included in this request $837 million for
United Nations peacekeeping operations, which includes funds to cover
assessments previously withheld.
We are asking for small investments targeted to specific concerns:
international peace keeping operations and stabilization in Africa;
humanitarian needs in Burma; the dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear
program, assuming that they come back to the Six-Party Talks;
assistance for Georgia that the prior administration promised and that
we believe we should fulfill; support for the Lebanese Government,
which is facing serious challenges; funding for critical air mobility
support in Mexico as part of the Merida Initiative.
Finally, if the State Department is to pursue an ambitious foreign
policy agenda that safeguards our security and advances our interests,
we must begin with our own agency. We are committed to creating a more
agile, effective State Department and USAID, staffing these departments
well, and giving our people the resources they need to do their jobs.
Our supplemental request includes $747 million to support State and
USAID mission operations around the world.
Secretary Gates and I are also looking at how our departments can
collaborate even more effectively. That includes identifying pieces of
our shared mission that are now housed at Defense and should move to
State.
With the budget support that we've outlined in this supplemental
request, we can do the work that this moment demands of us in regions
whose future stability will impact our own.
I'm confident that I speak for both Secretary Gates and myself in
saying that we are committed to working closely together in the months
ahead to promote stability and long-term progress in key regions around
the world.
Thank you.
Chairman Inouye. Now, may I call upon the Defense
Secretary, Secretary Gates.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT M. GATES, SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Secretary Gates. Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran, members of
the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to
discuss the fiscal year 2009 supplemental request. I'm honored
to be here with Secretary Clinton. Our joint appearance
symbolizes the continuing improvement in relationships and
close collaboration between the Departments of State and
Defense.
As Secretary Clinton said, this is intended to be the last
planned war supplemental request the administration will make.
Future budgets, starting with fiscal year 2010, will instead be
presented together, with money for overseas contingency
operations clearly marked as such.
On that subject, some of you may have heard about my fiscal
year 2010 budget recommendations to the President. I look
forward to coming back here next month to discuss some of those
details with you. Of the $83.4 billion in this request,
approximately $76 billion is for the Department of Defense,
most of it to directly support operations in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and Pakistan.
This covers a wide range of activities, whose highlights
include:
$38 billion for everyday costs associated with maintaining
forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, from pre-deployment training to
transportation to or from theater, to the operations
themselves. I should note that this supplemental takes into
account planned reductions in troop numbers in Iraq this year
and increases in Afghanistan.
$11.6 billion to replace and repair equipment that has been
worn out, damaged, or destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This
includes money for four F-22s to replace one F-15 and three F-
16s, classified as combat losses.
$9.8 billion for force protection, which includes, among
other things, money for lightweight body armor, surveillance
capabilities, and $2.7 billion for sustainment, retrofit
upgrades, and new procurement of 1,000 MRAP all terrain
vehicles to meet the latest requirements in Afghanistan.
$3.6 billion to expand and improve the Afghan national
security forces. We have not requested and will not request in
the future any money for Iraq's security forces. The Government
of Iraq has taken on that financial burden.
$1.5 billion to continue to deal with the threat posed by
improvised explosive devices (IED), a threat that, considering
its effectiveness, we should expect to see in any future
conflict involving either state or non-state actors.
$400 million for the Commander's Emergency Response
Program, a program that has been very successful in allowing
commanders on the ground to make immediate, positive impacts in
their areas of operation. It will continue to play a pivotal
role as we increase operations in Afghanistan and focus on
providing the population with security and opportunities for a
better life. I should note that the Department has taken a
number of steps to ensure the proper use of this critical
combat-enhancing capability.
Finally, there is $400 million for the Pakistan
Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (PCCF). This program will be
carried out with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and
will complement existing and planned State Department efforts
by allowing the CENTCOM commander to work with Pakistan's
military to build counterinsurgency capability.
I know there is some question about funding both the PCCF
and the Foreign Military Financing Program, but we are asking
for this unique authority for the unique and urgent
circumstances we face in Pakistan, for dealing with a challenge
that simultaneously requires wartime and peacetime
capabilities.
General Petraeus, General McKiernan, and the U.S.
Ambassador on the ground have asked for this authority, and it
is a vital element of the President's new Afghanistan-Pakistan
strategy.
The supplemental also includes money for programs to
support the warfighter and ease strain on the force. Due to
higher-than-expected recruiting and retention rates, we are
well ahead of schedule to expand the Army and Marine Corps,
which will help ease the burden on our troops and help reduce,
with the goal of ending, stop-loss.
Currently, we expect the Marine Corps and the Army to meet
their respective end-strengths of 202,000 and 547,400 by the
end of this fiscal year. The supplemental includes $2.2 billion
to that end.
There is also $1.6 billion for wounded warrior care and
programs to improve the quality of life for our troops and
their families. On that note, I thank the Congress for funding
in the stimulus bill programs that provided infrastructure
improvements, including $1.3 billion for hospital construction.
I should mention that in the fiscal year 2010 budget, I am
proposing to move funding for programs like these to the base
budget to ensure long-term support for the programs that most
directly affect our Nation's greatest strategic asset: our
troops and the families that support them.
As was the case last year, the Department of Defense will
have to be prepared for continued operations in the absence of
a supplemental or another bridge fund. Currently, some
operational funds will begin to run out in July, which has
historically affected the Army and the Marine Corps first.
After Memorial Day, we will need to consider options to delay
running out of funds. We also expect to run out of money to
reimburse Pakistan by mid-May. I urge you to take up this bill
and pass it as quickly as possible, but please, not later than
Memorial Day.
As Secretary Clinton discussed, the supplemental also
includes $7.1 billion for international affairs and
stabilization activities, including economic assistance for
Afghanistan and Pakistan. Needless to say, I strongly support
this funding.
As I had said for the last 2 years, I believe that the
challenges confronting our Nation cannot be dealt with by
military means alone. They instead require whole-of-Government
approaches, but that can only be done if the State Department
is given the resources befitting the scope of its mission
across the globe. This is particularly important in Afghanistan
and Pakistan, where our ability to provide resources beyond
military power will be the decisive factor.
One of the most interesting and thoughtful discussions I've
had during a hearing was almost exactly 1 year ago, when
Secretary Rice and I sat before the House Armed Services
Committee to discuss section 1206 and 1207 authorities, both of
which have improved levels of cooperation between State and
Defense.
Secretary Clinton and I are also dedicated to figuring out
how best to bring to bear the full force of our entire
Government on the pressing issues of the day. So I ask you to
continue supporting not just our men and women in uniform, but
the men and women at the State Department who are just as
committed to the safety and security of the United States.
Let me close by once again thanking you for your ongoing
support of our troops and their families. I know you share my
desire to give them everything they need to accomplish their
mission, and to support them and their families when they come
home. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert M. Gates
Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran, members of the committee: Thank you
for giving me the opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2009
Supplemental Request.
I am honored to be here with Secretary Clinton. Our joint
appearances symbolize the continuing improvement in relationships and
close collaboration between the Departments of State and Defense. As
Secretary Clinton said, this is intended to be the last planned war
supplemental request that the administration will make. Future budgets,
starting with fiscal year 2010, will instead be presented together--
with money for overseas contingency operations clearly marked as such.
On that subject, some of you may have heard about my fiscal year
2010 budget recommendations to the President. I look forward to coming
back here next month to discuss some of those details with you.
Of the $83.4 billion in this request, approximately $76 billion is
for Department of Defense funding--most of it to directly support
operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. This covers a wide range
of activities, whose highlights include:
--$38 billion for everyday costs associated with maintaining forces
in Iraq and Afghanistan, from pre-deployment training, to
transportation to or from theater, to the operations
themselves. I should note that this supplemental takes into
account planned reductions in troop numbers in Iraq this year,
and increases in Afghanistan.
--$11.6 billion to replace and repair equipment that has been worn-
out, damaged, or destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This
includes money for four F-22s to replace one F-15 and three F-
16s classified as combat losses.
--$9.8 billion for force protection, which includes, among other
things, money for lightweight body armor, surveillance
capabilities, and $2.7 billion for sustainment, retrofit
upgrades, and new procurement of 1,000 MRAP All Terrain
Vehicles to meet the latest requirements in Afghanistan.
--$3.6 billion to expand and improve the Afghan National Security
Forces. We have not requested, and will not request in the
future, any money for Iraqi Security Forces. The government of
Iraq has taken on that financial burden.
--$1.5 billion to continue to deal with the threat posed by
Improvised Explosive Devices--a threat that, considering its
effectiveness, we should expect to see in any future conflict
involving either state or non-state actors.
--$500 million for the Commander's Emergency Response Program
(CERP)--a program that has been very successful in allowing
commanders on the ground to make immediate, positive impacts in
their areas of operation. It will continue to play a pivotal
role as we increase operations in Afghanistan and focus on
providing the population with security and opportunities for a
better life. I should note that the Department has taken a
number of steps to ensure the proper use of this critical
combat-enhancing capability.
--Finally, there is $400 million for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Capability Fund (PCCF). This program will be carried out with
the concurrence of the Secretary of State and will complement
existing and planned State Department efforts by allowing the
CENTCOM commander to work with Pakistan's military to build
counterinsurgency capability. I know there is some question
about funding both the PCCF and the Foreign Military Financing
program, but we are asking for this unique authority for the
unique and urgent circumstances we face in Pakistan--for
dealing with a challenge that simultaneously requires wartime
and peacetime capabilities. General Petraeus, General
McKiernan, and the U.S. ambassador on the ground have asked for
this authority, and it is a vital element of the President's
new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy.
The supplemental also includes money for programs to support the
warfighter and ease strain on the force:
--Due to higher-than-expected recruiting and retention rates, we are
well ahead of schedule to expand the Army and Marine Corps--
which will help ease the burden on our troops and help reduce,
with the goal of ending, stop-loss. Currently, we expect the
Marine Corps and Army to meet their respective end-strengths of
202,000 and 547,400 by the end of this fiscal year. The
supplemental includes $2.2 billion to that end.
--There is also $1.6 billion for wounded warrior care and programs to
improve the quality of life for our troops and their families.
On that note, I thank the Congress for funding in the stimulus
bill programs that provided infrastructure improvements,
including $1.3 billion for hospital construction.
--I should also mention that in the fiscal year 2010 budget, I am
proposing to move funding for programs like these to the base
budget to ensure long-term support for the programs that most
directly affect our nation's greatest strategic asset: our
troops, and the families that support them.
As was the case last year, the Department of Defense will have to
be prepared for continued operations in the absence of the supplemental
or another bridge fund. Currently, some operational funds will begin to
run out in July--which has historically affected the Army and Marine
Corps first. After Memorial Day, we will need to consider options to
delay running out of funds. We also expect to run out of money to
reimburse Pakistan by mid-May. I urge you to take up this bill and pass
it as quickly as possible, but not later than Memorial Day.
As Secretary Clinton discussed, the supplemental also includes $7.1
billion for international affairs and stabilization activities,
including economic assistance for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Needless to
say, I strongly support this funding. As I have said for the last 2
years, I believe that the challenges confronting our nation cannot be
dealt with by military means alone. They instead require whole-of-
government approaches--but that can only be done if the State
Department is given resources befitting the scope of its mission across
the globe. This is particularly important in Afghanistan and Pakistan,
where our ability to provide resources beyond military power will be
the decisive factor.
One of the most interesting and thoughtful discussions I've ever
had during a hearing was almost exactly a year ago when Secretary Rice
and I sat before the House Armed Services Committee to discuss Section
1206 and 1207 authorities--both of which have improved levels of
cooperation between State and Defense. Secretary Clinton and I are also
dedicated to figuring out how best to bring to bear the full force of
our entire government on the pressing issues of the day. I ask you to
continue supporting not just our men and women in uniform, but also the
men and women at the State Department who are just as committed to the
safety and security of the United States.
Let me close by once again thanking you for your ongoing support of
our troops and their families. I know you share my desire to give them
everything they need to accomplish their mission--and to support them
and their families when they return home.
Thank you.
GUANTANAMO FUNDING
Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Noting
the extraordinary attendance of members, I have instructed the
staff director to utilize the clock, and we will be limited to
4 minutes per person.
If I may, I would like to begin the questioning by asking a
question on a small item, $50 million for the Department of
Defense and $30 million for the Department of Justice. This is
on Guantanamo. Though small, it's been controversial and a
matter of great concern. What is your precise plan to close
Guantanamo? How are you going to utilize this money?
Secretary Gates. Well, let me start and then see if
Secretary Clinton has anything to add. We are in the process--
or the Justice Department, I should say, is in the process of
reviewing each of the detainees at Guantanamo, their files, to
make a determination whether we should try and find a way to
transfer them to other countries that might take them, whether
to try them under Article 3 courts, or what to do with the rest
of them.
Those discussions are going on right now, and in fact, I
think just this week, the discussions are beginning in terms of
trying to decide where the detainees would go that are not
transferred to other countries or are not tried in Article 3
courts.
Those discussions have just gotten started. There clearly
will be a specific plan that comes out of this, but what we've
had to await is the determination, roughly speaking, of about
how big a group of people we will be talking about. And so the
review of each of these case files has had to precede the
development of a specific plan, in terms of where the prisoners
would go or the detainees.
And so we have put a plug in the budget for $50 million,
just as a hedge that would allow us to get started if some
construction is needed to be able to accommodate those
detainees. The other $30 million is for the Justice Department
as a part of the process of going through these determinations
at Guantanamo.
Chairman Inouye. How many detainees are involved in this
process?
Secretary Gates. I think that there are now about--I don't
have the precise number, Mr. Chairman. We can get that back to
you. But I think it's about 250.
[The information follows:]
There are currently 240 detainees being held at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba (GTMO) by the Department of Defense. Per the
President's Executive Order signed on January 22, 2009 the
Department of Justice is tasked with determining the
disposition of all 240 detainees at GTMO. While the review
process is being conducted in an expeditious manner, it will
not be completed until October 1, 2009. Throughout the review
process, detainees will be transferred, released, prosecuted,
or found to be in some other lawful disposition. The Department
is supporting the Department of Justice review and will carry
out any necessary action in accordance to the various
disposition determinations.
Secretary Gates. And it's what the subset of that will be
that we have to accommodate long-term that we're working on.
Chairman Inouye. So you have not determined as to whether
these prisoners will remain in Federal prisons or elsewhere?
Secretary Gates. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Inouye. You have no hint to give us?
Secretary Gates. No, sir.
Chairman Inouye. Madam Secretary, anything to add?
Secretary Clinton. Mr. Chairman, as Secretary Gates
outlined, there's a very intensive process underway, led by the
Attorney General, and the determinations as to each detainee
are being conducted by an intensive review of all files and
other material available.
But as Secretary Gates said, we are not yet at a point
where decisions to any great extent have been made. Speaking
for the State Department, obviously, our role is circumscribed.
What we are attempting to do is try to convince other countries
to take back their own nationalities of detainees and perhaps
even others. And we have an intensive outreach effort going on
to that effect right now.
Chairman Inouye. One final question, Mr. Secretary. What
will happen to the facility itself?
Secretary Gates. I suspect that the detention facility will
be mothballed once all the detainees are removed. I don't think
we've actually addressed that piece of it yet, but I suspect
that's what would happen.
Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much. Mr. Vice Chairman.
SURGE OF CIVILIAN EXPERTS
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, Madam Secretary. The
submission to the committee contemplates what is called a surge
of civilian experts who will be brought together by the
administration to help develop strategies and programs for
economic and cultural development efforts in Afghanistan.
I'm curious to know if we have begun recruiting people or
assembling people. Is someone in the Department of State
identified to head this economic and agricultural development
program? And how much of the request contemplates money going
directly to this effort?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, this is our commitment to
try to provide additional civilian experts and workers in
fields like agronomy that we are in the process of recruiting
Jack Lew, the Deputy Secretary of State for Resources and
Management, working with Special Representative for Afghanistan
and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke.
Really, it's a Department-wide effort, as well as with
USAID, actually identifying where we need to put people, what
kind of people. Now, our numbers are not yet determined because
this is obviously a challenging recruitment, but we believe we
can recruit--the latest figure was about 500 civilians.
The Defense Department, as part of our ongoing discussion
about how to enhance the capacities of the State Department,
which we are undertaking, but not yet have fulfilled, has
talked about looking at some of their civilians and some of
their Guard and Reserve members to perhaps help in specific
areas.
Richard Holbrooke and General Petraeus have been planning
very carefully at a local level what we're going to need. We
are committed to coming up with our share of the civilians.
One thing I would add, Senator, which, of course, is a
concern, is the safety and security of these civilians, because
we're talking about direct American hires or contract hires. We
will also, of course, cooperate with non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), other nations' civilian workers, locally
engaged and hired nationals.
So what we're talking about is a small number of what we
hope will be a large civilian presence coordinated and focused.
But security remains a challenge here and in Iraq, and it's
something that we are spending a lot of time looking at with
the Department of Defense.
Senator Cochran. We noticed the request includes Department
of Defense funding for this purpose, as well--well, $141
million for the Department of Defense and $104 million for the
Department of State.
Mr. Secretary, is there a particular person you're putting
in charge of this program at the Department of Defense to see
that these funds are spent in an effective way?
Secretary Gates. The Deputy Secretary, Bill Lynn, is
overseeing this and it's really, for our part, trying to see if
we can't--we think this situation is urgent enough that it's
important to get people into the field as quickly as possible.
And so as a bridging effort to get from where we are today
to the full deployment of the resources under the State
Department's auspices, we are looking at asking members of the
Reserve component for volunteers. We'll have veterinarians,
agronomists, accountants, and so on, who would serve for a
period of months until the long-term State Department folks are
there.
And it's our intent, I think, initially for those who will
be out in the field to use the additional civilians or
volunteers to plus up the provincial reconstruction teams,
because there's already a structure that would provide security
for them, as Secretary Clinton indicated.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Secretary Clinton. Senator, could I just add one additional
point? In Secretary Gates' testimony, he referenced what has
been a very effective program on the ground for our military,
the CERP funds, the Commander's Emergency Response funds.
Every time I was in Iraq, I was struck by how these really
smart, focused captains and majors were given significant funds
to be able to make on-the-spot decisions. If some tribal
leader's house was damaged, they could say, ``Well, I'm going
to give you the money. We'll rebuild it.'' Or some road was
blocked, ``Well, we'll get the money to clear it.''
That was an incredibly flexible and useful tool. Nothing
like that exists on the civilian side. And so when we talk
about working through the authorities and the capacities
between State and Defense, for a lot of reasons right now,
Defense is able to be more agile and flexible, with streams of
money that go right to the ground, into the communities.
And we're going to have to work with the committee and
others to try to figure out how we get more of that kind of
agility and flexibility in our Embassy and on the ground with
our civilian workers.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Chairman Inouye. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm delighted to
see you both here. I think having both of you in the positions
you are in is a tremendous service to our country, and we're
fortunate that both of you are here.
Secretary Gates, I spoke to you earlier about the 1,800
citizen soldiers from the Vermont Guard that are going to
Afghanistan. I'll have some written questions on particular
armor and equipment for them, and I would ask if you or your
staff could respond to that when you get the written questions.
Secretary Gates. Sure.
FLU FUNDING
Senator Leahy. Madam Secretary, you mentioned the H1N1 flu
virus. Earlier this week, the President requested an additional
$1.5 billion in the supplemental, but that goes to the
Department of Health and Human Services.
WHO says this is becoming a global pandemic. Millions of
Americans are traveling, studying, or stationed overseas. We
know this is a virus that knows no boundaries. Should we have
additional funding in here for unanticipated health emergencies
outside the United States, much of which could impact
Americans?
Secretary Clinton. That's a very good question, Senator.
You know, Mexico requested from us--and a number of other
countries, as well as the World Health Organization--some help
in getting access to the drugs that are needed, and we are
working with our partners to try to help resolve that and
assist the Mexicans. They also needed additional kinds of
diagnostic and technological expert help, as well, and we've
sent people down to our Embassy in Mexico to work with the
Mexican Government.
I do think that much of the work that we did in the
Congress over the last several years on avian flu has put us in
a better position than we would have been, but I think that we
could very well require additional help to deal with the
emergencies in other countries. Because what will happen--it's
human nature--is that as the influenza spreads, people will be
increasingly reluctant to share their supplies.
Senator Leahy. So what you're saying is we may need
additional funds?
Secretary Clinton. I would like to get back to you with a
specific request, Senator, because I think you're right to
raise that.
[The information follows:]
We very much appreciate your interest in helping the
Department fulfill its mission. The White House has already
requested $1.5 billion to enhance the capacity of the United
States to respond to this emerging and unpredictable situation.
This requested fiscal year 2009 supplemental money would be
provided to a proposed new account, Unanticipated Needs for
Influenza, in the Executive Office of the President. These
funds would be available for transfer by the Office of
Management and Budget to Departments and Agencies, including
the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International
Development. To deal with similar situations in the future the
President is asking Congress to approve a request of $8.6
billion for fiscal year 2010--and $63 billion over 6 years--to
shape a new, comprehensive global health strategy, rather than
continue to confront individual illnesses in isolation.
Senator Leahy. I look at the diplomatic and development
components of the administration's strategy for Afghanistan. I
don't see it differing much from the previous
administration's--it funds some of the same things. I worry
that we have spent billions in Afghanistan and we have yet to
see the results that you or Secretary Gates or I would like to
see.
What goals are realistic? How does your supplemental
request of $980 million differ from what we've done before?
What failed before? What's going to work now?
Secretary Clinton. Well, I think that we're at a point now,
Senator, where lessons learned are finally being acquired and
listened to. There have been some successes in certain
provinces and departments of the national government in
Afghanistan. The Afghan National Army has proceeded to be built
up so that it has the respect of the nation.
Some of our partners in the international security
assistance force (ISAF), the Dutch, the British, and others in
the provinces they were responsible for, have had positive
results. This review that we engaged in was intensive and it
was no holds barred. What works, what doesn't work? It was a
joint military-civilian undertaking.
I can't tell you sitting here today that everything we're
going to try is going to work, but let me give you one quick
example about what we think can make a difference. We did not
emphasize agriculture.
You know, Afghanistan used to be the garden of central
Asia. If you go back 30, 40, 50 years, you see huge orchards.
Now when any of us fly over, we see eroded, denuded landscape
with hardly a tree in sight. And there was a real cry for the
Afghans to please get some help in doing this, but our
principal objective has been to eradicate the poppy crop, and
we never took seriously alternative livelihoods.
We believe, on both the civilian and the military side,
that this is a great opportunity for us. We know that from our
intelligence, a lot of the members of the Taliban are not there
because they are ideologically committed, but because it's a
job and, frankly, it's a job that pays better than being in the
police, and it pays better than trying to scrounge around to
make a living without any help out of the land.
So I think, Senator, we've got a view of what we think will
work better, and we're going to recruit the people, and we're
not going to be all things to all Afghanistan's population.
We're going to have very discrete missions, and we're going to
hold ourselves accountable.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're
going to need further discussions on this before the
subcommittee takes it up, but thank you.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you. The Republican leader Senator
McConnell has special responsibilities on the floor. In
recognition of this and in the spirit of bipartisanship, Mr.
Leader.
GUANTANAMO--MILITARY COMMISSIONS
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
that. Welcome, Senator Clinton--Secretary Clinton and Secretary
Gates. Let me pick up on the subject matter that the chairman
led off with, and that's Guantanamo.
Secretary Gates, as you know, we had a vote in the Senate 2
years ago, 94 to 3, on the issue of whether or not the
detainees at Guantanamo should come to the United States--come
to U.S. soil. I know the Attorney General--I've heard you both
say the Attorney General's in charge of this review. But I do
have some questions related to the $50 million request for
Guantanamo in the supplemental.
The first one, I guess, would be I didn't hear you mention
the military commissions as a possible way to deal with these
detainees. The Supreme Court, in effect, ordered us to pass
military commission law, which we did a couple of years ago. Am
I to conclude or are we all to conclude that the military
commissions are now out, as a way of trying whatever detainees
we cannot convince others to take and we have to deal with
ourselves?
Secretary Gates. No, sir, not at all. And I should have
included them as one of the alternatives. One of the areas that
I think the Attorney General and the Justice Department are
looking at is the military commissions, whether to go forward
with the--I think there are nine cases that are already before
the military commissions, whether--or not. And should there be
any changes to the military commission law, if they decide--if
the decision is made to retain the military commissions. But it
still--the commissions are very much still on the table.
Senator McConnell. As you've probably heard, various
communities are beginning to discuss their interest in taking
these, and so far, there isn't any. In fact, I believe some
communities have actually begun to pass resolutions saying they
don't want them. How do we solve this dilemma?
We know this about Guantanamo. Everyone who's visited
there, including the current Attorney General, has said it's a
good facility. They're being treated humanely, and we know no
one has escaped from there. During all of these years, we know
we haven't been attacked again since 9/11. It seems to me to be
working.
A lot of our European critics will--see, I guess we don't
fully know the answer whether many of them are willing to take
any of these people. But we do know that some of the countries
from which they have come haven't had a great record of keeping
them incarcerated once we send them back. Many of them ended up
back on the battlefield. What are your thoughts about--what are
we going to do with these people?
Secretary Gates. Well, the question really is what are we
going to do with those that cannot be returned home, either
because we fear that they won't be kept under--they won't be
monitored or kept under watch, or we worry that they'll be
persecuted when they go home. For example, the Uighurs, the 17
Uighurs. So we're talking about probably somewhere between 50--
--
Senator McConnell. Well, could I just interject on the
Uighurs?
Secretary Gates. Yes.
Senator McConnell. I gather the plan is simply to release
them in the United States, right?
Secretary Gates. Well, some of----
Senator McConnell. Not to be incarcerated, but just to be
released in the country?
Secretary Gates. I'm not sure a final decision has been
made. What I've heard people talking about is our taking some
of the Uighurs, probably not all. Because it's difficult for
the State Department to make the argument to other countries
they should take these people that we have deemed in this case
not to be dangerous if we won't take any of them ourselves.
But the question is--to the core of your question is what
do we do with the 50 to 100, probably in that ballpark, who we
cannot release and cannot try, either in Article 3 courts or
military commissions?
And I think that question is still open. The President has
made the decision to close Guantanamo. It's something that his
predecessor said should be done, something that I said should
be done over 1 year ago. I fully expect to have 535 pieces of
legislation before this is over, saying, ``Not in my district.
Not in my State.''
Senator McConnell. I think you can count on it.
Secretary Gates. And we'll just have to deal with that when
the time comes.
Senator McConnell. My time is up, but let me just say, in
conclusion, I understand the dilemma. The previous
administration, of which you were a part also, said they wanted
to close Guantanamo. Both candidates for President last year
said they wanted to close Guantanamo. The difference is that
this administration's actually put a date on it and actually
has to answer the question, what are you going to do with them?
And I think it is perfectly clear that many of them are
going to return to the battlefield if they can, and the
conclusion is going to be with many of them that they need to
be incarcerated, and the question then is when.
And we're going to have a continuing interest in this, in
terms of your own facilities and whether they can successfully
contain them as Guantanamo has for the last 7\1/2\ years.
Communities are going to be upset about this.
This is a very important issue and it deals with public
safety, as we all know. Now, we haven't been attacked again
since 9/11. We like that, and we would like for that record to
continue. Thank you very much.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you. Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, good morning. Well,
President Obama certainly put together a turbo team for foreign
policy, and it's a pleasure to welcome both of you. Secretary
Gates, I want to thank you for your ongoing commitment to the
warfighter, not only in the theater, but when they come back
home.
We want to acknowledge within this supplemental request
increased money for healthcare for the returning warfighters,
and we will be looking at whether that's adequate. Because as
we've talked about on so many occasions, they bear the
permanent wounds of war, the permanent impact of war, as well
as the Yellow Ribbon Integration Program. So we'll be working
with you on this.
And Secretary Clinton, you've had your own 100 days.
Twenty-two countries, 74,000 miles, 3 o'clock in the morning
phone calls, and they go on 24 hours throughout the day.
But friends and colleagues, with this excellent
presentation, know that I have very serious reservations about
our Afghan policy, and my reservations are based on this, and
then three specific things.
Number one, the fact that Afghanistan seems threatened not
only by the Taliban, but by a government that's riddled with
cronyism and corruption. And it's part of that cronyism and
corruption that is also the whole issue of is Afghanistan on
its way to becoming a narco-state.
And number three, and not at all least, something I know
our Secretaries champion, is the role and status and safety and
security of women. The fact that we have a government in
Afghanistan that turns the other cheek when girls have acid
thrown in their face when they go to school, and they actually
codify domestic rape.
You see what the situation is, so I'm being asked to send
in the marines, where they want to continue to grow poppies.
The cronyism and corruption, which would then, in and of
itself, be an unstable government, and the treatment of women.
So my question is not why should we go. I know you'll talk
about it. But then dealing with those three issues, what do you
see dealing with it? And Secretary Clinton, I'd like to start
with you with the cronyism, the corruption, and also the
treatment of women and what you think is in here, what you
think is also in the policy that would reassure the people of
America why should we send in the marines to do this?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I think those are all
very legitimate questions. We've given them a lot of thought.
With respect to the government, its capacity, its problems
providing services, its perception of being less than
straightforward, transparent, honest, it's a problem. I'm not
going to sit here and tell you it's not.
There are, however, significant pockets of progress that we
want to build on. Several of the members of the current
government's cabinet are doing an excellent job. The build-up
of the Afghan National Army is proceeding in a way that
engenders confidence to the people of Afghanistan.
But we have made it very clear that we expect changes and
we expect accountability, and we're going to demand it. It's
among the highest priorities of the team that we have sent to
Afghanistan.
I swore in Karl Eikenberry, the former general who had
served in Afghanistan twice, yesterday as a new Ambassador. He
knows the people. He understands what it takes to move them.
Obviously, the rest of the group that we have in place is
equally committed, so we're tackling this and we are taking it
on.
With respect to the narco-trafficking, that is why we
believe we've got to support alternatives. I mean, this is not
going to disappear just because we aerial-bomb it with
pesticides. It's just too profitable. It is now the largest
source of opium for heroin in the world, and we have to tackle
it at the local level and provide alternatives and get people
to reject it culturally, which is----
Senator Mikulski. Is Karzai committed to working with us to
do that?
Secretary Clinton. That is what we are demanding of him.
Now, we are not taking a position in this presidential
election. We are neither for nor against any candidate,
including the President, and we have made it clear what we
expect of anyone who's elected.
I mean, part of our problem is there are a lot of mixed
messages sent over the last 7 years, and we have to have a very
clear message from the highest levels of our Government, both
the executive and the legislative branch, that certain
behaviors are not accepted. We're going to go after them. We're
imposing conditions that we think are both workable and leading
to the changes we're seeking.
But let me just finish by saying something about women. I
deeply share your concerns. The law that you referenced is
being brought back by the Afghan Government and by the
President. I've personally been involved in that. But the
problems go much deeper, and we're going to continue to
emphasize our support for girls and women for their education,
for their healthcare, for their rights.
That is an integral part of our strategy, because we think
it is a clear leading indicator as to whether there is a
commitment to the future in a way that we can continue to
support. So I can assure you that the women's issues are not
just a side issue or a marginal one. They are core to the
strategy that we have developed.
Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you. I know my time is up.
What I--so there are many things that I liked about this
testimony, but that this is the last supplemental that we could
deal with this in a regular order in our committees, through
DOD, through foreign operations. The whole idea that it's
defense, diplomacy, and development. We look forward to working
with this turbo team. Thank you.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much. Senator Bond.
Senator Bond. Thank you. Secretary Clinton, Secretary
Gates, I commend you both for putting the emphasis on the
strategy that worked in Iraq, the counterinsurgency strategy
clear, hold, and build. I believe it's been--I'm calling it
smart power. I believe that with most of our military and
intelligence leaders, that the war against terror is 10 percent
kinetic and 90 percent development and governance.
For 2 years after getting a request personally from
President Karzai and putting in money for USAID to send
agricultural specialists to Afghanistan, not a single one
showed up. In 2007, I worked with the Missouri National Guard.
We got it cleared through the Defense Department in early 2008.
The first agriculture development team went to Nangarhar
province. It was tremendously successful. The second one is
there now.
Eight other States have sent their National Guards. They
are dependent upon the CERP funds that Secretary Clinton
mentioned. Those worked in the Philippines and Mindanao. It is
far better, particularly in Islamic countries which are friends
of ours, that we put American sandals on the ground so we don't
have to wait until a strike and put American boots on the
ground.
I look forward to working with you on the details of this
plan because we cannot afford to fail in Afghanistan and
Pakistan.
I want to address very briefly a couple of the issues, one
of them that I hope could be addressed in the supplemental. I
will discuss with you at much greater length, Mr. Secretary,
the tremendous bathtub in the TACAIR that is going to leave our
Navy without ships on carrier decks. It's going to leave the
National Guard without anything except Cessnas to fly and air
sovereignty alert, and it's even going to shortchange the Air
Force itself. But we will go into that later.
SHUTTING DOWN C-17 LINE
The F-35 is way behind schedule, over budget. The F-22
doesn't do the job that the F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s can do. But
I am very much concerned, after the great principles that were
laid out for the Defense policy, that the President recommended
shutting down the C-17 line. That's the last wide-body large
military aircraft production line in the United States. Gives
us the ability, the only one in the world to respond quickly
and independently in any adversarial military activity or
humanitarian needs.
And with the air mobility study due to be finished late
summer, where I believe we will hear the need for continued air
mobility support, the decision to shut the C-17 down now is a
question of ready, fire, aim.
I would hope that you would rethink this and allow funding
in the supplemental for the long lead time. Otherwise, we will
not have the capacity to turn out the air mobility that we will
need for military and humanitarian actions, and we're going to
be left with a situation where we're going to be running around
the world trying to buy cargo aircraft. C-5s are over their
lifespan. C-17, to me, needs to be rethought. And I would ask
for your comments on that, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Gates. Well, first of all, I agree with all the
good things you said about the C-17. It's a terrific aircraft.
The Air Force believes, and transportation command believes,
that we have more than necessary capacity for lift for the next
10 years or so.
One of the problems that we have in that context is that
there is a legislative prohibition effectively against us
decommissioning the A model of the C-5s. And so as we look at
the capacity that we have with those 59 C-5As and we get more
and more C-17s, we just are continuing to build excess
capacity.
But the other side of it is that even if you lifted the
prohibition on decommissioning C-5As, the Air Force has to look
at what--if it has no need on the requirement side for greater
capacity, then what are they going to give up? What are they
going to have to give up in other programs in order to buy more
C-17s?
It's a zero-sum game. If you had everything that is put in
the budget that is excess to our requirements, means that
there's something else we can't do. And what I'm trying to do
is figure out how do you balance all of these things and have
the maximum possible capability for the maximum range of
potential conflict?
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I look forward to
working with you and this committee because I've got some
ideas.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much. Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton. Secretary Clinton, I
would like to thank you for hosting yesterday's gathering on
global food security. I believe that the USDA and our land
grant colleges, as I said yesterday, have a vital role to play
in fighting hunger and instability in developing countries, and
I would like to work with you on that in the months to come.
The supplemental request before us provides $300 million
for Public Law 480, which is a key part of the overall food
security effort. In terms of tonnage, has the global demand for
food assistance changed from this time last year?
Secretary Clinton. Senator, as you know, there have been a
number of food crises, and we do think that the demand and the
need has increased. But we have a very careful analysis as to
why this money in the supplemental should be sufficient through
this fiscal year to be able to produce the response that we may
be called on to make.
But I want to underscore--and thank you for your interest
in food security--our current system is just not as effective
as it needs to be. And that's why we want to shift our focus to
agricultural sustainability, focusing on the small producers,
helping them understand the value of GMOs, genetically modified
organisms, to help them have drought-resistant crops, helping
them with farm-to-market roads, the kind of approach that we
actually did quite effectively in the 1960s and the 1980s.
So I think our capacity for the response set forth in the
supplemental is fine, but we've got to go further than that,
and that's what I'm looking forward to working with you on this
committee to do.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Secretary Clinton. Recently, the
Taliban came within 60 miles of Pakistan's capital, Islamabad,
as you know. Now, if India's military was 60 miles from the
capital of Pakistan, the entire country would have been on a
total war footing. But as you remarked, Secretary Clinton, many
in Pakistan seemed unthreatened by the idea of the Taliban
imposing Sharia law in the country because they're so unhappy
with their own government.
So have the recent gains by the Taliban changed the views
of the Pakistanis about how dangerous the Taliban are? Do the
Pakistan people now see the Taliban as a real threat to their
way of life, and not just a thorn in the side of the United
States?
And finally, last night, the President, at his press
conference, called the Government of Pakistan very fragile. He
also said that he was confident that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal
would not fall into the hands of the Taliban. What would be our
response if the Taliban forced the Government of Pakistan to
fall, and how can the President be so sure that Pakistan's
nuclear arsenal would be safe from the Taliban?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, let me start by
responding that we do think that the Government of Pakistan,
both civilian and military leadership, is demonstrating much
greater concern about the encroachment by Taliban elements in
parts of the country that had before then not been subjected to
their presence and are not in the ungovernable areas that have
been part of Pakistan going back even to the British Empire.
So we believe that we're getting a much more thoughtful
response and actions to follow. And I think Secretary Gates
might want to focus on the military piece of this. But it was
heartening to see the military sent in to the Buner district
and to begin to try to push the Taliban advance back.
With respect to the nuclear arsenal, I think that much of
that would have to be in a closed session, Senator. But let me
just reiterate that based on everything that we are aware of,
the Pakistani military is very focused on the protection of
their arsenal, and we have certainly kept our eyes very closely
on that, and I think that's where the President's assurance
comes from.
MOTIVATING PAKISTAN
Senator Kohl. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you. Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates, welcome
to the committee. I'd like to pick up on the line of
questioning about Pakistan that Senator Kohl has going. If
Pakistan is, as some people have said, maybe a little more--and
I think the President used the word fragile. Some people call
it a ticking time bomb.
And it seems to me, although I've always supported and will
support this supplemental with money and help, that the
government and the army has lost the will, or seems to have
lost the will to fight even for their own country. And I think
some of this money would be used, I understand, Secretary
Gates, for training of forces and so forth. Is that correct?
Secretary Gates. Yes.
Senator Shelby. But how do we impart the will to fight?
That seems to be lacking there. And how do we help them,
because we have been there--been helping them about 8 years now
with a lot of money. And I think it was necessary, but they
don't even have control of a lot of their territory. You know
that, and they seem to be losing territory day after day. And
we all know, as Senator Kohl alluded, that they do have a huge
nuclear arsenal. This could be a real, real problem to all of
us; could it not?
Secretary Gates. Well, it certainly could. And I would say,
Senator Shelby, that, I mean, my perspective on it is that the
Pakistani Government has not seen what has been going on in the
western part of Pakistan as an existential threat. Their view
has been since their inception that India was the principal
threat to Pakistan's continued existence.
I think that they have--the areas in much of western
Pakistan have not really been under serious government control
perhaps for most of Pakistan's history, if not all of it, and
the Pakistani Government, Pakistani population is dominated by
Punjabis. They dramatically outnumber the number of Pashtuns in
the western part of the country and have always tried to deal
with that situation out there, either by setting tribes against
one another, working with individual tribes, cutting the kinds
of deals that we've seen, and occasionally using the military.
And I think what has happened just in recent weeks and
really since--beginning with the assassination of Mrs. Bhutto,
is the reality dawning on the Pakistanis that what has happened
in the west is, in fact, now a real threat to them. And I think
that the Taliban moving into Bunair set off an alarm bell that
may, in fact, begin to create a broader political consensus in
Pakistan that would include not just President Zadari and Prime
Minister Khalani, but perhaps the Shalifs and others, as well,
including the army that, in fact, they now face a real threat.
I think they have seen the situation in the west as largely
of our making as we drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan, and
now they're beginning to see these guys have designs on the
Pakistani Government itself. And so I think those realities
that have begun to dawn on them, I think provide some grounds
for--I won't go as far as optimism, but some grounds to believe
that there is a growing awareness in Islamabad and in Pakistan
that this is a threat to them.
And I would just use the analogy, you know, the United
States was first attacked by Al Qaeda in 1993. Al Qaeda was at
war with the United States for 8 years before we decided we
were at war with Al Qaeda. And I think the same kind of thing
has kind of happened in Pakistan. They have--the Pakistanis
haven't realized the threat that has been posed to them over
the last several years.
Senator Shelby. If this is not a wake-up call, I don't know
what could be; do you?
Secretary Gates. I agree.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome
to both of you. I just wanted to echo the comments of Senator
Mikulski regarding the issues of women's rights in Afghanistan.
I appreciate your response very much, Secretary Clinton.
Let me ask both of you--both of you have talked at great
length about the need for smart power and elevating the role of
development in our national security strategy. It appears from
the President's proposed budget and from the supplemental
appropriations request that the Obama administration is making
a major effort to rebalance national security strategy by
giving civilian aid, diplomacy, and the non-military dimension
of national security more strength and impact.
However, in order to make that work, we're not just talking
about money, we're talking about people. Secretary Clinton, you
mentioned in your remarks USAID and the need for more foreign
service officers. I am an original cosponsor of a bill with
Senators Durbin and Bond called the Increasing America's Global
Development Capacity Act that would address this deficit. Can
you talk a little bit about the need to have full-time foreign
service officers and whether we have the capacity we need?
Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Senator, and the
short answer is no, we don't. We don't have the capacity. We
don't have the authorities yet. And as you know, USAID has lost
a lot of its capacity over the last years. It is viewed by many
now as largely a contracting agency. There are only four
engineers currently employed by USAID for the entire world. So
we have allowed a lot of our capacity to just migrate out of
the government.
And we don't get the accountability. It often costs more
than it should in order to deliver the service that we're
seeking. So we will be coming to you with a set of ideas. And
I'm looking forward to consulting with all of you, and I
appreciate the efforts made by Senators Durbin and Bond. We
have to rebuild our diplomatic and development arsenal. We just
don't have it.
And so it's awkward when people say, ``Well, we need to be
sending civilians out.'' And we have a hard time getting the
people we need in language areas, just bodies on the ground,
able to do the functions we're talking about.
When Senator Bond was talking about how difficult it was in
agriculture development teams, I faced the same experience as a
Senator. I was trying to get a project going to get fruit trees
planted again in Afghanistan. I even had an interest in the
market. We just couldn't do it. It was absolutely the most
frustrating experience.
So we are trying to cut through the redtape and the
bureaucracy. We're trying to get the resources that we need and
to have a rebuilt diplomacy and development mission that can
actually respond to the very good ideas that all of you have.
PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVILIAN HELP
Senator Murray. Secretary Gates, do you agree?
Secretary Gates. Absolutely. And I would just go back to a
comment that Senator Kohl made. I think we also need to think
creatively about public/private partnerships that can help us.
And I was really--as the former president of Texas A&M, I
was glad to hear Senator Kohl talk about the potential role of
land grant universities, because most of them have extension
services that operate all over the world, and they have the
expertise, and we can draw on them and work with them.
And A&M's had people in Afghanistan and Iraq for the last 4
or 5 years, and so we have a lot of assets in this country that
aren't necessarily Government employees that I think we could
harness, and those people would be willing to volunteer, or we
could put them on contract.
But in terms of the need for more foreign service officers,
I couldn't agree more. I've been arguing for it for 25 years.
If you took every foreign service officer in the world, it
wouldn't be enough people to crew one aircraft carrier.
Senator Murray. Okay. My time is out. And, Secretary Gates,
I did want to ask you about how we're going to continue to have
a competitive industrial base as we cut back our military. As I
mentioned in our recent conversation, this is something that I
want to continue to dialogue with you about. I appreciate both
of your comments today. Thank you.
Chairman Inouye. Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Secretary Clinton, let me deviate just a bit. I need to ask you
about the journalist that's imprisoned in Iran. Roxana Saberi
is someone who I know.
She, as you know, was born and raised and educated, sports
all-star, all-star academic, Miss North Dakota top-ten
finalist, and Miss America. Master's degree from Northwestern.
Master's degree from Cambridge, England. Went to Iran and
reported for National Public Radio and many other venues.
Now sits in a 10 foot by 10 foot prison cell, first accused
of buying a bottle of wine, then next accused of reporting
without a license, and then accused of espionage and sentenced
to 8 years in prison.
It is an unbelievable miscarriage of justice, and I have
been working on that case for several months. Can you give us
some notion of what the activities are at State?
Secretary Clinton. Senator, I know you have. I've talked
with you. I've talked to Senator Conrad. I've talked to the
Governor of your State. We are also working very hard. We have
great concerns about Ms. Saberi's health and well-being. She
has arbitrarily been, in our view, held without any kind of
transparency or process.
We have called on the Iranian Government, both directly and
through other Emissaries, to release her. As you may know, she
is extremely unhappy and quite rebellious about being held in
such a horrible situation and is on a hunger strike. Her
parents, as you know, have been there for several weeks.
We have reached out and are continuing to reach out in
every channel that we know of, public and private. We obviously
use the Swiss as our consular representative in Tehran. We hear
mixed responses all the time from the government. They're going
to let her out. They're going to let her out in 2 months.
They're going to sentence her to 8 years. They're going to do
an appeal.
I think it shows you how difficult it is to deal with this
government in Iran, because they are impervious to the human
rights and the civilized standards that one should apply. And
so we are, I can assure you, doing everything we know to do.
Senator Dorgan. Madam Secretary, thank you for that. And I
hope you'll obviously continue as much pressure as we can apply
to the Iranian Government. First of all, let me thank you for
all of your work and your travels and your representation of
our country.
OVERSEEING CONTRACTORS
Secretary Gates, I'm really pleased that you've stayed on,
and I think you have an admirable record. And I do want to say
this to you, though, that I've held 18 hearings on the subject
of contract abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And I have just learned again, just in recent days, of
award fees being given to contractors, very large award fees
for excellent work, being given to contractors that have had
level three corrective actions taken against them because their
work was deficient.
I want to continue this discussion about the Army's
sustainment command and others that are shelling out all of
this money. $38 billion of that which we're considering in this
request is for ongoing support of operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. I assume that's the Logcap project and so many
other things.
But I just hope that you will have a renewed effort to put
a magnifying glass on these contractors and the amount of money
that's going out, because there is unbelievable abuse and waste
and, yes, fraud, and we just have to lace it up and stop it.
So I just--I say that to you again. I'm pleased you're
where you are, but you and I have had discussions about it.
I've had discussions with your deputy. But in recent months,
once again, award fees have gone to contractors that have done
insufficient and inappropriate and inadequate work, in some
cases, resulting in the death of soldiers.
Secretary Gates. I would just say, Senator, that this is
clearly a high priority for myself, but also for Secretary Lynn
and our new Under Secretary Ash Carter. And I think that part
of our effort--part of the problem that we have is the number
of contractors we have who are overseeing contractors.
And I think that the initiatives that I've put forward for
2010 to significantly expand the number of professional
acquisition procurement contracting officers who are full-time
U.S. Government employees in place of contractors will put us
in a better place, in terms of trying to deal with these
contract problems.
Our goal will be to have 4,000 of those people on board
during fiscal year 2010 and 20,000 over the course of the 5-
year defense plan, and we're doing it also on professional
services and management, and we hope to add 13,000 jobs in that
category, displacing contractors in that category during fiscal
year 2010, and 30,000 over the course of the 5-year defense
plan.
But this is a very high priority and it goes to some of the
discussion that Senator Bond and I had. We can't afford to
spend a single dollar that we don't have to, and because it
takes away from resources to do other things, and to spend it
on contractors who aren't doing their jobs is not just waste,
fraud, and abuse, it impacts our capabilities.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you.
Chairman Inouye. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thanks to both of you for your service and your professionalism
you bring to your jobs.
HOW MANY F-22S ARE NEEDED?
Secretary Gates, you mentioned the F-22. You're familiar,
I'm sure, with the comment made by the Chief of Staff of the
Air Force, General Schwartz, who said that the military
requirement for the F-22 was 243 and not 187.
Now, I know the chairman doesn't want to get into a subject
that isn't directly connected to the supplemental, but in the
supplemental, you have some funds for unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs). And one of the problems with UAVs, particularly in Iran
and Syria, if we are required to use them there, is that they
do not have stealth capability, and the F-22 does.
So I'd be interested in your comment about the F-22. And I
quote, Air Force leadership said that based on warfighting
experience over the past several years and judgments about
future threats, the Defense Department is revisiting the
scenarios on which the Air Force based its assessment regarding
the requirement for the F-22.
Could you explain the scenarios that are being revisited,
when and what the results were that caused you to make the
decision to take the F-22 down from 187 to--from 243 to 187?
Secretary Gates. First of all, Senator, the Chief of Staff
of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Air Force are on the
record and, in fact, in the newspaper saying that the program
of record of 183 plus the 4 in the supplemental meets military
requirements and is a sufficient number in their view.
I think that the way the discussion about the F-22 has
proceeded has been somewhat confused. The reality is that since
2005, the program of record for the F-22 has been 183 aircraft.
That's under two different Presidents, two different
Secretaries of Defense, two different Chairmen of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the
Air Force.
So there's no cutting of the program. There is a completion
of the program of record that has existed under both President
Bush and President Obama since 2005. We can get into the jobs
issue or anything else, but this is one that--where I think
there has been some mischaracterization of what we're doing
here. We are not cutting the F-22. We are completing the
program of record that was established in the Bush
administration and, frankly, if my top line were $50 billion
higher, I would make the same decision.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. Secretary Clinton, the chairman
mentioned a reference to U.S. funding to Palestine that could
fund the possibility of funding Hamas. Could you discuss that
with us?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, there is no possibility
of funding Hamas. That is absolutely not possible under the
language of the supplemental, nor is it possible under our
administration's policy.
What we have said is that if there were to be, which at
this moment, seems highly unlikely, a unity government that
consisted of the Palestinian authority members from Fatah and
any members from Hamas, the government itself, plus every
member of the government, would have to commit to the quartet
principles. Namely, they must renounce violence, they must
recognize Israel, and they must agree to abide by the former
PLO and Palestine authority agreements.
And that has been our policy. That is what we have told our
partners in Europe and elsewhere, which is why we've been very
hesitant and quite unconvinced about any efforts to create a
unity government, but so have the Palestinian authority. So
there is no likely outcome that would present that, but if
there were, the conditions are very clear.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Chairman Inouye. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
welcome to both of you, and my congratulations to the jobs that
you're both doing. And Madam Secretary, it's a political
delight for me to see you at this table, as you know, so thank
you for being here.
MORE TROOPS FOR AFGHANISTAN
Secretary Gates, I've been trying to understand the number
of troops that we have committed to Afghanistan. As I look at
it, it's 63,000, with a request from General McKiernan for
10,000 more. Is that a correct analysis?
Secretary Gates. Senator, the level of troops that the
President has approved to this point is 68,000.
Senator Feinstein. And McKiernan's request is still out----
Secretary Gates. He has--the request is out there. It is
for troops that would not go to Afghanistan until well into
2010. And CENTCOM has not--Central Command has not forwarded
that additional request to the Pentagon at this point.
My own view is that before recommending those additional
forces to the President, I think we ought to see how the forces
that we are committing today, have already committed, are
performing and what the real requirement is toward the end of
this year or early next.
And particularly, given the fact that those troops or those
forces wouldn't go, even if the President did approve them,
until well into 2010, but it goes to a larger concern of mine
that I've spoken about publicly, and that is that I worry a
great deal about the size of the foreign military footprint in
Afghanistan. The Soviets were in there with 110,000 troops,
didn't care about civilian casualties, and couldn't win.
With our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies
and other partners, with the troops the President has approved,
we will be at about 100,000. And so I think we need to look
very carefully at how our strategy is proceeding some months
down the road before I would contemplate forwarding a
recommendation for additional troops to the President.
SITUATION IN IRAQ
Senator Feinstein. Well, thank you very much. I don't think
most people in America know the size and number. And I think
there's a real concern that we just get drawn in and drawn in,
and we're into it like we were in Iraq over a substantial
period of time, which raises the subject, and that is Iraq, and
that's Sadr City, and that's the five suicide bombings
yesterday, the four last week, the very substantial loss of
life.
And a sentence in this morning's New York Times--and let me
read it to you and get your response--Mr. Maliki is torn
between demands for the United States and some Sunni leaders to
reconcile with some former members of the Hussein government
and the Shiite partners who reject an accommodation. What is
that all about?
Secretary Gates. Well, first of all, I think having just
had a conference call with General Odierno a couple of days
ago, or teleconference, his judgment and the judgment of his
commanders is that most of the violence that we are seeing in
Iraq today, these suicide bombings, are, in fact, the work of
Al Qaeda in Iraq.
They are clearly--they have a campaign that they started
about 6 weeks ago. There's even a name for it that Al Qaeda
has, and I can't remember it. But they are clearly trying to
take advantage of our drawdown and particularly our drawing
back away from the cities to try and provoke a renewed round of
sectarian violence.
So this has less to do with Maliki's political decisions
and who he's reaching out to. I mean, the latest information we
have is that he's reaching out to some of the Sunni groups. He
does have a problem with the Ba'athist party and Saddam
Hussein's--some of the people who worked for Saddam Hussein.
But he is reaching out to other Sunnis, in terms of
political alliances. But the judgment of the commanders is this
is an orchestrated effort on the part of Al Qaeda to try and
provoke the very kind of sectarian violence that nearly tore
the country apart in 2006.
Senator Feinstein. My time is up. Thank you very much, Mr.
Secretary.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you. Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
both Secretaries for your service and for being here. Senator
Feinstein's questions provoked me to--and some of the others
make me ask this question.
Do you think, Secretary Gates or Secretary Clinton, either
that sometime within the next several months, that it would be
appropriate for the President to present to us his strategy for
Afghanistan and for there to be some sort of expression of
support for it in the Congress?
I would start with Secretary Gates, because the war in Iraq
became President Bush's war. And in the last few years of it,
there was not bipartisan support in the Congress for
conclusion. Several of us tried to take the recommendations of
the bipartisan Iraq study group, on which you served for a
while, Secretary Gates, and we couldn't get agreement between
the Senate leadership, Democratic, and the Republican
President.
Upon that, even though we've ended up today with a
conclusion in Iraq that is about the same as that envisioned by
the Iraq study group some time ago, in which President Bush and
President Obama both seem to agree on now, it would seem to me
that it would be more effective--it would send a more effective
message to our enemy and a more effective message of support to
our troops if we made sure that the war in Afghanistan doesn't
become President Obama's war in the same way that Iraq became
President Bush's war.
And would not one way to help make sure that does not
happen be for the President to take his time to develop a
strategy before we move ahead with many more troops, for us to
vote on it and say, ``Yes, we agree with you, Mr. President. We
want our enemies to know that, and we want our troops to know
that.''
SUPPORT FOR THE STRATEGY IN AFGHANISTAN
Secretary Gates. Well, Senator Alexander, I think that
that's basically a political call. I guess I would just say
from my standpoint that anything that can be done that conveys
strong bipartisan support for what the President is trying to
accomplish in Afghanistan has value, because it is a fact of
life that our adversaries, as well as our friends, read the
press avidly, and they are very well aware of what's going on
in this country.
I was stunned when I was in RC East and Khost province 1\1/
2\ years ago, and a village elder, in his robes and everything,
said he had read my Landon Lecture at Kansas State University
on the Internet. I said, ``Where do you plug it in?''
But I think--so they are watching, and anything that
conveys a strong bipartisan support for what the President is
going to do and that we will see this through to a successful
outcome has value. What the best way to manifest that is, I
think is for people who are more politically aware than I am.
Senator Alexander. I wonder, Secretary Clinton, the words
see through to the end whatever our mission is, is essential in
support of our troops. What would be your response to that?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I do think that there's
value in that approach, because I believe that the country
needs to be engaged, along with our Government, in thinking
through what is at stake here.
We did, in many ways, create the problem we're now coping
with. During the 1980s in our struggle against the Soviet
Union, which had invaded Afghanistan, we created a funding
stream. We trained. We armed Mujahaddin and their allies in
both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
And then once the Soviet Union retreated and fell, we were
not paying attention. Others were. Most particularly, bin
Laden, who knew that there could be a safe haven amidst that
chaos in Afghanistan. So I think that there are many legitimate
questions to ask about the situation we confront today.
And I hope that from both Secretary Gates and myself,
you're not hearing any message, other than our recognition this
is hard, and we are trying the best we can to come up with an
integrated civilian-military strategy along the lines that many
of you have referenced.
But I think it's important for the American people to be
engaged, as well as the Congress. And this supplemental, of
course, begins that discussion, and I think it could be quite
helpful and productive.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you. Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary
and Secretary Gates, your partnership here is extremely
powerful. And it is immensely encouraging to me and to my
constituents and to many of us about this new approach, this
enlightened approach, and this hopefully successful approach
that you all have outlined this morning.
Several of my questions have been asked. I want to
associate myself with the Senator from Maryland and her
questions about women and girls. I'm completely sure that
you're the best person for that job, Madam Secretary, but let
me ask this.
The National Solidarity Program (NSP), from some experts,
is one of the most successful and cost-effective aid programs.
I understand it operates in thousands of villages. Its method
of electing councils mandating the inclusion of women, its
literacy education, business training, I understand has been
effective.
My question is, what is your view of this program? Is it as
effective as I've been led to believe? Are there 20,000 shovel-
ready projects ready to go, and is it being funded? And if not,
what can we do to support it?
Secretary Clinton. Senator, I am absolutely in agreement
with the tone and substance of your question. The National
Solidarity Program is an important tool. It has been very
successful. I want to reiterate that the United States
Government funds the NSP through the Afghanistan Reconstruction
Trust Fund. It's a facility managed by the World Bank.
And from fiscal year 2004 to 2008, USAID has given $100
million to the NSP. In this 2009 supplemental, we are
requesting $85 million in additional funding for the Afghan
Reconstruction Trust Fund, which we intend to target toward the
NSP. I think there is more we could do. It's exactly the kind
of program that sort of makes our case. It's on the ground.
It's Afghans in the lead, supported by technical assistance and
expert liaisons. And it is, I think--I was last told 24,000
villages. So we are very strongly in support of this.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman and ranking
member, I would just ask you all to make special note of this
particular program. It's small, but has such potential to make
a difference, and we'll be following up as we go through this
process.
My second question, Senator--I mean, Secretary Clinton, is
about USAID. I know we've had several, but it's a different
twist to it. I understand, and I'd like you to clarify for us,
both of you, if this is correct.
I asked for a review about the dangers facing Afghan
workers in Afghanistan. The casualty rate for USAID employees
and locally engaged employees, I understand, is 1 in 10, as
opposed to the casualties of our military, Secretary, 1 in 57.
Can both of you comment about what we're going to do to provide
the--if this is correct, what are we going to do to provide the
security that our aid workers need to obviously carry out this
mission that both of you have thought so clearly about and
articulated this morning?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, those are the best
numbers that we have available. Obviously, any loss of life of
any of our young men and women in uniform is a matter of grave
concern to us. Many of the casualties on the civilian side, as
you rightly point out, are non-U.S. contract employees, NGO
employees, locally engaged Afghans.
But the numbers are quite disturbing, and it is a problem
for us. And that's something that Secretary Gates and our
respective teams are working on, how do we provide the security
necessary?
You know, if you look at Iraq and the PRTs that have been
embedded with our military, they've been very successful
because they did have that security backup. In Afghanistan, we
expect there will also be initially a lot of support from our
military for our civilian workforce.
But we want to be effective, and we're going to go places
that the military may not see as a high priority. And it is a
concern to me personally, as I know it is to the rest of the
Government, and we're trying to figure out the best ways to
provide that.
I mean, these are war zones. I mean, it's dangerous for our
military or our civilian personnel. But because our civilians
are not armed and are not equipped to defend themselves unless
there is a military presence or a contractor providing that
support, we have to be very careful about how we proceed.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary
Clinton, I want to follow up on Senator Mikulski's concerns
about the treatment of women at a time when we're proposing to
ramp up our economic assistance to Afghanistan.
The first time that I met Hamid Karzai was in 2003, and it
was before he was president, but he had been brought back to
Afghanistan. And I recall it so well because he seemed so
committed to reopening schools for girls, and pledged
personally to me that better treatment of girls and women would
be among his highest priorities.
Then you and I, on a subsequent trip to Afghanistan, met
with a group of Afghan women, and it looked like real progress
was being made. But now, Afghanistan is going backward in its
treatment of women.
We've seen President Karzai sign a highly repressive law
that, among other provisions, actually legalizes marital rape.
And it's troubling to me that the American taxpayers are being
asked to ramp up assistance to Afghanistan at a time when the
treatment of girls and women is becoming more repressive.
So my question for you is are we conditioning this
additional assistance on any standards for the treatment of
girls and women?
Secretary Clinton. Senator, we are making it very clear
that among our now more limited priorities, the treatment of
girls and women stays right at the core of what we're doing.
And as we are meeting with the Afghan Government and President
Karzai next week in our second trilateral meeting with the
Pakistani Government, we will be raising these issues and
demonstrating clearly to them how seriously we take this.
I have to say too that I was very disappointed by that law
going through the Parliament. I have spoken with a number of
officials in the Afghanistan Government, and I think this is
one of those where they viewed it as a request by a minority
group, and with a straight face, were saying, ``Well, no, we
still support women. It's just something that is demanded for
this minority.'' And we made it very clear that that just was
not acceptable, that we wanted clear, unequivocal commitments
to the well-being of women and girls.
Now, in many ways, the situation has improved the number of
schools that are operating. But as we look at our objectives in
some of the most difficult areas of the country, certainly the
Taliban uses intimidation against girls going to school--
throwing acid in their face, burning their schools down,
threatening their families if they send the girls to school.
And we're going to make it clear that the United States and
our European allies and others who are working with us in this
are just not going to stand by and let that happen.
Senator Collins. Good.
HELP FROM EUROPEANS
Secretary Gates. I would just add, Senator, that just to
pick up on Secretary Clinton's last comment, this is an area
where we actually have a lot of help from the Europeans. They
are very conscious of not just the treatment of women and
girls, but other kinds of repressive actions, such as the
treatment--the criminal treatment of children, and other things
like that, where they react very strongly to that, and they
carry that message directly to President Karzai and other
members of the Afghan Government.
Senator Collins. Thank you. Thank you both.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you. Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for
being here today. I think we're all encouraged by the
partnership that you've been able to put together between State
and Defense, and we wish you well in your endeavors to bring
together the various activities, because they are interrelated.
And I'm encouraged, as well, that, Secretary Gates, you've
made it clear from the very beginning that we will not win
simply by military means alone. That's why it's so important
you do this. Before we get mired down in the new budget, we
probably ought to step back for a moment and look at the
mission that we really want to achieve in Afghanistan.
As you know, I've been one who pushed for benchmarks or
measurements that we can measure what it is that--what our
success is in important areas we might proceed. I've been
encouraged, as well, by the recognition that having the
equivalent of benchmarks, if not by that name, the equivalent
of some metric to evaluate how we're doing in these critical
areas where we have goals that are set.
And I wonder if you might update us on what's going on,
because some of them are obviously going to be State goals and
some are going to be Defense goals. And I wonder if you might--
I'll start with you, Secretary Gates, and then Secretary
Clinton.
BENCHMARKS FOR AFGHANISTAN
Secretary Gates. The benchmarks are still--or I guess we're
going to call them measures of effectiveness, are going to--are
I think well advanced at this point, but still haven't come to
the principal's level for approval and forwarding to the
President.
But based on the preliminary looks that I've had, the
measures fall into three categories: security, development, and
governance. And they apply to both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
And so those categories will be in each of the three.
And I think that one of the reasons that I have strongly
supported this is that, before we can come up here, we need to
be in a position to evaluate honestly and without sort of
rolling the goals in front of us to see whether we're making
progress 6 months from now on the issues that today we think
are important.
And I think that there's a real commitment on the part of
the administration to do this, and I think the benchmarks are
going to be pretty elaborate when they're completed.
Secretary Nelson. Secretary Clinton.
Secretary Clinton. Senator, I remember sitting, sometimes
in this room, occasionally over in Hart in the Senate Armed
Services Committee, and our constant effort to try to get some
measures of performance, some metrics that we could judge. And
it was a moving target, and it was very difficult. And you and
others were real leaders in trying to achieve that.
We're going to start this effort with such metrics, I mean,
exactly what Secretary Gates said, in the three big areas, but
then broken down into much smaller bites. And we're going to be
measuring from every perspective. Whether it's diplomatic and
development efforts or military efforts or intelligence efforts
or agricultural development, we are going to have a list of
such measurements.
So I hope that the Congress will give us a chance to put
these in place and then be able to brief you on them and report
to you on them, because I think that it will be a better
approach if we can do this within the context of the different
departments and not legislatively mandated at this point.
But we really agree with you completely that this has to be
part of our mission going forward to figure out how effective
we're being, and they are pretty far advanced. And obviously,
we'll be sharing them with you and seeking ideas or suggestions
as well.
Senator Nelson. Will they be made public? Will the
measurements be made public?
Secretary Clinton. Well, some could not be because they
would be classified and military mission-related, but we
haven't made a final decision. Certainly they could be shared
with the Congress. Whether they could be in some form made
public is a question that we will try to answer affirmatively,
because it's part of what we're hoping to do, which is to
enlist broad support for what we're attempting.
Senator Nelson. It would help develop the support. I
appreciate it very much. Thank you both. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you. Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Both your answers
to that last question were really music to my ears because,
like Secretary Clinton said, we've pushed hard over the last
several years to try to get some way to measure success or
progress in Iraq, and it's very difficult. And basically, from
my standpoint, it never really happened.
GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY ON PAKISTAN
Secretary Gates, let me ask you, if I may, and make sure I
understand your previous answer. What you're saying is this is
a pretty sharp departure from the previous administration, that
you're trying to establish internally a real measurement of the
effectiveness and of the progress that we're going to be making
in Afghanistan; is that fair to say?
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir. And I felt fairly strongly--
having been through the experience with Iraq 2 years ago, I
felt it was very important that the administration take the
initiative on this and say, ``We will hold ourselves
accountable, and here are the things we will hold ourselves
accountable to.''
Senator Pryor. I think that's great. And as Secretary
Clinton alluded to, if you could share that with the Congress,
that would be most helpful, and whatever you can make public
that would be appropriate, I think would help the American
people understand what we're doing there.
Secretary Gates. Well, as Secretary Clinton said, there's
no question about what we'll share with the Congress, and we'll
make public as much of it as we can.
Senator Pryor. That'd be very much appreciated. Let me ask
also, Secretary Gates, about the request for $400 million for
the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund.
As I understand it, we have been giving Pakistan money in
years past, but there hasn't been a lot of accountability, and
my belief is that they've been taking at least some of our
money, and maybe most or all of our money, and actually moving
it over to the eastern side of the country, using it to beef up
their defenses, et cetera, against India, rather than helping
in the international effort that we wanted them to help on in
the other parts of their country.
What sort of accountability will you put on this money in
Pakistan to make sure that it is spent in accordance with the
United States' purpose?
Secretary Gates. Well, first of all, let me make clear the
distinction between the coalition support funds that we have
paid the Pakistanis over the past 7 years and this PCCF. The
coalition support funds are all reimbursements of the
Pakistanis. They make a claim to us. It's reviewed by our
Defense office in the Embassy in Islamabad. It's then reviewed
by Central Command. Then it's reviewed by the Comptroller at
the Defense Department before the reimbursement is provided.
We have taken some steps after this became an issue last
year. We tightened these procedures significantly in June 2008
to ensure that these measures were being--that the
accountability issues were being applied consistently, that
there was somebody clearly responsible, and that's the
commander of Central Command. And then also, to ensure that the
Pakistanis--that we provided some assistance to the Pakistanis
so they could help meet our demands for accountability. There
were just some capabilities, accountants and so on, that they
didn't have.
So I think we're in a better place for that. And the
reality is because it's a reimbursement, they then can spend
the money however they want, because it's a claim that they
filed with us.
On the PCCF, these are funds that we will be applying
directly to border security, to training. The funds would be
used, for example, to build the border coordination centers.
They would be used for the training of the Frontier Corps, and
so we know that the training camps are being built for the
Frontier Corps. So these are things--the money that we will be
allocating for this will be for things we can see and that we
can document where that money has gone.
So I think it's a very different kind of thing, in the
sense that it's not a reimbursement, but it is for training and
equipping of the security forces and related counterinsurgency
strategies. I know there's been some concern here on the Hill
about whether this money ought to be in the State Department or
it ought to be in the Defense Department.
And what Secretary Clinton and I have agreed that we would
recommend very strongly to the Congress is let's do it this way
for the fiscal year 2009 supplemental. Let's see if there's a
way that we can--part of the problem is authorities and
capacity in the State Department to be able to apply this money
with the agility Secretary Clinton was talking about, like the
CERP funds.
So then our proposal would be to see if we can work with
the Congress to have a way that the money can be allocated,
appropriated to the State Department in fiscal year 2010, but
with the authority for an immediate pass-through to the
Department of Defense to implement it. And then we would use
fiscal year 2010 to build the capacity and get the Congress to
approve the kinds of authorities that would give the State
Department the capability to administer the money and manage
the money beginning in fiscal year 2011.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. And again, that gives me a lot of
comfort, and I appreciate that. It's great to see you both.
Thank you.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you. Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I
want to congratulate all of you on what I refer to as the Obama
doctrine, and that is smart power. And it's nice to see the
relationship the two of you have built. And I've had a chance
to talk to General Jones last week, and I'm very pleased with
what you're doing.
One of the things that's coming up more and more often when
I go back to Ohio are people are asking me, ``How can we
continue to be Uncle Sugar to the world?'' And the question
they're asking is have we set priorities in terms of where
we're going to invest our time and material and our men and
women, and what is the capacity to respond financially to these
challenges that we have?
If you look at this supplemental, if it passes, and
probably will, this deficit for 2009 will be over $2 trillion,
14 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). Most people
agree that in the next 5 years, we'll double the debt; triple
it in 10 years.
We're really in a financial crisis here today in this
country. People are out of work and they're wondering what's
going on. How can we keep going?
And I would suggest to both of you, all of you that are in
the non-entitlement programs in the silos, to talk to the
President and Peter Orszag about it's time for us to deal with
entitlements and tax reform in this country. And if we don't do
it, we're going to do away with our credibility, in terms of
the rest of the world, and our credit will be zilch.
Now, that being said, and I think it's really important
that we get at this thing right now, because people around the
world are worried about what we're doing. Some of them can't
even believe it. And the same people are asking us for help.
The question I have for Afghanistan is this. I remember in
2003, when I put my foot down and said we weren't going to have
any more than a $350 billion tax reduction, the President of
the United States and Vice President and everybody else said,
``Don't worry, George. The spending in Iraq's going to be taken
care of. You don't have to worry about it.''
LONG-RANGE STRATEGY FOR AFGHANISTAN
Well, it wasn't. Now we're talking about Afghanistan. And
what really worries me is do we have a comprehensive plan? I'm
talking about long range. How long's it going to take? How much
money is it going to take? How many of our military are going
to have to be there? What kind of infrastructure are we going
to have to build? In addition to that, what role are our NATO
allies going to be playing? I've talked with the Brits. They
said, ``We're stretched. We can't do it.'' I've talked to the
French. ``We're stretched. We can't do it.''
Now, Afghanistan was supposed to be a test of NATO, and we
still have people over there with KVS. I'd like to know, has
anybody really sat down and looked at where are we going, how
long, and talk to our allies about what their responsibility is
going to be, militarily, infrastructure-wise, humanitarian, and
all the other stuff that we've talked about, or is this going
to fall back right in our laps, for the most part, like Iraq
has?
Secretary Gates. Well, Senator, in my view, I think we have
looked at the longer-range strategy. I think we have set some
clear priorities and clear goals that are more realistic. There
is no question that this is a multiyear undertaking.
I would tell you that we all wish that our allies would do
more, but the reality is, they are doing a lot. They have
32,000 troops in there. They are taking serious casualties. The
Canadians, the British, the Danes, the Australians, the Dutch
are in the fight in a big way, and now so are the French. And
the north and the west are mainly quiet, but the Germans have
thousands of troops there in the north and the Italians in the
west, along with the Spanish.
They are responsible for more than one-half of the
provincial reconstruction teams. They run 53 of the operational
mentoring and liaison teams, and have promised to fund 103 by
the end of 2011.
So do I wish they had more there? Sure. Do I wish they
would donate more to the Afghan National--the trust fund for
the Afghan National Army? Yes. But the fact is, they are
participating and they are paying, and they are paying with
blood as well as treasure.
I believe that an honest answer to your question is that we
will have to have troops in Afghanistan for some period of
years. I think the exit strategy for all of us is a more
effective Afghan Government, but especially, an effective
Afghan National Police and effective Afghan National Army
partnering with us initially, and then taking sole
responsibility over time, as well as some measure of improved
governance, so that people who are sitting on the fence in
Afghanistan come over on the government's side.
So this is hard. It's going to cost us more money. But the
reality is, I think most Americans understand that we were
attacked out of this country in 2001, and that if we don't see
this thing through, then the same people who attacked us in
2001 will reestablish a safe haven there, where they have the
capacity to plan sophisticated attacks against us.
Chairman Inouye. Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
both of you for being here. We're getting toward the end of a
fairly long hearing, but I appreciate your answers and your
matter-of-factness.
A couple of things. The Yellow Ribbon Program, Secretary
Gates, I appreciate you expanding that out. I think that's a
great program, and I think it's a program that will serve our
fighting men very, very well.
I want to say a little bit about agriculture very quickly.
Secretary Clinton, you talked about it a little bit, and I
would just say this. I don't know that culture. You guys know
that culture far better than I do. But I can tell you this. As
a farmer, to go in and douse the crops with a herbicide or
pesticide and kill them, that's a far bigger loss than money
can pay for. And so I hope that we're looking at the synergy
between the farmer and the ground and all of that. I agree
they're raising a crop that they need to replace it with
something that's a consumable that'll help their country, but
if you want to make somebody really, really mad for a long,
long time, especially a farmer, just go in and take out their
livelihood.
A couple of things. This kind of dovetails onto--one of the
things that makes people anxious, I think, about Afghanistan is
we're still in Iraq, and we saw we had people supposedly that
were helping us, our allies, and pretty soon, it was a one-man
band. So the points that Senator Voinovich makes, I think, are
solid, how we keep our allies involved in a part of this
equation. Because, quite honestly, the war on terror doesn't
just apply to the United States. It applies to everybody in the
world.
What about non-military costs? Are our allies stepping up
to the plate in that realm? And either one of you can answer
the question.
Secretary Clinton. With respect to Iraq?
Senator Tester. With respect to Afghanistan's rebuilding.
Secretary Clinton. Afghanistan? Yes. In fact, what
Secretary Gates just recited, in terms of the support that we
are getting from our allies in Afghanistan, it's not just in
military. In fact, I think every country that has troops on the
ground also has civilian help on the ground, and some countries
that don't have troops on the ground have come forth with
civilian help. So we are seeing that.
Senator Tester. Have those countries stepped up with
monetary help also?
Secretary Clinton. Yes, they have. And, you know, as
Secretary Gates said, not as much as we would want, but in some
ways, more than we expected.
Senator Tester. Is it about in the same proportion as the
troops? You said 68,000 to 32,000. Is it about in that same
proportion, as far as our effort compared to our allies'
efforts?
Secretary Clinton. You know, I don't know the answer to
that, Senator. We'll find the answer and give that to you.
Senator Tester. I appreciate that.
[The information follows:]
The United States has pledged approximately $35.5 billion
to Afghanistan since 2001, according to the Afghan Ministry of
Finance (57 percent of total international contributions).
After the United States, the United Kingdom, World Bank, Asian
Development Bank, and Japan are the next largest donors,
pledging a combined total of roughly $10 billion. In total, the
international community has pledged $26.5 billion to
Afghanistan since 2001 (43 percent of total).
The last Afghanistan donors' conference was held in Paris
in June 2008, which resulted in over $20 billion in pledges.
Responding to our intensified civilian effort, many
international partners have approached us to discuss expanding
and targeting current and new assistance. Consequently, we are
exploring holding another donors' conference, focused primarily
on donor coordination.
Senator Tester. We've got funding, $800,000 for Pakistani--
$800 million, I'm sorry. $800 million for U.N. peacekeeping,
$200 million for Georgia, several of them. Just curious why
these aren't in the 2010 appropriations request, and why are
they here and not in that?
Secretary Clinton. Well, I think on a number of those,
these are commitments that were made that need to be fulfilled
before we would finish the deliberations on the 2010 budget.
What we've tried to do is be very, very careful about what we
put in the supplemental. Because, as the chairman said at the
very beginning, this is our last supplemental. We do not want
to fund our Government in these important projects by
supplemental. But there is a pipeline problem that we're trying
to cure by getting the money where it needs to be.
Senator Tester. So it's time sensitive, and it wouldn't be
there in time if it was in the 2010 budget?
Secretary Clinton. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you. Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretaries,
welcome here. I'm glad to hear your speech at K-State got sent
around the world, Secretary Gates. If you ever want to get a
message out to the far corners of the world, just come to
Kansas State University. It'll get out and get expressed.
RELOCATING DETAINEES
I wanted to let you know, on the Guantanamo Bay detainees,
this is a hot topic in my State with Fort Leavenworth there,
and it's a hot topic with your commander at that base, whose
primary mission is educational.
And we've got 90 countries represented there, and we've had
several Muslim countries already tell us if the detainees are
moved to Fort Leavenworth, we're not sending Army officers to
be educated at Fort Leavenworth, because they don't think they
should be detained, period, let alone being at the same spot
that they're going to put their future command officers.
So please, not at Leavenworth. I think you should look
overall, and I'm glad you're looking at Europe with that. But
it's a big topic in my State, and I think it really hurts the
Command General Staff College at Leavenworth. And I would hope
you would ask a number of Islamic countries, if you are even
considering Leavenworth, the impact, because I really think it
would have a negative one there.
Secretary Gates. I look forward to telling Secretary
Sebelius that I, in fact, got her letter.
Senator Brownback. Good. Second, on food aid, Secretary
Clinton, I know you've been interested in this a long time. I
have been, and I'm very frustrated about AID and food aid
generally.
Let me just--an idea that we've been kicking around for
some time that we're just not getting the bang for our buck on
this, is looking at what the military does on a quadrennial
review of food aid, and just requiring this every 4 years, so
that you get some structure that more reflects the global
situation.
We put a fair amount of money into this, and I just don't
think we get where we need to on it, and I would love to work
with you on something like that.
Secretary Clinton. Senator, I would really welcome that,
and we will send someone to brief your staff and yourself, if
you would be willing to do so, about the approach that we're
taking.
You know, I believe strongly in the old adage, better to
teach someone to fish than to give them a fish, and I think
what we're trying to do is to shift our focus back to where it
was in the 1960s and the 1980s, when the United States led a
green revolution. It's complicated. It has to be approached in
a very thoughtful manner. But I think we've got some good
ideas, and we'd love to have you involved.
Senator Brownback. I think we probably need to
institutionalize some of that. I also applaud your efforts on
H1N1 and working with particularly like Mexico to head it off
and help them with vaccines. The child that died in Houston was
from Mexico, my guess is trying to get some assistance and
help.
Finally, on North Korea, I am just beside myself on what
has happened. I mean, they've launched a multistage missile. In
the paper today, they're talking about detonating another
nuclear weapon. And then in this supplemental, please, you're
asking the Congress to put in nearly $100 million of economic
support for North Korea.
And I look at this and I think, ``This is exactly the wrong
message we should be sending.'' President Obama, when he was
candidate Obama, said that North Korea doesn't perform, we
should--and he said--I'm quoting this directly from a June 26
last year speech--``We should move quickly to reimpose
sanctions that have been waived and consider new restrictions
going forward.''
My goodness, if they haven't done enough now to merit this
situation, double state of missile, leaving the Six-Party
Talks, kidnapping two U.S. citizens, restarting a nuclear
facility, if they haven't done enough to merit putting the old
sanctions back on and looking for that alone, trying to give
them aid in this supplemental, I really think that's the wrong
message for us to send.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, let me assure you that
that money is in there in the event which, at this point, seems
implausible, if not impossible, the North Koreans return to the
Six-Party Talks and begin to disable their nuclear capacity
again. We have absolutely no interest and no willingness on the
part of this administration to give them any economic aid at
all unless they----
Senator Brownback. Including fuel oil?
Secretary Clinton. Absolutely. That is my very strongly
held belief. I mean, they are digging themselves into a deeper
and deeper hold with the international community.
I think they were shocked we were able to get the Chinese
and Russians onto such a strong statement in the United
Nations, specifically saying that their missile launch
contravened the Security Council Resolution 1718. And then they
were further shocked when we got the Chinese and the Russians
to agree on tough sanctions on some of their financial
institutions.
So we are very serious about trying to make it clear to the
North Koreans that their recent behavior is absolutely
unacceptable.
Senator Brownback. Thank you.
Chairman Inouye. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank
each of you for the work that you're doing and, Secretary
Gates, the fact that you're carrying over and we're not
discussing parties and things of that nature, I commend you for
that.
And, Hillary Clinton, we miss you here, but we are so
pleased that you're going on with the task that you are. You
are firm without being a bully. You're intelligent without
causing our allies, or the ones we need to develop friendships
with, feeling like we're dismissing their needs. And we're
proud of each of you.
And let me ask a question here. Last year, I wrote a law to
establish an inspector general position for Afghanistan
reconstruction. The nomenclature was CGAR. Congress has
appropriated $16 million for that post, and I'm pleased the
President has added additional funds in the supplemental so
this office can hire more staff and get to work.
What are the lessons that we've learned in Iraq that can
help us prevent the abuses that were so obvious and abundant in
Afghanistan?
Secretary Clinton. If I could just----
Senator Lautenberg. In Iraq. I'm sorry.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you, sir. Thank you for those kind
comments, Senator. I really appreciate them. What we're trying
to do with our own internal measurement performances with more
accountability, and I have personally told the Afghanistan
inspector general's office that we don't want them to wait and
just give us a report that something's going wrong. We want
them to be an early warning signal. I mean, if they are doing
investigations and they see something that is not appropriate,
let us know. Don't let it go on.
We're going to try to have a very clear set, both of
measurements and of early warning signals, so that we can get
ahead of some of these problems that you've rightly pointed
out.
Senator Lautenberg. We have to do that, because it's very
hard to close that barn door once the horse is gone and expect
any kind of a result. I ask this question about Iran. And
either one of you expressing an opinion would be of value.
The President stated any engagement of Iran would be
limited, and if there's no progress, the United States will
pursue serious sanctions. And while I hope those talks will be
fruitful, I hope that we would be serious about imposing strong
sanctions, including a loophole that has allowed subsidiaries
of American companies to do business with Iran, establishing
sham locations in the Caribbean, and then extending them so
that we can do first-hand business.
Should we make sure that that door for American companies
to be profiteering, as happened in Iraq while assaulting our
people, shouldn't we close that door once and for all? Madam
Secretary, what do you think?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, we are operating on two
tracks. We do have an intensive consultation effort going on
with friends and like-minded nations, not only in the region,
but elsewhere in the world, concerning the threats that Iran
poses, not only with its nuclear ambitions, but its
interference with the internal affairs of many countries, its
funding of terrorism, and so much else that is deeply
troubling. And we believe that our outreach and our
consultation lays the groundwork for tougher international
sanctions.
But I agree with you that we ought to look to make sure
that we have our own house in order as to any of the sanctions
that we should be implementing going forward.
OPTIONS FOR DEALING WITH IRAN
Senator Lautenberg. And Secretary Gates--and I promise you,
Mr. Chairman, this is it. Are we limited to two options to
control what might be going on with Iran and the nuclear
development? Is it sanctions or military engagement? What else
is left to us, other than that?
Secretary Gates. I think that the one thing that's clear is
that the Iranians hate being isolated. All of the information
we get indicates that however imperfect the U.N. resolutions
against Iran are, the Iranians hate it when one of those
resolutions passes, because it makes clear how isolated they
are in the world.
My view is that the only way to eliminate an Iranian
determination to have nuclear weapons, in my opinion, is for
that government to make that decision. Even a military attack
will only buy us time and send the program deeper and more
covert. How do we get them to decide that it's not in their
interest to pursue nuclear weapons?
It seems to me partly it's economic pressures, partly it's
diplomatic isolation, partly it's seeing their neighbors
beginning to band together to collaborate on air and missile
defense that is aimed only at Iran. It's one of the reasons I
think there is value in pursuing a partnership with the
Russians on missile defense in Europe and in Russia itself.
And I think all of these things, combined with a diplomatic
door that they can walk through if they choose to do so, so
that they don't feel like they've been backed into a corner and
have no choice but to go forward, plus trying to persuade them
that their security interests are actually badly served by
trying to have nuclear weapons, that they will spark a nuclear
arms race in the Middle East, and they will be less secure at
the end than they are now.
So I think there are alternatives to the military. The
military option, as I say, is at the end of the day still only
a temporary option. And so I think it's the panoply of these
things put together in a coordinated policy and with the help
of our allies and partners and, frankly, important countries
like Russia and China, that I think offer the best chance. And
I would tell you we've got a better chance of making it work on
$40 oil than we do on $140 oil.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, Madam Secretary, you have an
enormous job, as we've just heard from the Secretary. Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Chairman Inouye. Thank you. Secretary Clinton, Secretary
Gates, on behalf of the committee, I thank you for your
attendance and your testimony today. As you know, colleagues
have submitted questions to you, and I hope that you can
respond to them and return your answers by next Wednesday, to
prepare ourselves for the markup.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Departments for response subsequent to
the hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hillary Rodham Clinton
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
Question. Secretary Gates and Clinton, should we expect to see any
more war-related supplemental requests?
Answer. The President has stated that while emergency supplementals
maybe required in the future, they should focus on truly unanticipated
events and not be used to fund regular programs. However, as we
implement the President's strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it may
become necessary to review the resources available for programs in
these countries.
Question. Secretary Gates and Clinton, will your fiscal year 2010
budget requests, which we expect to receive next week, contain detailed
war funding justifications?
Answer. The fiscal year 2010 budget request reflects, in great
detail, the Administration's commitment to strengthen diplomatic and
assistance tools to address current and future challenges that impact
the security of the United States.
The budget increases non-military aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan
to revitalize economic development and confront the resurgence of the
Taliban, and realigns U.S. assistance to Iraq to help responsibly end
the war and enable Iraqis to assume more control of their country.
It puts the United States on a path to double U.S. foreign
assistance. This funding will help the world's weakest states reduce
poverty, combat global health threats, develop markets, govern
peacefully, and expand democracy worldwide.
The 2010 request supports the worldwide operations of the
Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development,
provides new resources to hire additional Foreign Service officers, and
builds civilian capacity to meet the challenges of today's world.
It also provides additional funding for key programs that advance
U.S. foreign policy goals, including significantly increasing funding
for energy initiatives, programs addressing global climate change, and
agriculture investments.
Question. Secretary Gates and Clinton, how long should the United
States expect to be in Afghanistan?
Answer. We cannot remain in Afghanistan for an indefinite period.
Therefore, it is of utmost importance that we rapidly build the size
and capability of the Afghan Government, including the Afghan National
Army and National Police, to levels such that it is able to provide
basic governance and security for the Afghan people. The United States
and the international community will need to subsidize the Afghan
security forces for the foreseeable future, while the Afghans build an
economy and government capable of sustaining their own forces.
Question. Secretary Gates and Clinton, what is the United States
doing to ensure greater NATO and United Nations participation in
addressing the war in Afghanistan?
Answer. At the NATO Summit in Strasbourg, Allies endorsed our
Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy's focus on defeating Al Qaeda. Our Allies
reiterated their commitment to working with the Afghan people to defeat
this common enemy and to improve the Afghan government's capacity to
provide governance and security for the Afghan people. To support those
goals, Allies committed to provide the forces necessary to help secure
the elections, agreed to expand efforts to train and mentor Afghan
National Security Forces, and agreed to broadening NATO's relationship
with Pakistan.
We are working to ensure that NATO Allies fulfill commitments on
necessary resources, both military and civilian. We have also initiated
further consultations with NATO Allies, ISAF partners, and other
possible contributors to match their capabilities with specific
requirements needed to implement the new strategy.
The March 31 International Conference on Afghanistan in The Hague
recommitted the international community to supporting Afghanistan and
underscored the central role of the United Nations in international
assistance efforts. Our strategy for Afghanistan makes clear our strong
support of the U.N.'s coordinating role in Afghanistan. We particularly
appreciate the U.N.'s assistance to the Government of Afghanistan in
organizing the August 20 Presidential and Provincial Councils
elections.
We also fully support the Special Representative of the U.N.
Secretary General to Afghanistan, Kai Eide, and his Deputy, Peter
Galbraith, in fulfilling their mission to help the Government of
Afghanistan and coordinate international civilian assistance.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. The supplemental request includes $400 million for
Pakistan to ``help address Pakistan's economic crisis and balance of
payment deficit'' and to ``supplement the Government of Pakistan's $7.6
billion Standby Agreement with the IMF.'' You say these funds are to
help ``finance expanded social safety net programs, allow for higher
spending on development programs, and finance foreign reserves through
budget support.''
What does that actually mean--who will get the money, and what will
they do with it? Will any go directly into the Pakistani treasury as
budget support?
Answer. The IMF estimates that Pakistan needs $4 billion over 2
years from donors to help finance social safety net programs, allow for
continued spending on development programs, and reinforce foreign
reserves. These supplemental funds will support filling these IMF-
identified gaps and help the Government of Pakistan meet IMF
benchmarks, while also encouraging other donors to assist.
With the $400 million we are planning to provide a mix of direct
budget support and project support. Measures are being developed to
ensure accountability and oversight. A portion of the budget support
will be directed to an income support program for the poor, the Benazir
Income Support Program. This puts funds directly into the hands of the
most marginalized. Other direct support would cover the cost of
electricity for schools and hospitals and teacher training. Projectized
support will target internally displaced persons, rural infrastructure,
and roads and agricultural schemes to generate local employment that
contributes to development.
We share Congressional concerns on the imperative of positive
outcomes and results from this assistance. As we finalize the specific
allocation of funds, including measures of effectiveness for providing
the funds, we will continue to keep you informed.
Question. Last year the Congress provided the previous
Administration almost $500 million for economic assistance for
Pakistan, of which very little has yet been spent. I'm not faulting you
for not spending it faster because we do not want to throw away good
money after bad, but why do we need this additional $400 million now?
Answer. The additional $400 million requested in this Supplemental
will be used very quickly in keeping with our larger strategy to help
stabilize Pakistan's economy and meet social safety net needs,
including addressing the crisis of displaced persons in the Northwest
Frontier Province.
With the $400 million we are planning to provide a mix of direct
budget support and project support. Measures are being developed to
ensure accountability and oversight. A portion of budget support will
be directed to an income support program for the poor, the Benazir
Income Support Program. This puts funds directly into the hands of the
most marginalized. Other direct support will cover the cost of
electricity for schools and hospitals and some facility construction.
Projectized support will target internally displaced persons, rural
infrastructure, and roads and agricultural schemes to generate local
employment that contributes to development. We share Congressional
concerns on the imperative of positive outcomes and results from this
assistance. As we finalize the specific allocation of funds, including
measures of effectiveness for providing the funds, we will continue to
keep you informed.
Question. You are requesting $66 million for three Blackhawk
helicopters for Mexico. This is more for the Merida Initiative, which
was hastily put together with no prior consultation with the U.S.
Congress or the Mexican Congress, in the waning days of the Bush
Administration. Does the Administration have a new counterdrug strategy
for Mexico and Central America, or is the Merida Initiative it?
Answer. Since assuming office, the Obama Administration has
undertaken a review of our security and counterdrug cooperation efforts
with Mexico and Central America. President Obama's mid-April trip to
Mexico, as well as that of Secretary Clinton and Secretary of Homeland
Security Napolitano and Attorney General Holder, have all informed that
review and our future direction of cooperation with Mexico. The Merida
Initiative, developed in consultation with our Mexican and Central
American counterparts, provides a foreign assistance framework to
effectively address the threat to regional stability posed by illicit
drug cartels and criminal activity. As we move forward, the
Administration will evaluate the program's performance and look for
ways to improve and build upon it.
The recently announced National Southwest Border Counternarcotics
Strategy, for example, is putting additional resources and personnel
from DHS, DEA, and other agencies, to work with local law enforcement
in the critical southwest border area.
We see strong political will in the region to address the challenge
of providing greater citizen security on an increasingly regional and
cooperative basis. The assistance we provide through the Merida
Initiative builds on this trend and enables the U.S. government to work
collaboratively with the governments of Mexico and other Central
American countries to strengthen their law enforcement and judicial
capabilities and to promote greater cooperation between our respective
law enforcement agencies.
We are making a major investment to strengthen the rule of law and
build institutional capacity in Mexico, areas that are critical to
Mexico's long-term democratic development and stability. We are
assisting the Mexicans as they make improvements across the spectrum of
civilian law enforcement activities from gathering information,
building cases, making arrests, improving their legal system, training
prosecutors, and making prisons more secure.
To successfully take on the violent, well financed and
sophisticated drug trafficking organizations, Mexican forces must have
the capability to deploy rapid reaction forces and interdiction teams
to complement their other improving skills. To address this need, the
Merida Initiative includes helicopter support to both the Secretariat
of Public Security (SSP) and the Mexican Air Force.
After visiting Mexico and assessing SSP requirements and
recommended solutions, a technical interagency team determined that
Blackhawk helicopters were the appropriate aircraft to meet SSP needs
because: (a) they met mission requirements (load, capacity, and speed--
18 passenger transportation to anywhere in Mexico within 90 minutes);
and (b) SSP has purchased seven Blackhawks, and the three provided by
the United States will enable the SSP to form a fully functioning
squadron.
After we understood what the Government of Mexico's anti-crime
strategy was, and identified how best the United States could support
it with training, equipment and new cooperative mechanisms, then we
began consulting and continue to consult with respective legislative
bodies. We greatly appreciate the spirit of consultation and
cooperation we have had over the past year with Congress, and their
appropriation of funds for the Merida Initiative thus far. We look
forward to continuing consultations with Congress as our programs move
forward.
Question. I strongly support helping Mexico which is facing real
threats from heavily armed drug cartels, and is now dealing with the
H1N1 virus. But why is the Merida Initiative different from past failed
counterdrug strategies, and what can we reasonably expect it to
accomplish, at what cost, over what period of time?
Answer. The Merida Initiative is a comprehensive approach
fundamentally structured to strengthen the institutional capabilities
of Mexican law enforcement and judicial agencies. It was jointly
designed and agreed to in close consultation with the Mexican
government.
This consultative process is designed to improve the effectiveness
of our assistance and to develop greater buy-in from the receiving
agencies in Mexico. Through this process we are encouraging greater law
enforcement cooperation among Mexican law enforcement and judicial
entities at the federal level. We are also promoting links between U.S.
judicial and law enforcement agencies and their Mexican counterparts.
Through the Merida Initiative, we are making a major investment in
strengthening Mexico's capability to enhance and enforce the rule of
law. We are assisting the Mexicans as they make improvements across the
spectrum of civilian law enforcement activities from gathering
information, building cases, making arrests, improving their legal
system, training prosecutors, and making prisons more secure.
These strategic goals will take time to accomplish. Originally, the
Merida Initiative was envisioned to be a $1.4 billion commitment for
Mexico, over 3 years.
In fiscal year 2008, we requested $500 million for Mexico and in
fiscal year 2009 we requested $450 million for Mexico, for a total of
$950 million. Congress appropriated a combined $700 million for Mexico
in fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 under the Merida Initiative.
To accomplish the goals set out in the Merida Initiative, which are
in our own national interest, we need full funding support from
Congress.
Question. I want to commend you including in the supplemental the
money we owe for United Nations peacekeeping. For many years we have
been in arrears, even though the Administration votes for these
missions and other countries--not the United States--provide the
troops. It is an important investment, there are real costs, and we
need to pay our share in a timely manner. Am I right that if we provide
these supplemental funds we will be current in our payments?
Answer. The fiscal year 2009 supplemental request of $836.9 million
for Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA),
together with the fiscal year 2009 CIPA appropriation will sustain our
contributions to U.N. peacekeeping activities through fiscal year 2009.
These funds also will address arrears from calendar years 2005 through
2008 caused by the statutory cap on U.S. assessed contributions to U.N.
peacekeeping operations. The Department may pay these arrears because
its fiscal year 2009 appropriations act increased the cap from 25
percent to 27.1 percent for assessments made during calendar years 2005
through 2008. The request represents the Administration's commitment to
pay U.S. assessments in full and on time to support U.N. peacekeeping
missions that help maintain and restore international peace and
security.
Question. For years we have heard complaints that U.S. Embassy and
USAID personnel are trapped inside the fortified walls of their offices
because of security concerns, and there are too few of them to manage
programs so they rely on large contractors
When State and USAID staff do get out to the field they are
frequently escorted by convoys of military personnel or armed security
contractors, which frightens local people. How can we do a better job
of balancing the need for program oversight in the field with keeping
our diplomats and development personnel safe?
Answer. As of March 2009 (most recent data available), USAID/
Afghanistan has noted 337 injuries, 23 kidnappings and 343 deaths.
To further illustrate this point, some of our colleagues in
Afghanistan have begun to receive Night Letters and many staff in
Afghanistan do not tell their families that they work for the U.S.
Government.
Leaving compounds and/or private residences in high threat
environments requires a great deal of coordination with the local
security contingent as well as approval from the office of the Regional
Security Officer (RSO), who sets embassy security policy and practice.
Under Public Law 99-399 (Omnibus Diplomatic Security and
Antiterrorism Act of 1986), Chiefs of Mission (COMs) and embassy
Regional Security Officers (RSOs) can be held personally accountable
when there is serious injury or loss of life.
The law does not promote risk management decision-making in high
threat environments, even where there is a high national interest
priority in implementation, evaluating and monitoring of a program.
Some level of risk is inherent and accepted by all USG personnel
who work in Afghanistan. Predicting the level and type of risk to allow
for adequate planning is the objective; however, the nature of security
planning is that it is dependent on perpetrators and predicting what
they might do is not an exact science.
USAID is currently in the process of increasing our presence in
Afghanistan and we hope to have an additional 170 field personnel (150
personnel requested through Spring 2009 supplemental funding and 20
personnel from pre-existing staffing plans) on the ground by the end of
the calendar year. This increase in personnel will add to our capacity
to provide direct oversight to our projects.
Due to the non-permissive nature of the security situation, USAID
currently relies extensively on dedicated Quality Assessment/Quality
Control (QA/QC) contractors, along with the military and implementing
partners to help monitor programs.
Furthermore, we are utilizing telecommunication/removed video
transmission when possible. This allows us to increase our monitoring
capabilities at lower risk levels.
Question. We often hear that the quick rotation of Foreign Service
Officers in and out of Afghanistan makes it very difficult to develop
continuity and effectiveness of programs. After 1 year on the job,
officers have just begun to understand how things work before they are
transferred to somewhere else. Do you see this changing in the future?
Answer. Our Foreign Service employees face extremely difficult
working conditions in Afghanistan--long working hours, extended family
separation, as well as dangerous security conditions. While we
recognize the benefits of longer tours, the current conditions there
are not yet conducive to mandatory 2-year assignments.
We do, however, continue to review the length of our assignments to
not only Afghanistan, but to our other unaccompanied posts. In
establishing tour lengths, we must carefully balance the effects on
employees of extended assignments in high-stress posts with the
advantages that come from reduced personnel turnover.
Question. Maersk-Alabama Captain Richard Phillips, who was recently
held hostage by pirates off the coast of Somalia, is a Vermont
constituent of mine. You have requested $40 million under the
Peacekeeping Operations account for Somalia. Are there other types of
programs that might provide Somali youth with employment opportunities
instead of piracy?
Answer. Through implementing partner the Education Development
Center, USAID is supporting the Somali Youth and Livelihoods Program
which is designed to match approximately 1,200 jobseekers with
employers in Somaliland through a database that is accessible via cell
phone and internet. USAID is planning to expand this program from
Somaliland into Mogadishu and other urban areas in order to reach an
additional 4,000 people. In addition, via the International Labor
Organization, USAID will be providing communities in strategic areas
with assistance to address key community priorities such as
infrastructure and rehabilitation and provision of economic and social
service centers. This program aims to reduce insecurity related to
high-risk youth joining extremist organizations by jump-starting
employment and income generation.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
Question. What funding is being requested in the fiscal year 2009
supplemental (please specify dollar amount and accounts) for
Afghanistan to help improve the situation for women of all ages in
Afghanistan in the following areas:
--Access to primary and secondary education;
--Access to medical care--especially prenatal and post delivery care
to help improve child and maternal health;
--Access to technical and vocational training and economic literacy
training to encourage economic self-sufficiency;
--Access to family planning;
--Access to adult literacy programs; and
--Access to emergency shelters to provide refuge from sexual and
physical abuse, violence in the home, exploitation, and
potential abduction.
Answer. Funding for programs for women of all ages, including the
fiscal year 2009 Supplemental, is described below. The effects of USAID
programming in support of Afghan women and girls will be described in
more detail in a report scheduled for later in this fiscal year.
Fiscal Year 2009 Supplemental
In the proposed fiscal year 2009 Spring Supplemental, USAID has
identified notionally the following:
--$3 million to increase access to legal aid through Ministry of
Justice and select NGO legal services centers and capacity
building for the MoJ.
--Up to $20 million will be used to support gender-focused
activities, including (1) establishing a Women's Leadership
Development Institute \1\, where women are trained to exercise
leadership in key sectors, and (2) upgrading Women's Resource
Centers in select provinces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Women's Leadership Development Institute will facilitate
the growth of active, competent and politically astute women leaders
and entrepreneurs in selected sectors. It will train women to exercise
transformative leadership in key sectors and provide advisory support
to women who are already in decision-making positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Programming for women will be integrated throughout the $129
million funding for stabilization activities and include small
community grants identified by the Afghan local governments.
--Women will also be key beneficiaries of the $135 million for Cash-
for-Work activities which will be aimed at assisting women
through short-term jobs for urban and rural families.
As part of a larger, more comprehensive leadership and capacity
building strategy for women, the Institute could assume responsibility
for leading that strategy development process, organizing career
planning, customizing capacity building programs for key sectors and
building partnerships among women and men, and solidarity through
professional and mentorship networks and inter-agency initiatives.
Fiscal Year 2009 Base
In the fiscal year 2009 base, USAID expects to spend at least $85
million for USAID's ongoing activities across all sectors to support
women and girls in Afghanistan.
Programs across the sectors will address urgent humanitarian and
``catch up'' needs in health, nutrition, literacy and education, and
they will sharpen the skills of women's civil society organizations so
they can more effectively deliver essential services and play an
effective advocacy role for peace, justice and good governance.
Additionally, USAID plans to spend $15 million to support Women and
Girls' NGOs, through a new umbrella grant program that is under
consideration.
Fiscal Year 2010 Request
In fiscal year 2010, we expect to spend at least $85 million for
activities supporting women and girls and to support Women and Girls'
NGOs, we expect to spend $12 million or more, depending on the
absorptive capacity of the Afghan NGO community.
Fiscal Year 2008
USAID provided at least $79 million in fiscal year 2008 in
activities that specifically support girls and women. Generally this
assistance fell into the following categories:
--Providing basic services benefitting women and girls as components
of large programs: maternal and child health; education (basic,
secondary, tertiary, vocational), literacy and productive
skills; economic opportunities including business development
services (training, planning, marketing) and finance;
agribusiness economic opportunities--tree nurseries, poultry
and egg production, processing; access to justice; and
elections--registration and voting.
--Strengthening gender policy and advocacy capacity: Ministry of
Women's Affairs--National; Ministry of Women's Affairs--
provincial, district, municipal and community levels;
Parliamentary Commissions; National Action Plan for the Women
of Afghanistan; Gender within the ANDS; and Afghan Human Rights
Commission.
--Strengthening gender focused civil society: Capacity building and
small grants program for Women and Girls--focused NGO's
providing services of all types--e.g. education, health,
training, prevention and mitigation of family violence, etc.;
and women-focused and women's components of national business
organizations.
The above activities are illustrative only; there are many aspects
of the USAID program that benefit all Afghans with effects that are
difficult to attribute to girls and women. For example, rural roads,
national economic reforms, electricity programs for Kabul and major
cities in the south; water and sanitation projects; broad rule of law
activities; local governance strengthening; and, courthouses and
district administration buildings.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
Question. The 2008 Farm Bill requires a specified amount of Public
Law 480 funds to be used for non-emergency programs. Has that provision
reduced the amount that otherwise would have been available for
emergency operations? If so, by how much?
Answer. It is correct that the 2008 Farm Bill requires a specified
amount of Public Law 480 Title II funds to be used for non-emergency
programs. This is resulting in $25 million to $100 million less for
emergency food aid each year from 2009-2012. In fiscal year 2008, we
programmed $354.3 million in non-emergency food aid. The levels
specified for non-emergency food aid in the Farm Bill are: fiscal year
2009--$375 million; fiscal year 2010--$400 million; fiscal year 2011--
$425 million; and fiscal year 2012--$450 million.
In fiscal year 2009, we must shift $25 million from emergency
programs to meet the requirement for $375 million in non-emergency food
aid, and in fiscal year 2010 we must shift $50 million from the fiscal
year 2008 base to meet the requirement for $400 million in non-
emergency programs. This non-emergency requirement increases by another
$25 million in fiscal year 2011 and 2012, requiring shifting more
funds. While non-emergency food aid programs have an important long-
term impact, we remain concerned that they are being increased at the
expense of funds for emergency feeding.
Question. Is it your understanding that donations from other
countries are keeping pace with the overall rise in demand?
Answer. The United States provided $2 billion of the $5 billion in
resources collected by the World Food Program (WFP) in CY 2008--some 40
percent of total donations that year. The U.S. share of total donations
was in line with previous years, and we continued to be the world's
single largest food aid donor.
WFP reports in its April 2009 Operations and Resourcing Update that
the amount of contributions received so far this year is comparable to
the funding level at the same time last year. However, it further
reports that the need for humanitarian assistance has increased
significantly, and relatively more funds are needed. WFP is projecting
its needs for CY 2009 to be at approximately $6.371 billion (of which
$5.7 billion is for emergency and protracted relief and recovery
operations). It currently has $3.451 billion available in resources (of
which $1.1 billion is in new contributions), leaving a gap of $2.92
billion. We understand that due to currency fluctuations, WFP expects
that contributions from other countries will be at a lower U.S. dollar
value than last year.
Question. Can you describe any differences in how the World Food
Program (WFP) defines a food ``emergency'' from what your definition
might be?
Answer. All activities included in WFP's Emergency Operations
(EMOPs) and Protracted Relief and Recovery Operations (PRROs) appeals
are considered by WFP to be ``emergency'' food assistance needs. An
EMOP or PRRO may both contain some activities that the U.S. Government
clearly defines as emergency activities, such as direct distribution of
food to victims of natural disasters, internally displaced people
(IDPs) or refugees, and some activities that the U.S. Government does
not consider an appropriate use of emergency resources. The provision
of U.S. Government emergency resources is generally for a more limited
set of activities than WFP proposes. WFP may include within the scope
of its emergency programs recovery activities that we would consider
developmental, such as certain food for work or training programs that
exceed immediate livelihood needs. The total budgetary and program of
work needs for EMOPs and PRROs for which WFP is appealing to donors in
CY 2009 is $5.7 billion.
Question. Do you think that some of the food-security items in your
supplemental request, beyond the Public Law 480 item, could involve
USDA participation?
Would you work with us to identify what some of those may be?
Answer. An interagency team (Interagency Policy Committee, or IPC)
has been established to ensure coordination in all USG food security
interventions--including those supported with the current supplemental
funding request. State Department co-chairs this Committee with the
National Security Council, and USAID and USDA are key participants. The
committee has met twice over the past several weeks to begin to
identify areas where closer collaboration will increase the efficiency
and impact of USG resources provided for agriculture and food security.
Over the next weeks and months we expect USDA, together with USAID,
State, USTR, Treasury, and other USG agencies to develop an integrated
plan of action to reduce global hunger and improve global food
security, beginning with increased coordination between USG agencies,
and extending to better partnership with other donors, national
governments, private sector, and civil society. One expected outcome of
this process will be an increased role for USDA in capacity building.
We will be pleased to work with the Congress at an early stage of
development of the integrated plan of action.
Question. Would the Department of State benefit from collaborating
with Defense in using these tools to assist you in managing
international crises? What funding would you need and how would such
funds be used?
Answer. Thank you for your interest in strengthening the tools at
the Department's disposal to address the influenza outbreak and other
near-term disasters. We are currently exploring the full range of our
capabilities and, where any gaps exist, the extent to which the
Department of Defense can support our efforts. We will provide you with
more detailed information as soon as it becomes available.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
Question. Senators Bond, Murray, Dodd, Whitehouse, Cardin and
others have joined me on a bill (S. 355) the Increasing America's
Global Development Capacity Act that would triple the number of USAID
Foreign Service Officers over the next 3 years. Are there other ways in
which Congress can help in rebuilding capacity at USAID?
Answer. The President and I have made rebuilding our civilian
capacity to undertake development and diplomacy a high priority. I
would like to thank you for your support in that regard.
USAID is a resilient organization and has become creative in
finding ways to continue to meet an expanding development mandate,
while its operational resources have diminished over the past 15 years.
The Agency's staffing levels and core business systems have not kept
pace with increased program funding levels and the complex development
environments in which the Agency operates.
USAID needs sustained Congressional support for requested levels of
Operating Expense (OE) and Capital Investment Fund (CIF) accounts over
the next few years. Further, increased flexibility in funding
availability for the OE account would be beneficial to the Agency's
revitalization efforts.
With Congressional support including adequate levels of OE and CIF
funding, USAID will rebuild capacity while developing new systems and
ways of doing business including:
--Building a high-performing and diverse workforce that is
strategically aligned with USG priorities including
establishing cutting edge training for existing staff as well
as new hires.
--Re-establishing strategic planning, policy formulation, evaluation,
and resource management at global, regional, and country
levels;
--Greater tailoring of aid delivery modes such as host country
contracting, smaller grants, and multilateral funding pools;
--Increasing flexibility for meeting demanding new staffing needs and
establishing new working space overseas;
--Enhancing development impact and efficiency by placing development
technical and support services in the most efficient locations,
including regional centers; and
--Modernizing and globally deploying a suite of systems to meet
Agency business needs and increase transparency.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
Question. Do U.S. military clinics and hospitals overseas have
sufficient staff, capacity, and medical supplies to treat military
personnel and their families in the event of a major outbreak, or will
U.S. military families have to seek treatment at host nation medical
facilities?
The Department of State defers to the Department of Defense which
has jurisdiction over this matter.
Question. Secretary Clinton, I would ask you the same question in
relation to U.S. embassy personnel and their families overseas,
especially those in places like Baghdad or Kabul where they may face
special challenges in dealing with an outbreak of swine flu.
Answer. We are closely following the 2009 H1N1 flu developments
around the world. In preparation for such events, the Department had
prepared a Pandemic Influenza Plan and has recently convened the
Influenza Outbreak Taskforce.
For our overseas missions, all posts have pandemic plans and
stockpiles of antiviral medication and personal protective equipment to
help ensure continuity of operations while minimizing exposure of staff
and their families to disease. Our Office of Medical Services maintains
health units at over 180 missions, which provide primary medical care
and coordinates access to specialty care when needed.
The Department also provides additional assistance to our overseas
missions, including providing departure options when determined to be
necessary and where feasible. We are, however, aware a pandemic may
eliminate normal departure options, requiring overseas employees and
local American citizens to remain in country. While our Embassies
cannot provide medical advice or provide medical services to the
public, they do provide information regarding local health care
providers and hospitals to those U.S. citizens.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Question. In 2005, former Chairman of Yukos Oil Company Mikhail
Khodorkovsky and his partner Platon Lebedev were convicted for fraud
tax evasion and embezzlement. Those charges have been the subject of
significant international scrutiny and the object of intense criticism
by human rights organizations that have raised concerns about alleged
due process violations. Additional charges have been brought against
these defendants and a second trial commenced last month. Has the
Administration raised this new case with Russian authorities? If so,
what was the response?
Answer. The Administration has been closely following the current
case against Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev. U.S. Embassy and
State Department officials have met with the defendants' legal teams
and are closely observing the trial. The State Department has
repeatedly and publicly urged Russian officials to respect the rule of
law and the importance of due process in this, and in other cases and
will continue to do so.
Question. Has the State Department made any new diplomatic efforts
in the case of Sean Goldman, who has been kept in Brazil for years
without the consent of his father, David Goldman, in violation of
requirements under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction?
Answer. The State Department continues to monitor constantly and to
work diligently on the Sean Goldman case. We are using every diplomatic
tool to resolve this and the 51 other pending abduction cases in
Brazil. The Office of Children's Issues (CI) and Embassy Brasilia are
in frequent contact with the Brazilian Central Authority to discuss
specific patterns in the Brazilian judicial system that are not in
compliance with the 1980 Hague Convention on International Child
Abduction. U.S. officials at Embassy Brasilia, including the U.S.
Ambassador, continue to voice concern about Brazil's speed and efficacy
in upholding the Hague Convention, and meet regularly with interested
parties urging them to take action to improve Brazil's compliance. We
are raising this issue at the highest levels of government. As you may
know, I spoke to Foreign Minister Amorim regarding this matter.
In March 2009, CI staff met with Brazilian Consul General Barbuda
to discuss six abduction cases which were more than 18 months old as of
the end of fiscal year 2008, including Mr. Goldman's case, and to give
an overview of good practice in upholding the Hague Convention. CI
provided, at Consul General Barbuda's request, a list of the other
currently pending cases, with summaries of status on each case.
In late March, Embassy Brasilia also reiterated, via diplomatic
note, the State Department's interest in the expedited processing of
Mr. Goldman's Hague Application. We requested assurance from the
Brazilian Central Authority that the legal question before the
Brazilian federal court is that of the return of Sean Goldman to the
United States under the provisions of the 1980 Hague Convention.
In April, U.S. Embassy Brasilia requested clarification from
Special Secretary for Human Rights Vannuchi after local press articles
characterized his remarks to the Chamber of Deputies as indicating that
he wanted Sean to stay in Brazil. The Minister's office reassured
Embassy Brasilia that Secretary Vannuchi has no intention of changing
his office's support for Sean Goldman's return to the United States in
accordance with the terms of the Hague Convention. The Embassy has
continued to urge Secretary Vannuchi to publicly correct the public
impression of his remarks.
Our Consul General in Brasilia and the Western Hemisphere Affairs
(WHA) Abductions Division Chief are scheduled to meet with Brazilian
Central Authority officials, judges, and attorneys in mid-May to
discuss good practices and steps necessary to uphold the Hague
Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
We will continue to press the Brazilian government at all levels to
ensure Brazil's timely and expeditious compliance with The Hague
Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
Question. The current Migration and Refugee Assistance
recommendation in the supplemental for $294 million is for overseas
assistance and does not address the crisis facing refugees who are
resettled to the United States who are finding it increasingly
difficult to find jobs and stay in their homes, especially given the
current economic crisis. What is the State Department doing to
specifically address this need?
Answer. The Department of State recognizes that the economic
downturn has made it difficult for many newly resettled refugees to
find jobs, and that some are finding it difficult to meet basic needs.
For that reason, the Departments of State and Health and Human Services
are working to find solutions. The Department of State recently
announced that $5 million will be made available to refugee
resettlement agencies to help refugees with emergency housing needs. We
anticipate that this move will bring an element of relief. Programs for
the longer term needs of resettled refugees are housed within HHS'
Office of Refugee Resettlement. We are working with HHS to find
solutions.
Question. Piracy threatens the delivery of vital humanitarian
assistance to the Horn of Africa, much of which arrives by sea. In
Somalia, an estimated 3.2 million people, approximately 43 percent of
the population, required food aid in the latter half of 2008. U.S.
humanitarian assistance to Somalia totaled $270 million in 2008 and
over $157 million to date in fiscal year 2009. The administration has
requested $200 million in fiscal year 2009 supplemental International
Disaster Assistance funding and $300 million in fiscal year 2009
supplemental Public Law 480, Title II humanitarian assistance, in part
to address food and water shortages in Somalia, Ethiopia, and Sudan.
Officials from the World Food Program (WFP), which ships tens of
thousands of metric tons of food monthly to the Horn of Africa region,
report it has become more expensive to ship assistance to Mogadishu,
and that their ability to deliver relief is significantly hampered.
Both the M/V Maersk Alabama and the M/V Liberty Sun, two vessels that
pirates have targeted recently, are U.S.-flagged and crewed cargo
vessels contracted by the WFP to deliver USAID food assistance off the
southeast coast of Somalia. What is the U.S. Government doing to
protect these vessels carrying humanitarian assistance to the Horn of
Africa region from pirates?
The United States is deeply concerned by the unprecedented level of
piracy in waters off the coast of Somalia; its impact on commercial
shipping, the safety of mariners, and the delivery of critical
humanitarian assistance to Somalia and other countries in Africa; and
its deleterious effect on trade and development in the region. In
response, the USG has taken both diplomatic and military action:
As part of its diplomatic effort:
--The United States continues to address the problems on land in
Somalia, including assisting the Transitional Federal
Government and other moderates in Somalia to create political
and economic stability and address extremism. Without a long-
term solution to these problems, the blight of piracy off the
coast of Somalia will continue.
--The United States, dating back to June of last year, has led
efforts in the U.N. Security Council to support measures to
suppress piracy off the coast of Somalia leading to the
adoption of four resolutions.
--The United States co-sponsored Resolution 1851 (passed unanimously
on December 16, 2008) which urges countries to establish an
international cooperation mechanism as a common point of
contact for counter-piracy activities near Somalia. This
resolution also grants authority for states, for which advanced
notification has been delivered from the Transitional Federal
Government to the Secretary General, to take all necessary
measures to repress piracy in Somalia and urges states to
enhance the capacity of regional states to combat piracy.
--Pursuant to Resolution 1851, the USG convened the first meeting of
the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia (CGPCS) on
January 14, 2009, to coordinate an international approach to
the problem of piracy. During this first meeting, the 24
participating countries and five participating international
organizations established working groups to address military
and operational coordination and information sharing; address
judicial aspects of piracy; strengthen shipping self-awareness
and other capabilities; and improve diplomatic and public
information sharing.
--Since the initial Contact Group plenary, the four working groups
have met to address issues within their purview, a second
plenary meeting has taken place in Cairo (March 18), and four
additional countries have become Contact Group participants. A
third plenary meeting is scheduled for May 29th in New York.
--With regard to prosecution of suspected pirates, the United States
deeply appreciates the role that Kenya has played in bringing
suspected pirates to justice in accordance with an MOU signed
between the United States and Kenya in January, but also urges
states affected by piracy to fulfill their responsibilities to
deliver judicial consequences to suspected pirates. The United
States is actively encouraging states that are victims of
piracy to prosecute suspected pirates within their domestic
legal systems. The United States will prosecute pirates that
attack U.S. ships and citizens.
--We have also worked with industry and the International Maritime
Organization to develop and implement best practices to help
ships avoid piracy incidents, and disseminate those practices
to a wide audience.
As part of its military effort:
--U.S. Central Command's naval component has established Combined
Task Force 151 to conduct counter-piracy operations in and
around the Gulf of Aden, the Arabian Sea, the Indian Ocean and
the Red Sea.
--Ships from CTF 151 took part in preventing the hijacking of the M/V
Polaris and the M/V Prem Divya on February 11 and 12
respectively and took part in the successful outcome of the
Maersk Alabama incident.
--We would refer you to the Department of Defense for further
information on military actions to suppress piracy.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
Question. The fiscal year 2009 budget supplemental request included
$815 million in proposed appropriations in U.S. assistance to the
Palestinians to address both post-conflict humanitarian needs in Gaza
and reform, security and development priorities in the West Bank. The
request also proposed a provision which would seemingly shift the
requirement to accept Israel's right to exist, renounce violence and
abide by previous Israel-Palestinian agreements from Hamas to the
Palestinian government.
Under current law, Hamas is designated by the U.S. government as a
terrorist organization and under law may not receive federal aid. But
the administration has asked for changes that would permit aid to
continue flowing to Palestinians in the event that Hamas-backed
officials become part of a power-sharing Palestinian government.
If the proposed provision were to be enacted, what assurances can
the administration offer that U.S. taxpayers would not, even
indirectly, be supporting Palestinian terrorist groups?
Answer. In regards to the $715 million requested bilaterally for
the West Bank and Gaza, we have made it clear that no U.S. aid will
flow to Hamas or any entity controlled by Hamas. The United States only
will work with a Palestinian Authority government that unambiguously
and explicitly accepts the Quartet's principles: a commitment to non-
violence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements
and obligations, including the Roadmap. In the remote possibility that
Hamas should participate in a future PA government, the government and
all of its ministers or the equivalent must adhere to these principles,
and the government must speak with authority for all of its agencies
and instrumentalities.
Question. Madame Secretary, it is my understanding that the Russian
government is required to pay for the operating and maintenance cost of
the all the nuclear materials controls and security equipment the NNSA
has installed in Russian weapons facilities.
The Administration's request includes $44 million to support the
deployment of additional cameras, portal monitors and security upgrades
in Russia. This is on top of the billions of dollars spent by NNSA, the
Department of State and Department of Defense to secure Russian weapons
and special nuclear material.
What confidence do you have that the Russian government is prepared
to provide the necessary resources to support the investment we have
made in that country to secure weapons-grade material?
Answer. We believe NNSA's work is in the U.S. national security
interest. The funds requested will be used to support nuclear security
improvements to areas where NNSA has recently been granted access and
to tackle some of the tougher security challenges, such as tracking and
controlling nuclear materials at large facilities with very ``active''
inventories. It is critical that we continue to work with Russia on
these issues as long as the need exists.
At the same time, we are urging Russia to take over financial
responsibility. For the past several years, NNSA has been working with
our Russian partners, primarily the State Corporation for Atomic
Energy, Rosatom, to ensure they are prepared to sustain our sizeable
investment in the long term. NNSA and Rosatom have agreed to a Joint
Transition Plan which identifies fundamental requirements for
sustainable nuclear security programs and joint projects that will be
undertaken over the next few years to ensure that these fundamental
requirements are in place. Sustainability planning is also underway
with the Russian Ministry of Defense.
The success of these efforts ultimately depends on Russia's
willingness and ability to devote the necessary resources. We have
encouraged the Russian government to increase its nuclear security
budget and ensure that these funds are efficiently distributed to the
hundreds of nuclear facilities across the vast Russian territory. The
Russian nuclear security budget is classified; we have not yet seen
much evidence of increases in funding at sites where we are working.
Overall economic conditions in Russia have improved significantly from
when we first began our investments at its nuclear sites, but we know
that the recent economic crisis has hit Russia hard and that 2010
budgets are being reduced as a consequence. It remains to be seen how
the current global economic crisis is impacting Rosatom's budget and
specifically its allocations to sustaining nuclear security upgrades.
We are approaching Rosatom's transition into a state corporation
carefully to ensure that security gaps do not emerge in the process.
Question. Can you provide this committee with the appropriate data
to demonstrate that Russia has identified or committed resources in
their budgets to sustain these threat reduction measures?
Answer. The Russian nuclear security budget is classified; we have
not yet seen much evidence of increases in funding at sites where we
are working. We have some knowledge of federal program budgets for
combined environmental, safety, and security programs, but specific
security budgets are unavailable to us. This applies to Rosatom, the
Ministry of Defense, and the Ministry of the Interior. We have stressed
to Russia that these budgets should be more transparent in the future.
The NNSA security budget is published each year and includes
allocations for specific sub programs.
There is some evidence that Russian counterparts have taken on some
financial responsibility for nuclear security in recent years. For
example, the Russian Ministry of Defense has agreed to independently
sustain U.S.-funded upgrades at permanent warhead storage sites. NNSA
and the Russian Federal Customs Service (FCS) also are working as equal
partners to equip all (approx. 350-370) Russian border crossings with
radiation detection equipment.
Question. The Administration's supplemental request includes $35
million for the National Nuclear Security Administration to be used to
support its mission in North Korea. Considering the fact that the all
international inspectors and U.S. personnel have been kicked out of the
country, does the Administration still need this funding before the end
of this fiscal year?
Answer. The Administration must maintain a state of technical
readiness to re-deploy to the DPRK at any time in the future to resume
the important work of disablement of North Korea's plutonium production
program to pave the way for the verifiable elimination of the North
Korean nuclear program. It is prudent that we continue to develop
strategies and plans, and tools and technologies for the verifiable
elimination of North Korea's nuclear program, should the opportunity
for a resumption of denuclearization activities arise. Despite the
recent setback in the Six-Party Talks, DOE/NNSA still needs funding to
continue its preparatory work for eventual denuclearization activities
in North Korea. The long lead time for development and construction of
the necessary equipment and resources to undertake denuclearization
activities requires a continued and sustained level of effort. Finally,
we note this funding would be contingent on the President approving the
Glenn Amendment waiver.
Question. The Millennium Challenge Corporation has proven to be an
effective tool for American development assistance by reducing poverty
through sustainable economic growth and by creating incentives for
policy reform. Does the Administration plan to strengthen MCC's
incentive effect and potential for poverty reduction in a sustainable
way?
Answer. Under my leadership, the State Department will continue to
support MCC and its mission of sustainable poverty reduction through
long-term development as an important asset in America's foreign
assistance toolbox and as an important complement to other economic and
political tools that support prosperity and security with some of our
key partners in the developing world. MCC's focus on country ownership
and accountability has helped build local capacity, encourage broad
civil society consultation, and advance policy reform. MCC focuses on
working in countries where the policy climate is most fertile for using
assistance to generate sustainable results. This focus is yielding
meaningful poverty reduction and strengthening good governance,
economic freedom, and investments in people. As I review our
development assistance framework and goals, I will consider how best to
build on MCC's success within the Administration's overall development
assistance strategy.
Question. The Millennium Challenge Corporation has been called
``smart aid'' because it requires good governance, economic freedom and
investments in people before it engages with countries. However, the
MCC approach requires committing long-term funding upfront, in contrast
to other aid programs that spend their appropriated funds each year.
This approach has unfortunately made MCC vulnerable to being used as an
offset for amendments proposed by Members for other purposes, as it
appears that MCC has a large balance that is in fact already committed.
What do you plan to do to protect MCC from being used to offset other
short-term interests during the markup of the supplemental and during
the fiscal year 2010 appropriations cycle?
Answer. Unlike more traditional aid programs, MCC makes full,
upfront funding commitments when a Compact is signed and partner
countries manage the procurement and implementation processes through
an accountable entity. Initially, these factors, along with a generally
low level of government capacity and resources in many partner
countries, can slow down project development, implementation, and fund
disbursement rates. However, MCC believes--and I agree--that a focus on
country ownership and accountability, though more time consuming, is
critical to achieving accountable governance and sustainable results.
As Chair of the MCC Board, I will work with MCC to ensure that the
importance of this different approach is understood and valued.
Question. As you know, I am a strong supporter of microenterprise
programs that are operated by the State Department. These programs
provide a very impressive return on investment and have helped tens of
thousands of the world's poorest break the cycles of poverty. Will you
briefly talk about the State Department's plans for microenterprise
this year?
A couple of weeks ago, the President announced $100 million for the
creation of a new partnership of the Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF)
at the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the U.S. Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC), and the Inter-American Investment
Corporation (IIC) for the purpose of launching a new Microfinance
Growth Fund for the Western Hemisphere. The fund will provide stable
medium and longer-term sources of finance to microfinance institutions
and microfinance investment vehicles to help rebuild their capacity to
lend during this difficult period and to increase the supply of finance
for micro and small businesses as recovery takes hold.
The 2004 Microenterprise Results and Accountability Act requires
that 50 percent of all U.S. funding for microenterprise and
microfinance benefit the very poor--those living on less than $1.25 a
day. President Obama announced recently $100 million for the creation
of a new Microfinance Growth Fund for the Western Hemisphere. What
steps are being taken to ensure that this funding adheres to
legislative requirements and benefit those living on less than $1.25 a
day?
Answer. USAID's Microenterprise Development funding for fiscal year
2008 is estimated at $233,216,437. USAID expects to continue funding at
historical levels in fiscal year 2009, supporting programs in
microfinance, enterprise development, and enabling environment
development.
Over the next year, USAID's microenterprise development efforts
will focus on improving access to microfinance; driving innovation in
savings and insurance products from industry to better meet the needs
of the poor; increasing productivity and competitiveness; reducing
regulatory barriers affecting micro and small enterprises; securing
access to rural and urban land; making progress toward more equal legal
and property rights for women; linking remittances and diasporas' other
resources to development; improving microenterprise development
programming in post-conflict and rebuilding states; assessing and
disseminating effective approaches for transitioning second-tier
microfinance institutions to private capital; building the capacity of
new partners; and ensuring that the knowledge and innovation developed
is shared widely.
USAID will be utilizing microenterprise development and value chain
approaches to increase the participation of the ``ultra poor'' in rural
growth as part of the Agency's Global Food Security Answer. USAID is
also addressing the impact of the financial crisis on microfinance
institutions and their clients, through Development Credit Authority
(DCA) guarantees for microfinance institutions as well as ongoing
institutional capacity-building efforts and programs that improve
microentrepreneurs' access to markets.
With regard to the Microfinance Growth Fund, fund partners--the
Multilateral Investment Fund, Inter-American Investment Corporation,
and U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)--are still in
the process of seeking Board approval for their contributions and
establishing the specifics on the Fund's structure/lending mechanism.
We will work to make sure that each institution abides by its legal
requirements. At this point, OPIC is the only USG agency participating.
The 2004 Microenterprise Results and Accountability Act applies only to
USAID-funded microenterprise programs, and so does not apply directly
to any of the programs proposed under the Microfinance Growth Fund.
Question. The U.N. Human Rights Council, since its inception in
2006, has called for restrictions on free speech and ignored blatant
human rights abuses in a host of countries. With a seemingly ``singular
focus'' it has passed five separate resolutions condemning Israel,
including issuing resolutions over the Jewish state's recent incursions
in Gaza and Lebanon that exclude any mention of the terror groups Hamas
and Hezbollah. And it refuses to cite blatant rights abuses in places
like Iran, Zimbabwe, Burma, Sudan and North Korea.
Under this administration, the United States is now seeking to be a
part of this council at the U.N. General Assembly in 2 weeks as part of
its ``new era of engagement.'' Will you please outline the steps this
administration will take to ameliorate the U.N. human rights system
without legitimizing the trajectory the council has already taken?
Answer. This Administration is deeply concerned by the trajectory
of the Human Rights Council to date. The United States is running for a
seat on the Council because of our commitment to protecting and
promoting human rights globally. We believe that as a fully engaged
member of the Council, working from within rather than sitting on the
outside, we can more effectively and credibly work to advance human
rights and to improve a body that the President has identified as one
of the most troubled parts of the U.N. system.
This change will take time, and progress will undoubtedly be
uneven. As a member of the Human Rights Council, the United States will
be in a far better position to defend against, and if necessary
register its formal objections to, unbalanced attacks on Israel and to
call all Council members to account for attempts to do so. As a member,
the United States will be able to table resolutions and call for votes,
something that we could not do as an observer and that will allow us to
ensure that biased or unhelpful resolutions are not adopted by
consensus. Membership on the Council also gives the United States a
privileged speaking position on all matters before the body. This is
particularly important in defending our cherished principle of
unfettered freedom of speech.
We are under no illusions that this work will be easy, that U.S.
membership will ensure the Council does not take objectionable actions,
or that success will come quickly. This is a work in progress, and if
the United States does not work to advance the protection of human
rights in the U.N. system, we know that there will be other countries
who do not share our commitment to human rights that will fill that
vacuum. With the help of our partners, we will advance the vision of
the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights and help ensure that the U.N.
contributes meaningfully to the ability of people the world over to
enjoy their human rights and fundamental freedoms, to live freely, and
to participate fully in their societies.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
Question. President Obama, as a candidate, said last year:
``Sanctions are a critical part of our leverage to pressure North Korea
to act. They should only be lifted based on North Korean performance.
If the North Koreans do not meet their obligations, we should move
quickly to re-impose sanctions that have been waived, and consider new
restrictions going forward.''
In the time since this statement was made, the North Korean regime
has launched a multi-stage ballistic missile over mainland Japan
towards the western United States, kidnapped and imprisoned two of our
citizens, pulled out of the Six-Party Talks, kicked out international
nuclear inspectors and American monitors, restarted its nuclear
facilities, fell under investigation for shipping enriched uranium to
Iran, and just a few days ago, threatened to detonate another nuclear
weapon.
Rather than asking Congress to waive sanctions and give this
administration $100 million in economic support funds for this regime,
wouldn't the more appropriate and logical approach be to do what the
President himself said--to re-sanction North Korea?
Answer. North Korea continues to face wide-ranging sanctions under
international and domestic legal authorities, including those stemming
from its 2006 nuclear detonation, its proliferation activities, its
human rights violations, and its status as a communist state.
The United States remains committed to full implementation of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718, under which the DPRK
is required to suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile
program and to abandon its ballistic missile program in a complete,
verifiable and irreversible manner. In addition, under UNSCR 1718, the
DPRK is required to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear
programs, as well as all other existing weapons of mass destruction
programs.
In response to the DPRK's April 5 launch of a Taepo-Dong 2 missile,
the United States worked with members of the U.N. Security Council to
issue a clear and strong response to the launch. These efforts resulted
in a unanimous Presidential Statement that condemned the launch, made
plain that the launch was in contravention of UNSCR 1718, demanded that
North Korea refrain from further launches, and called upon the DPRK as
well as all member states to fully implement their obligations under
UNSCR 1718.
As agreed to in the Presidential Statement, the UNSCR 1718
Sanctions Committee on April 24 updated the list of missile-related
items that are subject to the restrictions in UNSCR 1718 on transfer to
and from the DPRK. The Sanctions Committee also designated three
entities as subject to the asset freeze provisions of UNSCR 1718. These
entities are Korean Mining Development Trading Company (KOMID), Korea
Ryonbong General Corporation, and Tanchon Commercial Bank.
These designations represent an important strengthening of the
existing UNSCR 1718 sanctions regime by the 1718 Sanctions Committee.
In particular, with the active support of the United States, the
Sanctions Committee agreed to subject entities to the asset freeze for
the first time since the adoption of the resolution in 2006. The United
States has urged countries to fully implement UNSCR 1718 and continues
to take appropriate measures to prevent North Korea from gaining access
to nuclear, other WMD, and ballistic-missile related technology and
equipment.
The United States continues to impose new sanctions as warranted on
North Korea and related entities and individuals in response to North
Korea's proliferation activities and pursuant to U.S. and international
law. North Korean entities were most recently sanctioned by the United
States in February 2009 for missile-related proliferation activities.
Question. If, as Secretary Clinton stated in her testimony, that it
is ``implausible, if not impossible'' that North Korea will return to
the Six-Party Talks this year, and that there is ``no interest and no
willingness'' to give any economic aid, including fuel oil, then why
should Congress appropriate $100 million for this purpose?
Is the Administration concerned about the signal this would send to
other states like Iran, Venezuela, Syria, and Sudan, if we reward a
regime that is engaging in the most basic form of diplomatic blackmail:
taking our citizens hostage and threatening illegal nuclear detonation
unless we pay them off to return to the negotiating table?
Answer. The United States continues to pursue the verifiable
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. We have
called on North Korea to cease its provocative actions and return to
negotiations. North Korea's recent actions only underscore the urgency
and importance of North Korean denuclearization.
The Administration's fiscal year 2009 Supplemental request for
funding for North Korean denuclearization activities is necessary to
advance our denuclearization goals. Regardless of recent North Korean
behavior, it is necessary to request these funds now so we can be
prepared to act immediately if North Korea returns to the table and
takes the necessary steps to meet its commitments as agreed in the Six-
Party Talks. This funding is a prudent measure to ensure that the
United States is prepared to take timely and effective action to
implement the dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear facilities. It
will also ensure the United States is in a position to provide North
Korea with continued, timely energy assistance in conjunction with
North Korea taking the needed steps to fully denuclearize. The United
States would only provide energy assistance to North Korea if it
resumed action on denuclearization.
Question. Was there any specific reason why the Administration
requested $95 million in ESF designated for North Korea, but did not
request any designated funds for addressing North Korean human rights?
It should be noted that significant amount of money was requested for
Palestinian humanitarian needs in Gaza and the West Bank.
Answer. The United States looks forward to a day when individuals
live in a free North Korea and have their rights fully respected. In
fiscal year 2009, Congress appropriated and the Department of State has
allocated $2.5 million to support important programs to document human
rights abuses, increase the flow of information into North Korea, and
build the capacity of the defector community. Because of the
availability of fiscal year 2009 funding, it was not necessary to
request additional funding in the fiscal year 2009 spring supplemental
request. We intend to continue such programming in the future.
Question. What portion of this $125 million will go directly to
UNRWA? What other international organizations will receive these funds?
Answer. Of the $125 million, $119 million would be provided to
UNRWA for emergency activities in the West Bank and Gaza, including
food assistance and the rehabilitation of UNRWA schools and health
clinics, as well as refugee shelter. Other international organizations,
including the International Committee of the Red Cross and World Food
Program would receive $6 million to provide humanitarian assistance in
Gaza.
Question. How can we ensure that the funding we contribute to UNRWA
will provide goods and services for humanitarian needs and not benefit
terrorist elements in Gaza? Are you confident that UNRWA is in full
compliance with Section 301(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act that
prohibits U.S. funding to UNRWA from going to terrorists? What specific
mechanisms does UNRWA have in place to ensure compliance?
Answer. The Department of State continues to be vigilant about
complying with U.S. laws designed to prevent any support to terrorists,
including section 301(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended. We will continue to closely monitor UNRWA to ensure that it
meets the condition required for our contributions by section 301(c).
UNRWA has written policies and procedures in place, undertakes
monitoring and inspection activities, and takes swift action to address
any allegations of wrongdoing. Accordingly, the Department believes
that UNRWA is in compliance with the section 301(c) condition for
funding.
UNRWA implements several measures to ensure the neutrality of its
staff. Long-standing staff regulations outline the neutrality,
integrity, and impartiality required of both international and locally
hired U.N. staff. With USG encouragement and funding, UNRWA has
developed a monitoring regime using fifteen international Operations
Support Officers (OSOs) in the West Bank and Gaza. These international
staff help ensure that UNRWA's facilities are not being misused for
political purposes or militant activity. The constant vigilance of the
OSOs helps ensure the neutrality and integrity of these installations.
Under procedures in place since 2002, the Commissioner General
sends semi-annual reports as standing practice to the Department of
State containing all relevant information regarding UNRWA's compliance
with the section 301(c) condition for funding, including documenting
any abuses, or attempted abuses, of UNRWA facilities. UNRWA provides
the names of staff to host governments on an annual basis and, on a
semi-annual basis, UNRWA checks the names of all 4.6 million UNRWA-
registered refugees, as well as persons and entities to whom or to
which the Agency made payments against the U.N. al-Qaida/Taliban
sanctions list (also known as the 1267 list). In its February 2009
semi-annual report, UNRWA reported no matches against the 1267 list.
UNRWA also responds immediately to any cases of alleged wrongdoing,
including militant or other illicit activities and overt political
participation or displays. Most recently, UNRWA immediately launched an
investigation following allegations of political interference in its
March staff union elections in Gaza, the results of which are pending.
UNRWA officials have stated that any UNRWA employee with political
affiliations would be disciplined or terminated.
Question. Shouldn't we being doing more within the United Nations
to reform UNRWA and to guarantee serious oversight? What is the
rationale, for example, for having Palestinian citizens of other
countries still qualify as refugees under UNRWA's rolls? Why should
UNRWA still exist in a place like Jordan where most Palestinians are
Jordanian citizens?
Answer. UNRWA is in the process of implementing important
management reform. The Organization Development Plan (ODP), initiated
in 2006, is designed to foster more strategic planning and to bridge
efficiency gaps, improving overall transparency, effectiveness of
management and service delivery. The ODP has also focused on
strengthening UNRWA's monitoring and evaluation processes, to provide
an integrated, strategic and results-based approach to UNRWA
programming. UNRWA's Advisory Commission, a quasi-governing body, of
which the United States is an active member, provides oversight of
progress made under the ODP and other UNRWA programs and activities.
UNRWA's finances are audited by the U.N. Board of Auditors (BOA), an
independent body, which reviews the Agency on a biennial basis. In its
last two audits of 2004-2005 and 2006-2007, the BOA gave UNRWA an
``unqualified'' audit, which signifies that the auditors performed an
extensive examination of UNRWA's financial records and have no
reservations regarding the accuracy and fairness of its presentation.
UNRWA's mandate to provide assistance to UNRWA-registered refugees
is defined by the United Nations. Jordan is the only country in UNRWA's
five fields of operations that has granted citizenship to most of the
1.9 million Palestinian refugees it hosts. UNRWA's mandate, which is
renewed every 3 years by the U.N. General Assembly, continues to cover
those Palestinians in Jordan whose homes or livelihoods were lost in
1948. The Government of Jordan strongly supports UNRWA and would be
expected to strongly object to any proposition by the international
community to cease funding for the Agency's operations there. Doing so
would place a great strain on the generosity of the Government of
Jordan and could leave the refugees without critical services, such as
education and primary healthcare. Furthermore, it would potentially
damage the relationship between the international community, including
the USG, and Jordan, which remains a key strategic ally in the Middle
East.
Question. The fiscal year 2009 supplemental request calls for $98.4
million in FMF for Lebanon to provide additional equipment and training
to the Lebanese Armed Forces. A Hezbollah-led majority in parliament
would give the terrorist organization control over the decisionmaking
process and possibly control over the LAF.
The fiscal year 2009 Omnibus bill included tighter congressional
oversight on the use of military assistance funds to Lebanon, making
funds available only to professionalize the LAF, strengthen border
security, interdict arms shipments, and combat terrorism. Does the
Supplemental request include the same oversight guidelines?
Answer. All FMF funds requested for Lebanon in the fiscal year 2009
supplemental will serve to professionalize the LAF and enhance its
counterterrorism and border security capabilities. Much of the
equipment is specifically linked to requirements identified by the LAF
in coordination with CENTCOM after the LAF's battle against Fatah al-
Islam terrorists in the summer of 2007.
There are numerous institutional checks on Hizballah's influence
over and within the LAF, including Lebanon's Christian presidency,
Christian command of the LAF, and confessional balance within LAF
units. We have no reason to believe that the June 7 elections, whatever
their outcome, will significantly affect the LAF's role as a national,
multi-confessional institution dedicated to the protection of Lebanese
citizens and the implementation of Security Council resolution 1701.
Furthermore, the LAF has an excellent record of control over its
U.S.-origin equipment, with not a single incident of loss or misuse
since we resumed FMF assistance in 2005. Nonetheless, we continue to
maintain strict end-use monitoring of all U.S.-origin equipment
provided to the LAF, including enhanced end-use monitoring for
sensitive equipment such as night-vision devices. We also vet all LAF
candidates for U.S.-sponsored training in accordance with the
Department's Leahy Amendment guidance; we have uncovered no derogatory
information to date.
Question. How is the State Department countering ideological
support for terrorism in Iraq?
Answer. Winning hearts and minds by addressing the underlying
causes of extremism is a key component in our counterterrorism effort.
In coordination with the Department of Defense and other organizations,
the Department of State is striving to counter ideological support for
terrorism in Iraq through Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs),
strategic communication efforts, economic and political development,
education, and judiciary reform programs. Examples of these efforts are
as follows:
--Najaf Legal Services Project.--The Najaf PRT is working with the
Najaf Bar Association to fund legal defense services to as many
as 1,000 detained criminal defendants who have not yet appeared
before a judge.
--Basrah Business Center.--The Anbar PRT has effectively utilized the
International Visitors Program (IVP) to organize delegations of
leaders from within and without the province. In 2007, they
brought together tribal leaders seeking economic assistance
with the provincial governor and provincial officials in order
to plug the disenfranchised into business opportunities.
--Simulating the Mechanics of Election Day.--Shining Hope
Organization taught rural, illiterate, handicapped and other
voters from traditionally marginalized groups about the
mechanics of voting in the upcoming elections in order to
ensure that they understand how votes are cast and counted and
to encourage them to participate in the 2009 provincial
elections.
Question. Does the State Department have a strategic communications
or public diplomacy strategy that it is following in Afghanistan and
Iraq and if so, does that strategy envision and involve interagency
participation and coordination?
Answer. Special Representative Holbrooke's office is coordinating a
major new integrated civilian-military program on strategic
communications in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan. It will
include three simultaneous projects that are essential: (1) redefining
our message; (2) connecting to the people on the ground through cell
phones, radio, and other means; and (3) identifying key communicators
and countering the militants fear-mongering and information domination
through local narrative. Additional personnel and structures in Kabul
and Islamabad/Peshawar are essential and we are working to resource
those requirements. We cannot win the information war if the debate is
between the United States and the militants. The objective of this new
effort is to shift the paradigm so the debate is between the tribal
people and the violent extremists who threaten and exploit them.
Question. Is the State Department currently coordinating its public
diplomacy efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq with the activities of USAID,
the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community? How?
Answer. In April, the Special Representative for Afghanistan and
Pakistan co-hosted with the Department of Defense (DOD) an interagency
meeting attended by over 50 representatives from State, DOD, the Agency
for International Development, and the Intelligence Community, to
discuss current strategic communication activities within Afghanistan
and the tribal area of Pakistan, and the urgent need for a new
comprehensive and coordinated plan for the region. Building on this
work, Richard Holbrooke is now establishing a new strategic
communications cell in his office, with staff from multiple agencies.
Question. How did the administration arrive at its request of $300
million for Public Law 480 Title II grants? Globally, how does food
security in 2009 compare to food security in 2008?
Answer. We focused on the most significant and severe emergencies
with the greatest food aid needs to determine our supplemental request.
These included programs in countries such as Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Kenya,
and Somalia. The request is an estimate of what is needed to provide
for the most urgent needs in these and other emergencies. It is
difficult to compare emergency food needs between years, especially
only part way through 2009. We believe, however, that overall needs for
the major emergencies--while still significant--are slightly less than
last year. This is coupled with somewhat lower commodity and
transportation costs as compared with last year.
Question. Will the requested level allow the United States to
maintain, at a minimum, the current level of support of food aid
operations in places like Afghanistan or Haiti for example? If support
for existing operations will be decreased from 2008 levels, please
specify which countries will receive lower levels of assistance and the
amount of the decrease, in dollars, beneficiaries, and tonnage.
With so many dire situations throughout the world how does USAID
prioritize where to direct relief?
Answer. We are continuously assessing emergency food aid needs
throughout the world, including through information provided by the
Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET), U.S. government
experts on the ground, the United Nations World Food Program, and
private voluntary organizations. It is difficult to compare support
provided to specific programs from one year to the next, given the
variability in terms of needs. Last year, Afghanistan had a poor
harvest and Haiti was struck by severe storms, so emergency food aid
reached unusually high levels in those countries. This year, by
contrast, Afghanistan's harvest has improved and hurricane season in
the Caribbean has not yet begun, so emergency food aid needs have thus
far returned to more normal levels. The $300 million request, however,
would allow us to provide more assistance to those countries and others
if events change.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator George Voinovich
Question. I am pleased to see President Obama's commitment to make
this the last planned war supplemental. But my question is why during a
year of unprecedented deficits, why are you coming back to Congress to
request yet another emergency funding request? Shouldn't your funding
compete in the regular order?
Answer. The fiscal year 2009 budget request that was submitted to
the Congress in February 2008 did not include full funding for all
programs, in particular programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq and
humanitarian assistance. It was always anticipated that additional
funding would be needed for these programs. In addition, other
unanticipated and urgent requirements have arisen since the submission
of the budget and the bridge supplemental.
The 2010 budget is intended to reduce reliance on emergency
supplemental appropriations by increasing key accounts and programs for
which funding is predictable and recurring. While emergency
supplementals may be required in the future, we expect that they will
be focused on truly unanticipated events as opposed to funding regular
programs. However, as we implement the President's strategy in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, it may become necessary to review the
resources available for programs in these countries.
The current emergency supplemental request addresses pressing
challenges that impact the security of the United States. The unstable
situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan demand urgent attention.
Emergency funding will be used to advance political and economic
stability in post-conflict areas, and to build capacity for effective
governance. Funds will enable military commanders to respond to
humanitarian relief and reconstruction needs in their areas of
responsibility. They will also meet the extraordinary security costs
associated with vital U.S. diplomatic activity in Iraq, Afghanistan and
Pakistan.
Question. International arms sales help to sustain U.S. jobs,
reduce the cost of weapons procurement by the Department of Defense,
help to grow small businesses, and support the national security and
foreign policy objectives of the U.S. government. The Obama
Administration must continue to support U.S. arms sales as an important
foreign policy tool.
I understand that some of our foreign military assistance funds
have been used by the Iraqis and Afghans for the procurement of Russian
aircraft and helicopters ill-equipped to interoperate with U.S.
personnel and hardware in the field. Can both of you elaborate on the
technical and policy rationale for such use of U.S. military
assistance?
Answer. By law, and with certain exceptions, State Department-
managed foreign military assistance can be used only to procure defense
articles and defense services from U.S. sources. We also are actively
working with the Government of Iraq for it to buy U.S. military
equipment through the Foreign Military Sales process. The Defense
Security Cooperation Agency, which is the implementing agency for
State's foreign military assistance, has confirmed that no State-
managed foreign military assistance has gone towards the procurement of
Russian aircraft or helicopters. The State Department defers to the
Department of Defense to respond to questions about ISFF and ASFF-
funded acquisitions.
Question. Madam Secretary, thank you for your April 20, 2009,
letter outlining the State Department's future steps and efforts to
help resolve an ongoing child custody case involving the Republic of
Korea. I appreciate you raising this case personally at the highest
levels during the recent G-20 Summit in London. I am also grateful for
the efforts of your team at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul as well as in
Washington on this important case.
As such, can you assure me that the Department of State will
continue to provide robust attention and resources to this case until a
fruitful resolution is reached in the Korean civil court process?
Answer. The Department has been fully engaged with Mr. Melanson
regarding the tragic abduction of his son, Eddie, since the earliest
moments after Eddie's mother abducted him to South Korea. Ambassador
Stephens and I have made Eddie's case a priority with the Korean
government and will continue to do so. On more than fifteen occasions
now, we have reached out to the Korean government to reiterate our
concern. We have worked hard on resolving Eddie's heart-wrenching
plight, and we will not diminish our efforts before there is a
resolution. We will continue to assist Mr. Melanson until there is a
resolution of the case or he no longer desires our assistance.
SPECIAL ENVOY TO COMBAT ANTI-SEMITISM
Question. In 2004, I was fortunate to have you join me as a
cosponsor of the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 (Public Law
108-332). As you know, this legislation created the Office of the
Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism at the State
Department. This office, housed in the Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor (DRL) is tasked with the development and
implementation of policies and projects to support efforts to combat
anti-Semitism.
Jewish communities throughout the world cannot afford a gap in
coverage. Can you provide the Committee an update on the status of the
search process for the new Special Envoy and assure members of the
Committee that this position will be expeditiously filled by a
competent and capable individual?
Answer. Filling the position of Special Envoy to Combat Anti-
Semitism is a priority for the Department of State. The Department is
committed to identifying an exceptionally qualified candidate that can
be announced to the public in the future.
______
Questions Submitted to Hon. Robert M. Gates
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
Question. Secretary Gates and Clinton, should we expect to see any
more war-related supplemental requests?
Answer. We fully support the Administration's goal of not
submitting any more war-related supplementals.
We believe the funding in the fiscal year 2009 supplemental request
will be adequate to support the current situation in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
We have, however, made it clear to the Administration that if the
security situation in theater changes significantly from the
assumptions that we used in putting together the overseas contingency
requests for either fiscal year 2009 or fiscal year 2010, then we will
be submitting a supplemental request.
Question. Secretary Gates and Clinton, will your fiscal year 2010
budget requests, which we expect to receive next week, contain detailed
war funding justifications?
Answer. Yes, the fiscal year 2010 President's budget request will
include justification for war requirements.
Question. Secretary Gates and Clinton, how long should the United
States expect to be in Afghanistan?
Answer. Our goals in Afghanistan are not time-limited, and neither
is our commitment. Eliminating the threats to our vital national
security interests will require long-term efforts to defeat al Qaeda
and build Afghanistan's capacity to ensure extremists never again find
safe haven in that country. To that end, the Administration is
developing measures of effectiveness that will help us assess progress
as we move forward in developing Afghanistan's capacity in security,
governance, and economic development.
Question. Secretary Gates and Clinton, what is the United States
doing to ensure greater NATO and U.N. participation in addressing the
war in Afghanistan?
Answer. We work in full partnership with both NATO and the United
Nations as well as regional stakeholders in both organizations. The USG
is working with Allies to translate the additional pledges of military
and civilian support made at the Strasbourg-Kehl NATO Summit into
action. The United States increased its own contributions to NATO's
mission in Afghanistan and will provide an additional 21,700 forces to
fulfill Commander ISAF's/U.S. Forces Afghanistan requirements.
In regard to the United Nations, the USG is working with its
partners and allies to strengthen the U.N. Assistance Mission in
Afghanistan (UNAMA) and its critical role in coordinating the wide
range of civilian activities on the ground. Specifically, we are
working to help the U.N. Special Representative in Afghanistan, Kai
Eide, secure the resources and authorities he needs to ensure mission
success.
As part of the recently released Afghanistan-Pakistan Strategic
Review, we strive to enhance civilian-military coordination and
implement an ``Integrated Approach'' in cooperation with the Afghan
government. NATO-U.N. cooperation is a critical component of that
strategy. The upcoming August elections are the most immediate and
consequential task for both NATO and the United Nations. UNAMA and
Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission will jointly observe
the election mission, while our Allies and partners in NATO have
offered around 3,000 additional forces for election security.
Question. Secretary Gates, should the United States be concerned
over the security of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal?
Answer. Just as the United States is concerned about the security
of all nuclear arsenals, the United States should be concerned about
the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. The Pakistani Army is
responsible for the security of those nuclear weapons and takes that
responsibility very seriously, with strong measures in place to ensure
that security. Of much greater concern is the fragility of the civilian
government and its seeming lack of capacity to deliver on basic
services: schools, healthcare, rule of law, and a strong judicial
system, particularly in the western areas where insurgents have had
recent successes. Helping Pakistan help Pakistanis in these areas is
how the United States can eliminate the conditions that give rise to
unrest.
Question. Secretary Gates, over the last few months, I have worked
with your staff to improve emergency medical evacuation and forward
surgical capabilities to treat our wounded servicemen and women in
Afghanistan. I appreciate your personal attention to this issue and
believe that the planned deployments should greatly improve the ability
to provide critical care. Only time will tell if this proves to be the
case. However, it has been brought to my attention that our ground
medical evacuation armored vehicle capabilities in both Iraq and
Afghanistan may also be wanting. In their draft supplemental budget
documentation, it is indicated that the Army requested 323 armored
medical evacuation vehicles. These vehicles were not, however, included
in the supplemental budget request. What are the plans and timing for
upgrading current armored medical evacuation vehicles with a suitable
next generation vehicle?
Answer. The Department is evaluating medical evacuation operations
requirements based on lessons learned in both Iraq and Afghanistan,
with particular emphasis on Afghan terrain and distances. Currently,
both theaters use a mix of both armored vehicles and medivac
helicopters to retrieve wounded personnel to medical facilities. An
Army proposal to use the Stryker vehicles for medical evacuations would
complement existing vehicles, notably the Fox combat vehicle. However,
due to the road conditions, and greater distances, the time to evacuate
personnel by land may be too long. The Department is evaluating various
options, thus is not fully committed to armored medical evacuation
vehicles as a suitable solution.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
ARMORED VEHICLES
Question. The one area of concern--which I know we all have for
every service-member in Afghanistan--is protection when traveling in
vehicles. We have seen a higher incidence of roadside bomb attacks in
Afghanistan, and the MRAP, which is a very heavy vehicle that is the
best protection against that threat but needs to operate on paved
roads, does not work well in Afghanistan.
I understand this supplemental request includes spending for the
so-called MRAP-All-Terrain Vehicle. The MRAP-ATV can go off-road and
still provide strong armor from attack. Can you confirm that this is a
priority and that the Department will rush it to the field, of course
ensuring that it is fully tested? Is any additional funding needed to
accelerate this development?
Answer. The Department is in the process of assessing the
requirement, both in quantities and system characteristics for the Mine
Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) All Terrain Vehicles (M-ATV) for
Afghanistan. Because of the significant differences in road conditions,
we believe that the MRAP vehicle that has worked so well in Iraq, would
not provide the off-road mobility that is desired in Afghanistan. For
this reason, we are in the process of evaluating several designs to
better address the Afghan environment. Funding is included in the
budget request for an additional 1,000 vehicles, which represents the
current estimate, which is subject to change as our theater commanders
gain a better perspective of the situation and requirements. For now,
we are in the process of evaluating candidate systems, and preparing
for a comprehensive testing program. For this reason, we do not believe
that accelerating the program would be beneficial.
USE OF NATIONAL GUARD TO COUNTER DRUGS FROM MEXICO
Question. The National Guard will likely be soon tasked to help in
the effort to counter the traffic in drugs from Mexico. As one of the
co-chairs, along with Senator Bond, of the National Guard Caucus, we
have seen how the Guard has a unique set of capabilities and experience
that make it well-suited to these tasks.
That said, we do not want to make this another Operation Jump
Start, which was difficult to manage and created needless challenges in
the Guard's abilities to carry out its other missions. It would be far
preferable for the Guard's efforts to be done through the existing,
highly successful National Guard Counterdrug program. How would you
feel if the Committee routed the $350 million request for the Guard's
counterdrug effort through the National Guard Counterdrug program?
Answer. The fiscal year 2009 supplemental request to provide $350
million for the administration to conduct counternarcotics and other
activities along the United States-Mexico border is requested as a DOD
transfer fund to provide the President with flexibility if he decides
that U.S. troops are needed. The President has not made a decision on
the use of additional U.S. troops at the border. Additionally, of the
$350 million, the Secretary of Defense may transfer up to $100 million
to other Federal agencies for border-related efforts to include
humanitarian activities. Appropriating the funds to the National Guard
would not enable such a transfer and would, therefore, not provide the
flexibility sought by the administration.
We agree the National Guard's efforts in the DOD Counterdrug
program have been highly successful but it would be premature to limit
the funding flexibility available to the President before he makes a
decision. The current wording in the fiscal year 2009 supplemental
request provides the President with flexibility to provide a wide range
of capabilities should he decide to deploy troops to the United States-
Mexico border.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
Question. I understand that the Department has undertaken ongoing
efforts directed towards medical situational awareness targeted at
international operations. It appears to me that medical situational
awareness initiative has application to our response to the current
outbreak of swine flu, as well as our response to potential bio-
terrorism threats.
Do you believe that any part of the Medical Situational Awareness
initiative can be deployed to help determine risk and allocate
resources for managing an influenza outbreak or other near-term
disaster, especially in the context of NORTHCOM's role in assisting
with a medical response? If so, do you contemplate using a portion of
the Administration's Supplemental request for $1.5 billion in
additional funds to fight pandemic flu for speeding up or bringing on-
line the Department's medical situational awareness initiative? What
funding would you need to complete the medical situational awareness
initiative and how would such funds be used?
Answer. Department of Defense efforts to maintain medical
situational awareness is led by the Division of Global Emerging
Infections Surveillance and Response of the Armed Forces Health
Surveillance Center, which maintains a global program of infectious
disease surveillance with 39 partners touching 111 countries. The
global influenza program has surveillance in 72 countries, including 20
U.S. ships, all Service recruit training facilities, and six clinics
along the Mexican border (four in California, two in Mexico). Overseas
laboratories in Thailand (Army), Kenya (Army), Peru (Navy), Indonesia/
Cambodia (Navy), and Egypt (Navy) are the foundation of our
international network.
While it is possible that a portion of the supplemental request
will go to pandemic influenza response, we have not made such a
decision.
The current surveillance system could be improved by accelerating
the Global Surveillance Network of the Medical Situational Awareness in
Theater program for early detection and timely response to disease
outbreaks in the United States and abroad. This program would:
Establish and maintain a network of English-speaking information
contributors in approximately 1,000 locations in the United States and
abroad; develop a reporting methodology and train the contributors on
reporting symptoms; deploy a system to gather and report on syndromes
throughout the world highlighting increases in syndromes in diverse
areas; and be deployed with more than 14,000 providers within 3 years.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
H1N1 FLU
Question. Secretary Gates, I am concerned about the global spread
of the H1N1 flu virus, particularly its potential impact on U.S.
military forces. U.S. troops forward deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan
live in very austere conditions in close quarters with many communal
facilities. I suspect that most of them do not routinely carry Purell
in their pockets, and clean water is often a scarce commodity in combat
zones.
What are DOD's contingency plans to prevent or to deal with an
outbreak of swine flu among U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Answer. The DOD has been preparing for an influenza pandemic for
the last 5 years. These preparations included developing and exercising
response plans, educating DOD military forces and other beneficiaries
on how to best prevent the spread of influenza, and building up global
stockpiles of medical supplies, equipment, antibiotics, and antiviral
medications. DOD developed policies on the distribution, release, and
use of antivirals, including Tamiflu and Relenza, the two drugs
currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) in the treatment of the H1N1 influenza that is the source of
current global concern. We also developed clinical practice guidelines
for our fixed facilities that reflect the current guidance provided by
CDC and we modified these guidelines to meet the needs of our medical
providers who are practicing in more austere field environments.
Because prevention of an outbreak may be difficult due to the
contagious nature of this disease, we have guidance in place to
minimize the spread and impact of outbreaks of influenza. Forward-
operating personnel who are suspected of having the disease will be
isolated when possible, and contacts will be treated prophylactically
with antivirals, if necessary. Units can take several measures even in
deployed settings to reduce risk of contracting H1N1. DOD has a history
of accurate surveillance, prevention, and control of respiratory
diseases in our Service member populations. The same measures we use to
prevent other respiratory diseases will be effective against H1N1.
Question. Does DOD need additional funds to meet this contingency?
Answer. It is possible that the DOD will require additional funds,
especially if transmission and disease severity increase. For example,
protective masks and antiviral medications are required for adequate
personnel protection, but we have no stockpiles of personal protective
equipment (PPE) for non-medical uses. Using antiviral medications for
protection rather than treatment requires a robust supply of these
drugs. Although we have a substantial supply, what we use in response
to this influenza will need replacement. The same applies to PPE and
antibiotics that we stockpiled at our medical treatment facilities. If
the H1N1 virus begins to demonstrate a pattern similar to that seen in
the 1918 pandemic, DOD may need to begin an immunization program
against one of the more common causes.
As we better understand of the disease dynamics of H1N1, we can
better estimate the impact on DOD and develop more precise cost
estimates.
Question. Does DOD have a sufficient stockpile of anti-viral drugs
such as Tamiflu to treat this disease if it evolves into a pandemic?
Answer. Our total stockpile of Tamiflu represents approximately
eight million treatment courses. With this, the DOD has an adequate
supply of antiviral drugs to meet our mission requirements, provided
the following assumptions hold true:
--Our antiviral supply will be used primarily to maintain mission
effectiveness. We continue to rely on the Strategic National
Stockpile (SNS) for antivirals for our beneficiary and retiree
populations. If substantial amounts of our stockpile were used
for dependents and retirees, then less would be available to
ensure meeting mission essential tasks. We anticipate that not
all of our beneficiaries and retirees will have access to the
SNS and have planned accordingly for these groups.
--The H1N1 virus must continue to be sensitive to Tamiflu. Tamiflu
represents the bulk of the DOD antiviral stockpile. If we need
to shift to other antiviral drugs such as Relenza, then our
current supply would be inadequate to meet our needs.
--Protecting Service members before exposure assures us that DOD's
national defense and civil support mission requirements can be
met. However, a pre-exposure approach uses a great deal of the
drugs and is very inefficient, but necessary in some instances.
If we are required to place significant numbers of Service
members in high risk settings where transmission of the H1N1
virus is likely, then our overall requirements for antiviral
drugs could exceed our current capacity. Our current guidance
reinforces that this strategy should be used only when
necessary and should not be widespread.
--Our supply will be adequate if an effective vaccine is provided to
DOD before a second wave of the pandemic. Current projections
from our colleagues at the Department of Health and Human
Services predict that vaccine may be available in early
September, with up to 600 million doses available by January
2010.
--The virus does not mutate. In 1918, most of those who caught the
flu and developed severe disease or died were young healthy
adults. This demographic is the same as the DOD population. If
we see a similar pattern, then antiviral use would increase
substantially.
--Although H1N1 is the cause of the current outbreak, H5N1 continues
to remain a primary threat. We need to be prepared if a mild
pandemic of H1N1 were followed by a severe H5N1 pandemic.
The threat of a pandemic will never go away, even when the current
H1N1 threat passes. We will need to replace antiviral stockpiles as
they are used to maintain our overall readiness to meet the challenges
ahead.
Question. Thousands of U.S. military personnel and their families
are stationed overseas, in places like Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea.
What is DOD doing to prevent and to prepare for the potential spread of
swine flu among American military populations overseas?
Answer. The DOD has been conducting an educational campaign aimed
at Service members, their families, DOD civilians, and contractor
personnel. This has been achieved through its website, the Department
of Defense Pandemic Influenza Watchboard, http://fhp.osd.mil/
aiWatchboard/. The website became operational 4 years ago and contains
posters and fact sheets (available through the Watchboard as well as
the DOD Family Readiness Library). In addition, each of the Services
and all DOD medical treatment facilities (MTFs) have conducted their
own educational campaigns. Through these campaigns, the DOD community
has been educated about the best methods to prevent the spread of the
flu virus, mainly through hand-washing, covering one's mouth when
sneezing or coughing, social distancing (including appropriate school
closures) and staying home when sick (self-quarantining). Because of
the logarithmic growth of a pandemic in a susceptible population, once
a virus with no known immunity has spread for 2 to 3 weeks, it becomes
impossible to totally eliminate it. However, the methods described
above will slow down the spread sufficiently to gain some control over
the magnitude of the pandemic and its effect on the population at risk.
DOD has made extensive preparations for the contingency of a
pandemic, and has included in these plans the building of stockpiles of
antivirals, including oseltamavir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza),
and other medications including antibiotics to treat secondary
bacterial pneumonia. DOD stockpiled medical supplies and durable
medical equipment, and required each military base and MTF to draft and
exercise a plan for a pandemic. The antiviral stockpiles are
prepositioned around the globe to facilitate rapid distribution
worldwide in the event of an influenza pandemic. The stockpiling of
Tamiflu and Relenza, to which the new H1N1 virus is susceptible,
would support DOD beneficiaries outside of the United States in this
pandemic.
We determined that DOD beneficiaries, including military families,
outside the United States might not be able to obtain medications,
especially antivirals, through the host nation. DOD planned to maintain
a sufficient stockpile within DOD to meet the demand of these
beneficiaries. We made similar provisions for medical supplies and
durable medical equipment, envisioning a scenario based on the highly
virulent H5N1 virus rather than what appears to be a much less virulent
H1N1 virus. Plans also include the use of additional facilities on
military installations, and training, credentialing, and use of
additional hospital personnel to serve as nurse and physician
extenders.
Question. Do U.S. military clinics and hospitals overseas have
sufficient staff, capacity, and medical supplies to treat military
personnel and their families in the event of a major outbreak, or will
U.S. military families have to seek treatment at host nation medical
facilities?
Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) has aggressively prepared
for a pandemic of influenza for the past 5 years. DOD has both local
and strategic stockpiles of the antiviral, oseltamivir (Tamiflu)
overseas. The strategic stockpiles are prepositioned around the globe
to facilitate distribution in preparation for an influenza pandemic.
Local stockpiles are held at overseas medical treatment facilities
(MTFs) in Europe and the Pacific and in depots for use in the U.S.
Central Command and U.S. Southern Command areas of operation. The
stockpiling of Tamiflu and Relenza, to which the new H1N1 virus is
susceptible, would support DOD beneficiaries outside of the United
States in this pandemic.
Through TRICARE, those U.S. DOD beneficiaries who do not have
access to care in an MTF or require care that is not available at local
MTFs, would receive their care at host nation facilities. This care is
contracted by TRICARE and the care provided is consistent with TRICARE
standards.
We determined that DOD beneficiaries, including military families,
outside the United States might not be able to obtain medications,
especially antivirals, through the host nation. DOD planned to maintain
a sufficient stockpile within DOD to meet the demand of these
beneficiaries. We made similar provisions for medical supplies and
durable medical equipment, envisioning a scenario based on the highly
virulent H5N1 virus rather than what appears to be a less virulent H1N1
virus. Plans also include the use of additional facilities on military
installations, and training, credentialing, and use of additional
hospital personnel to serve as nurse and physician extenders.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION IN AFGHANISTAN
Question. Last week, General Petraeus was asked about enduring
military installations in Afghanistan. I believe that Bagram has been
designated an enduring location, and it appears that Kandahar, if not
already an enduring location, is heading that way.
What is the difference between a permanent base and an enduring
base, and what is DOD's plan for establishing permanent or enduring
bases in Afghanistan?
Answer. DOD defines U.S. military presence through three posture
elements: the nature of host-nation relationships (and related legal
arrangements); the scale and duration of military activities and
missions; and the footprint of personnel and infrastructure.
DOD established a tiered terminology for applying these posture
elements and characterizing the desired level of U.S. military presence
at various locations overseas: Main Operating Bases (MOBs); Forward
Operating Sites (FOSs); and Cooperative Security Locations (CSLs).
In the context of our global defense posture plans, ``permanent''
and ``enduring'' are descriptive terms used by the Combatant Commanders
in connection with one of more of the elements of posture, depending on
the region and locations to which they are applied.
"Permanent'' generally describes a long-standing footprint of
personnel and infrastructure--e.g., permanently stationed forces
accompanied by family members, with extensive command and control
structures, and family support and quality of life services and
facilities. MOBs, generally, are ``permanent'' bases (e.g., Ramstein,
Germany; Mildenhall, United Kingdom; Kadena, Japan). ``Enduring''
generally describes the intent for long-standing host nation
relationships and U.S. military capabilities/mission needs. This term
could be applicable to MOBs with permanently stationed forces, but also
to FOSs. For example, at FOSs in Romania, Bulgaria, and Djibouti, our
plans involve limited permanent U.S. military support presence, but
long-term host nation relationships and the intent to maintain or
establish enduring, scalable operational hubs for rotational training
and other force projections missions.
The Department has continuous consultation with the CENTCOM
commander regarding required support to operations in Afghanistan,
including requirements to support ``enduring'' posture locations at
Bagram and Kandahar. The Department does not anticipate at this time
that these will be permanent bases.
Question. I have seen estimates that the United States could spend
as much as $4 billion for military construction in Afghanistan. How
much additional Milcon funding beyond this supplemental do you
anticipate needing for Afghanistan?
Answer. Our efforts are focused on supporting the immediate U.S.
force structure increases. In support of that effort our current fiscal
year 2010 Milcon estimates for Afghanistan are in the order of $1.5
billion.
Question. Would you please provide for the record the following
information: an accounting of how much funding has been appropriated to
date for military construction in Afghanistan, by location, project,
and fiscal year; for each project, how much of the appropriated amount
has been obligated to date; and what is the current projected military
construction requirement for Afghanistan?
Answer. The funding that has been appropriated to date for military
construction in Afghanistan, by location, project, and fiscal year
along with the associated obligations is at attachment 1. In terms of
projected military construction requirement for Afghanistan, our
efforts are focused on supporting the immediate U.S. force structure
increases. In support of that effort the current fiscal year 2010
Milcon estimate for Afghanistan is in the order of $1.5 billion.
In addition to the appropriated projects at attachment 1, we have
carried out, or are carrying out, construction projects in Afghanistan
under Title 10 U.S.C. sections 2803 and 2804 (attachment 2) and under
contingency construction authorities (CCA) that permit us to carry out
construction using Operation and Maintenance funds (attachment 3).
The following is a summary of all military construction in
Afghanistan:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved
Amount Obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriated............................ 1,303.7 820.6
10 U.S.C. 2803.......................... 10.8 10.8
10 U.S.C. 2808.......................... 104.6 93.8
CCA..................................... 496.0 86.9
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,915.1 1,011.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT 1.--AFGHANISTAN MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FISCAL YEAR 2003-FISCAL YEAR 2009 PROJECT LISTING
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriated
Service Fiscal Year Project Base Country Amount Obligations \1\ Funding Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2009... Bulk Fuel Storage & Supply Ph 8............... Bagram......... Afghanistan.... $26,000 ............... Fiscal Year 2009 Base
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2009... Bulk Fuel Storage & Supply Ph 5............... Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 22,000 ............... Fiscal Year 2009 Base
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2009... SOF HQ Complex................................ Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 19,000 ............... Fiscal Year 2009 Base
Air Force...................... Fiscal Year 2009... C-130 Maintenance Hangar...................... Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 27,400 $18,995 Fiscal Year 2009 Base
Air Force...................... Fiscal Year 2009... Cargo Handling Area Expansion................. Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 8,800 4,375 Fiscal Year 2009 Base
Air Force...................... Fiscal Year 2009... Refueler Ramp................................. Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 21,000 15,534 Fiscal Year 2009 Base
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2008... Administrative Building....................... Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 13,800 10,037 Fiscal Year 2008 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2008... Aircraft Maintenance Hangar................... Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 5,100 4,847 Fiscal Year 2008 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2008... Ammunition Supply Point....................... Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 62,000 ............... Fiscal Year 2008 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2008... Bulk Fuel Storage and Supply ph 3............. Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 23,000 20,205 Fiscal Year 2008 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2008... Bulk Fuel Storage and Supply ph 4............. Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 21,000 19,899 Fiscal Year 2008 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2008... New Roads..................................... Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 27,000 ............... Fiscal Year 2008 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2008... Power Plant................................... Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 41,000 37,713 Fiscal Year 2008 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2008... Rotary Wing Parking........................... Ghazni......... Afghanistan.... 5,000 ............... Fiscal Year 2008 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2008... Consolidated Compound......................... Kabul.......... Afghanistan.... 36,000 25,272 Fiscal Year 2008 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2008... Counter IED Road-Route Alaska................. Various........ Afghanistan.... 16,500 14,769 Fiscal Year 2008 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2008... Counter IED Road-Route Conn................... Various........ Afghanistan.... 54,000 ............... Fiscal Year 2008 Supp
Air Force...................... Fiscal Year 2008... East Side Helo Ramp........................... Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 44,400 28,490 Fiscal Year 2008 Supp
Air Force...................... Fiscal Year 2008... ISR Ramp...................................... Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 26,300 24,991 Fiscal Year 2008 Supp
Air Force...................... Fiscal Year 2008... Parallel Taxiway Phase 2...................... Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 21,400 15,411 Fiscal Year 2008 Supp
Air Force...................... Fiscal Year 2008... Strategic Ramp................................ Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 43,000 29,074 Fiscal Year 2008 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2008... Administrative Building....................... Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 13,800 10,037 Fiscal Year 2008 Base
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2007... Bulk Fuel Storage Phase I..................... Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 9,500 10,447 Fiscal Year 2007 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2007... Bulk Fuel Storage Phase II \2\................ Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 25,000 30,105 Fiscal Year 2007 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2007... CMU Barracks.................................. Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 17,000 15,513 Fiscal Year 2007 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2007... Communications System Facility................ Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 8,200 7,807 Fiscal Year 2007 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2007... Electrical Distribution Utility Chase......... Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 17,500 16,579 Fiscal Year 2007 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2007... Perimeter Fence & Guard Towers................ Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 8,900 9,250 Fiscal Year 2007 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2007... RSOI Surge Area............................... Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 14,000 14,214 Fiscal Year 2007 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2007... Storm Water Collection........................ Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 5,600 6,117 Fiscal Year 2007 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2007... Water Treatment & Distribution................ Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 22,000 22,766 Fiscal Year 2007 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2007... WWTP & Sewer Collection....................... Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 16,500 16,809 Fiscal Year 2007 Supp
Air Force...................... Fiscal Year 2007... Hot Cargo Pad & Access Road................... Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 7,300 7,321 Fiscal Year 2007 Supp
Air Force...................... Fiscal Year 2007... Parallel Taxiway.............................. Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 33,000 26,004 Fiscal Year 2007 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2007... Counter IED Roads............................. Various........ Afghanistan.... 369,700 201,446 Fiscal Year 2007 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2006... Kabul Consolidated Compound................... Kabul.......... Afghanistan.... 30,000 30,993 Fiscal Year 2006 Supp
Air Force...................... Fiscal Year 2006... Tanker Truck Offload Facility................. Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 19,600 16,834 Fiscal Year 2006 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2005... CMU Barracks.................................. Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 16,100 16,896 Fiscal Year 2005 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2005... Joint Operations Center....................... Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 6,400 5,061 Fiscal Year 2005 Supp
Air Force...................... Fiscal Year 2005... East Side Ramp/Support Infra.................. Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 17,600 8,181 Fiscal Year 2005 Supp
Air Force...................... Fiscal Year 2005... Control Tower................................. Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 10,200 6,176 Fiscal Year 2005 Supp
Air Force...................... Fiscal Year 2005... Cargo Handling Area........................... Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 1,800 1,629 Fiscal Year 2005 Supp
Air Force...................... Fiscal Year 2005... Coalition Forces Ramp......................... Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 1,400 1,403 Fiscal Year 2005 Supp
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2005... Ammunition Supply Point....................... Kandahar....... Afghanistan.... 16,000 16,178 Fiscal Year 2005 Supp
Air Force...................... Fiscal Year 2004... Airfield Runway Repair........................ Bagram......... Afghanistan.... 52,900 53,266 Fiscal Year 2004 Supp
-------------------------------
Total.................... ................... .............................................. ............... ............... 1,303,700 820,644 .........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Through March, 2009
\2\ A reprogramming increased the appropriated amount by $7,000,000 to $32,000,000.
Fiscal Year 2009 Base is Public Law 110-329; Fiscal Year 2008 Supp is Public Law 110-252; Fiscal Year 2008 Base is Public Law 110-161; Fiscal Year 2007 Supp is Public Law 110-28; Fiscal Year
2006 Supp is Public Law 109-234; Fiscal Year 2008 Supp is Public Law 109-13; Fiscal Year 2004 Supp is Public Law 108-132
ATTACHMENT 2.--AFGHANISTAN MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FISCAL YEAR 2003-FISCAL YEAR 2009 PROJECTS CARRIED OUT UNDER TITLE 10 SECTION 2803
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Fiscal Year Project Base Country Approved Obligations \1\ Funding Authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force...................... Fiscal Year 2004... CAS Ramp Extension............................ Bagram.......... Afghanistan.... $764 $764 Title 10 Section 2803
Air Force...................... Fiscal Year 2005... CAS Ramp Extension............................ Bagram.......... Afghanistan.... 1,116 1,116 Title 10 Section 2803
Air Force...................... Fiscal Year 2006... CAS Ramp Extension............................ Bagram.......... Afghanistan.... 4,381 4,381 Title 10 Section 2803
Air Force...................... Fiscal Year 2007... CAS Ramp Extension............................ Bagram.......... Afghanistan.... 4,539 4,539 Title 10 Section 2803
------------------------------
Total.................... ................... .............................................. ................ ............... 10,800 10,800 .........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Through March 2009.
AFGHANISTAN MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FISCAL YEAR 2003-FISCAL YEAR 2009 PROJECTS CARRIED OUT UNDER TITLE 10 SECTION 2808
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Fiscal Year Project Base Country Approved Obligations \1\ Funding Authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2007... Bagram Theater Internment Facility............ Bagram.......... Afghanistan.... $62,551 $62,551 Title 10 Section 2808
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2007... Barracks, Temporary, Phase 1.................. Bagram.......... Afghanistan.... 16,000 11,601 Title 10 Section 2808
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2007... Expand Bagram Roads........................... Bagram.......... Afghanistan.... 16,000 12,906 Title 10 Section 2808
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2007... Barracks,..................................... Bagram.......... Afghanistan.... 5,600 5,846 Title 10 Section 2808
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2007... Eastside Power Lines.......................... Bagram.......... Afghanistan.... 1,200 865 Title 10 Section 2808
------------------------------
Total.................... ................... .............................................. ................ ............... 104,600 93,769 .........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Through March 2009.
ATTACHMENT 3.--AFGHANISTAN MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FISCAL YEAR 2003-FISCAL YEAR 2009 PROJECTS CARRIED OUT UNDER FISCAL YEAR 2004 NDAA \1\ SECTION 2808, AS AMENDED
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding
Service Fiscal Year Project Base Country Approved Obligations \2\ Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army............................ Fiscal Year 2004... Hospital Facility............................. Bagram Airfield........... Afghanistan..... $16,380 $16,380 O&M
Army............................ Fiscal Year 2004... Ammunition Supply Point....................... Bagram Airfield........... Afghanistan..... 14,095 14,095 O&M
Army............................ Fiscal Year 2004... Entry Control Point........................... Bagram Airfield........... Afghanistan..... 12,874 12,874 O&M
Army............................ Fiscal Year 2005... Kabul Consolidated Compound................... Kabul..................... Afghanistan..... 1,400 1,362 O&M
Army............................ Fiscal Year 2007... Primary Electrical Distribution Grid.......... FOB Sharana............... Afghanistan..... 3,100 3,100 O&M
Army............................ Fiscal Year 2007... Camp Phoenix North Expansion.................. Kabul..................... Afghanistan..... 22,928 22,928 O&M
DIA............................. Fiscal Year 2007... Joint Intelligence Operations Facility........ Kabul..................... Afghanistan..... 2,700 2,700 O&M
Army............................ Fiscal Year 2008... Waste Water Treatment Facility................ Jalalabad Airfield........ Afghanistan..... 6,300 6,024 O&M
Army............................ Fiscal Year 2009... Rotary Wing Ramp and Taxiway PH............... Kandahar AB............... Afghanistan..... 25,000 ............... O&M
Army............................ Fiscal Year 2009... Rotary Wing Ramp and Taxiway PH............... Camp Bastion.............. Afghanistan..... 25,000 ............... O&M
Army............................ Fiscal Year 2009... RSOI Expansion................................ Kandahar AB............... Afghanistan..... 16,000 84 O&M
Army............................ Fiscal Year 2009... ECP and Access Road South Park................ Kandahar AB............... Afghanistan..... 9,400 64 O&M
Army............................ Fiscal Year 2009... South Park Infrastructure PH 1................ Kandahar AB............... Afghanistan..... 30,000 ............... O&M
Army............................ Fiscal Year 2009... Brigade Housing............................... Kandahar AB............... Afghanistan..... 25,000 ............... O&M
Army............................ Fiscal Year 2009... Relocation of Class 1 Yard.................... Kandahar AB............... Afghanistan..... 11,000 51 O&M
Army............................ Fiscal Year 2009... Rotary Wing Ramps & Taxiways.................. Shank..................... Afghanistan..... 36,000 ............... O&M
Air Force....................... Fiscal Year 2009... Strategic Airlift Apron....................... Camp Bastion.............. Afghanistan..... 47,000 ............... O&M
Air Force....................... Fiscal Year 2009... Runway........................................ Camp Bastion.............. Afghanistan..... 97,000 ............... O&M
Air Force....................... Fiscal Year 2009... Close Air Support Apron....................... Kandahar AB............... Afghanistan..... 37,000 ............... O&M
Air Force....................... Fiscal Year 2009... Upgrade Munitions Storage Area................ Kandahar AB............... Afghanistan..... 20,000 ............... O&M
Air Force....................... Fiscal Year 2009... Runway........................................ Shank..................... Afghanistan..... 22,000 ............... O&M
Air Force....................... Fiscal Year 2009... Airlift Apron................................. Shank..................... Afghanistan..... 8,600 ............... O&M
------------------------------
Total..................... ................... .............................................. .......................... ................ 488,777 79,662 .............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Defense Authorization Act.
\2\ Obligation data as of March 31, 2009.
AFGHANISTAN MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FISCAL YEAR 2003-FISCAL YEAR 2009 PROJECTS CARRIED OUT UNDER FISCAL YEAR 2003 EMERGENCY WARTIME SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, SECTION 1901
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Fiscal Year Project Base Country Approved Obligations \1\ Funding Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army........................... Fiscal Year 2003... JTF HQ........................................ Begram.......... Afghanistan.... $7,200 $7,200 O&M
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Obligation data as of March 31, 2009.
Question. What is DOD doing to ensure the maximum contribution from
NATO for the construction of military facilities in Afghanistan?
Answer. Executive Summary: We are using the pre-notification
process to NATO for the NSIP Program (described below) for all fiscal
year 2009 and fiscal year 2010 Milcon and CCA Projects in Afghanistan.
By doing so, we are posturing U.S. funded projects to be reimbursed by
NATO once they meet the criteria for NATO Common Funding. For example,
NATO's Infrastructure Committee is strongly considering common funding
for a recent U.S. nomination of a $30 million runway ramp extension
project in Southern Afghanistan.
Description: The U.S. NATO budget consists of the NATO Military
Budget (O&M) and the NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP). The NATO
Resource Support Branch (part of HQ USAREUR) in Mons, Belgium manages
appropriations for both programs.
--The NATO Military Budget funds the U.S. share of the day to day
operational costs associated with NATO. HQ Department of the
Army maintains oversight of the NATO Military Budget Program.
--The NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP) funds the acquisition
of common use systems and equipment; construction, upgrade and
restoration of operational facilities; and other related
programs and projects in support of NATO Strategic Concepts and
Military Strategy. The Office of DUSD(I&E), Installations
Requirements and Management Directorate, maintains oversight of
the program.
The United States, along with other allies, annually contributes an
agreed level of funding to the NSIP, provided through the Military
Construction Appropriations Act. The U.S. share, typically about a
quarter of the total budget, is a key factor in our leadership of NATO,
and for exerting our influence throughout the European region. The
United States derives significant operational benefits from NSIP
projects that support U.S. forces and personnel throughout Europe,
especially in NATO's Southern Region.
NSIP project requirements are stated in terms of Capability
Packages and are prioritized and approved by the NATO Military
Authorities. Nationally funded projects may be eligible for NSIP
reimbursement if they meet criteria for NATO Common Funding after the
fact due to use or mission changes. To be eligible for this Nations
must ``pre-notify'' the NSIP of intent to build.
Question. The supplemental request does not include any military
construction funding for Iraq. Do you anticipate requiring any further
Milcon funding for Iraq in fiscal year 2010 or in future budget
requests?
Answer. While we do not anticipate any additional requirements, the
drawdown coupled with the situation on the ground will drive any future
requests.
GUANTANAMO
Question. Secretary Gates, the supplemental request includes $50
million in the Iraq Freedom Fund to support the closure of the
Guantanamo detention center. The request specifically seeks
authorization for the expenditure of military construction funds for
projects not otherwise authorized by law.
What is the purpose of the military construction proviso? Is it
intended to give the department the flexibility to construct a new
prison, or renovate or expand an existing military facility, or is
there some other type of facility that could be required?
Answer. The purpose of the proviso is to give the Department of
Defense the ability to execute the pending decisions of the interagency
Special Task Force, which is working to identify options for the
disposition of detainees now at Guantanamo. The Task Force is co-
chaired by the Attorney General and Secretary of Defense. Any plan to
bring detainees to the United States will require legislation and the
support of Congress. I fully support the closure of detention
facilities at Guantanamo.
Question. What options are on the table for dealing with the
current detention facilities at Guantanamo once the detention center is
closed? Are you considering demolishing the existing facilities, or is
the Department considering other options, such as converting them to
migrant operation facilities?
Answer. The detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay will be closed
on or before January 22, 2010, in accordance with the President's
Executive Orders dated January 22, 2009. The Department, in
coordination with our interagency partners, is working diligently to
ensure that the government is prepared to implement that order.
After the Operation Enduring Freedom detainee mission undertaken by
Joint Task Force Guantanamo is completed, the Department has no plans
to transition the facilities into a different mission profile. The
facilities at Guantanamo were designed and constructed to serve the
mission of detaining al-Qaeda, Taliban, and associated forces. The
exact disposition of the facilities has not been determined.
It is also possible that the Guantanamo facilities will be deemed
by the Department of Justice to be covered by the federal court's
preservation order that requires DOD to preserve and maintain all
documents and information that relates to Guantanamo detainees. If so,
the facilities could not be dismantled until that preservation order is
no longer in effect.
AFRICOM
Question. Secretary Gates, the Associated Press reported Wednesday
that small numbers of Muslim extremists were leaving the border region
of Afghanistan and Pakistan and heading to East Africa, specifically
Somalia. That area of the continent has presented many challenges for
the United States in the past.
Will the fact that AFRICOM has very limited presence on the
continent diminish our capability to respond quickly to counter these
types of threats?
Answer. USAFRICOM's capacity is not diminished by its limited
presence on the continent. The Global Force Management (GFM) process
allows USAFRICOM, like all the other Geographic Combatant Commands, to
request forces and assets as necessary to accomplish missions tasked by
the Secretary of Defense. These requests are reviewed and approved by
the Secretary of Defense, allowing a dynamic balancing of military
force application between emerging requirements and ongoing sustained
operations.
Question. How large of an infrastructure footprint do you envision
for AFRICOM on the continent of Africa? Does the Department have plans
to construct any military facilities on the continent beyond Camp
Lemonier in Djibouti?
Answer. No, the Department does not have existing plans to
construct any military facilities on the continent beyond Camp
Lemonier. The Department has deferred a permanent location final
decision until fiscal year 2012. In the interim, the Department is
limiting expenditures on temporary USAFRICOM infrastructure until
decisions are made about the long-term on-continent locations for the
command.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE
RESEARCH
Question. In the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization
Act (Public Law 110-181), this Committee requested a Federally Funded
Research and Development Center assessment of DEPSCoR. The resulting
assessment demonstrated that DEPSCoR has successfully built research
capacity in participating states, including a finding that the DEPSCoR
states' share of non-DEPSCoR DOD science and engineering funding
steadily increased from inception of the program through fiscal year
2005 (the last year the assessment considered), despite wide variations
in DEPSCoR program funding level.
As this Administration considers how best to invest the
Department's limited 6.1 basic research dollars, can you provide to
this Committee an assurance that the DEPSCoR programmatic objective of
investing in historically underfunded states will remain a priority?
Answer. Senator Reed, the DEPSCoR program, coupled with the larger
EPSCoR programs run by six other agencies--the National Science
Foundation, Department of Energy, National Institutes of Health,
Department of Agriculture, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency--has indeed built
research capacity in participating states. However, it is not entirely
clear whether the increased capacity can be linked specifically to
DEPSCoR compared to the larger EPSCoR funding from the other agencies.
In general, the Department seeks to competitively build research
capacity across the entire nation. When the Department developed its
fiscal year 2009 budget, Secretary Gates personally made basic research
a priority, increasing our overall basic research accounts by nearly
$300 million. These funds are embedded in both Service University
Research Initiative and Defense Research Science programs. With this 16
percent real growth in basic research came the charge to invest the
funds in competitively awarded and peer reviewed research. Our belief
is the total amount awarded competitively from this $300 million
increase to the aggregated EPSCoR states should actually exceed the
amount of money requested in the traditional DEPSCoR program. If this
is the case, the intent of DEPSCoR program to build capacity in under
represented states would be met. As we finish the basic research awards
in fiscal year 2009, we will monitor the total amount allocated to
DEPSCoR states, and adjust policy accordingly.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Question. In September 2005, the Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) Commission recommended closing Fort Monmouth and transferring
functions to Aberdeen Proving Ground. Since that time, news and
government reports have surfaced raising significant concerns about the
rising costs of closing the base and the possibility that such a
closure could be disruptive in our military missions abroad. Does the
administration have plans to review the 2005 round of Base Realignment
and Closures? If so, is the decision to close Fort Monmouth under
review?
Answer. The Department has no legal authority to reconsider BRAC
recommendations and has never in its history sought such legal
authority. Additionally, the benefits of this recommendation (and all
other BRAC actions) are important to achieve and there would be
significant negative consequences of legislative reversal of any BRAC
recommendation. The Department is not aware of any effort in the
Administration to review the 2005 round of Base Realignment and Closure
broadly or the Fort Monmouth recommendation specifically.
Fort Monmouth is an acquisition and logistics installation with
little capacity for other purposes. The Army ranked it 50th of 97
installations in military value. Aberdeen was ranked 18th.
Implementation will save over $154 million annually beginning in fiscal
year 2012, reducing infrastructure overhead, even with the cost growth.
The Army's move of the Communications Electronics Command (CECOM) to
Aberdeen Proving Ground (a property of higher military value) greatly
enhances operational support to the GWOT and other contingency
operations by creating a combined Command, Control, Communications,
Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C\4\ISR)
technical and research facility with direct and valuable links to the
Aberdeen Proving Ground test communities and ranges.
Question. Piracy threatens the delivery of vital humanitarian
assistance to the Horn of Africa, much of which arrives by sea. In
Somalia, an estimated 3.2 million people, approximately 43 percent of
the population, required food aid in the latter half of 2008. U.S.
humanitarian assistance to Somalia totaled $270 million in 2008 and
over $157 million to date in fiscal year 2009. The administration has
requested $200 million in fiscal year 2009 supplemental International
Disaster Assistance funding and $300 million in fiscal year 2009
supplemental Public Law 480, Title II humanitarian assistance, in part
to address food and water shortages in Somalia, Ethiopia, and Sudan.
Officials from the World Food Program (WFP), which ships tens of
thousands of metric tons of food monthly to the Horn of Africa region,
report it has become more expensive to ship assistance to Mogadishu,
and that their ability to deliver relief is significantly hampered.
Both the M/V Maersk Alabama and the M/V Liberty Sun, two vessels that
pirates have targeted recently, are U.S.-flagged and crewed cargo
vessels contracted by the WFP to deliver USAID food assistance off the
southeast coast of Somalia. What is the U.S. Government doing to
protect these vessels carrying humanitarian assistance to the Horn of
Africa region from pirates?
Answer. Protection of WFP vessels transiting into and out of
Somalia has been of paramount concern since piracy off the Horn of
Africa began its upsurge in late August 2008, and is specifically
mentioned in U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1838, 1846 and 1851. In
August 2008, NAVCENT established the Maritime Security Patrol Area to
provide a relative safe haven for ships passing through the region. In
December 2008, the European Union formed its counter-piracy task force,
dubbed Operation Atalanta, drawing forces from Standing NATO Maritime
Group 2 (SNMG 2), with the specific mission of providing protective
escort for WFP vessels. Moreover, NATO has had SNMG 1 operating in the
region since March 2009 and extended its operations in the region until
June 2009, rather than deploying to its previously-scheduled operations
in Singapore and Australia. To focus more explicitly on the piracy vice
counterterrorism threat, NAVCENT established a separate task force in
early January 2009, CTF 51. At present CTF-151 includes vessels from
six nations. Overall, some 28 nations are conducting CP operations in
this region, including escort of WFP food aid.
Military operations are part of the solution, but cannot alone
address this problem. The United States advocates a multifaceted
international response including self-protection measures by commercial
shippers, and is considering the utility of working with regional
authorities inside Somalia to address the land-based origins of the
problem. This approach is reflected in an interagency Counter-Piracy
Action Plan (CPAP), and will continue to be monitored and executed
through an NSC-directed working group, the Counter-Piracy Steering
group (CPSG), co-chaired by the Department of State and Defense.
Additionally, the Department of State has moved forward in developing
an international contact group--the Contact Group on Countering Piracy
Off the Coast of Somalia (CGCPCS)--to coordinate efforts more
effectively with the other countries now contributing to this mission.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
F-22
Question. Secretary Gates, both at your press conference on April
6th as well as on two occasions after that you stated that there was no
military requirement for more than 187 F-22's and that the Air Force
agreed. However, both before your announcement as well as afterwards,
and specifically on April 13th, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force,
General Schwartz, said publicly that the military requirement for F-
22's was 243, not 187. Could you clarify where each of those numbers
originated and which number you feel best describes the strategic
requirements of the Air Force in the future?
Answer. Air Force analysis suggested that 243 F-22s would deliver
warfighting capability and sustainment at moderate levels of risk,
mitigating uncertainties of threats, scenarios, and F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter unknowns. In essence, it was suggested that 243 F-22s would
provide less risk than 187. After further consideration, however, the
Air Force and the Department agreed that 187 F-22s presented an
acceptable level of risk, and as a result, it was finally decided that
187 was the right quantity of F-22s. The Department along with the Air
Force assessed the military requirement for F-22s from many angles,
taking into account competing strategic priorities and complementary
programs and alternatives, all balanced within the context of available
resources. Based on warfighting experience over the past several years
and judgments about future threats, the Department revisited the
scenarios on which the Air Force based its assessment. Concurrently,
during this F-22 requirement review, the Department assessed the
broader road map for tactical air forces, and specifically the
relationship between the F-22 Raptor and the multi-role F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter. As a result, it was decided that 187 was the right
quantity of F-22s.
PAKISTAN
Question. Secretaries Gates and Clinton, the supplemental request
includes $3 billion in economic assistance and $400 million for
counterinsurgency operations efforts for Pakistan. If the continued
march to radicalization and Islamization in Pakistan cannot be halted
or diverted, how will these funds be used to secure U.S. interests in
the region? What future do you see in the region with the Taliban
gaining maneuverability and power in Pakistan? How would the realistic
possibility of a nuclear-armed state led by radical Islamist groups
affect our strategic posture, especially concerning nuclear deterrence
and missile defense?
Answer. The $3 billion for economic assistance and $400 million for
the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund are designed to build
Pakistani capacities in counterinsurgency, economic development, rule
of law, and education; thereby eliminating the destabilizing conditions
that give rise to concerns like those posited. The United States, and
increasingly Pakistan itself, recognize the extremist insurgency poses
a threat to Pakistan's government and the people of Pakistan. By
increasing the capabilities and capacity of the Pakistani Frontier
Corps and Pakistani Army in counterinsurgency operations, the United
States will help them secure their sovereign territory, deny terrorist
safe havens, and create favorable conditions for economic development.
At the same time, Pakistan's nuclear arsenal remains under the control
of the Pakistani military, which has strong measures in place to ensure
security of those weapons.
GUANTANAMO BAY
Question. Secretary Gates, the request before us includes up to $50
million to support the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility
that currently houses 240 of the United States' worst enemies in our
struggle against political and religious extremism and international
terrorism. I have serious concerns about the consequences of closing
the facility and even stronger concerns about the allocation of these
funds to transfer the prisoners according to an arbitrary deadline that
was promulgated during a political campaign. News reports have
indicated the Administration may be planning to release some detainees
directly into the United States and you Secretary Gates, have
specifically mentioned this possibility.
We have received very little information about the Administration's
specific plans for dealing with this issue, other than a request for
funds. I ask you now, what are your specific plans for closing the
facility, transferring the detainees and ensuring that they do not
cause greater harm to U.S. security both at home and abroad? Have you
planned for any contingencies that would include extending the
political deadline set during the campaign? What are the specific plans
concerning detainees that are not accepted in their home countries or
proxy countries?
Answer. The President's Executive Orders, which were signed on
January 22, 2009, stipulate that the Attorney General was to assess the
241 detainees at Guantanamo Bay and make disposition determinations.
That process is currently ongoing and is expected to be completed in
October 2009. Until the Attorney General makes a determination, the
Department is unable to comment on plans to transfer, prosecute, or
make some other lawful disposition.
The Department of Defense will take all appropriate security
measures to ensure that, if detainees are held under DOD control in the
United States, they are unable to pose a threat to the United States.
In addition, the Department of Justice is tasked with all law
enforcement activities within the United States. As such, the
Department of Justice will be best able to comment on any security
measures to ensure that detainees do not cause greater harm to U.S.
security. In cases where a detainee is to be transferred to another
country, the Department of Defense will work in coordination with the
Department of State to get security and humane treatment assurances
from countries that are willing to resettle GTMO detainees.
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Question. Secretary Gates, the Administration's request for $89.5
million for the National Nuclear Security Administration includes
funding for a live fire shooting range and railcar to support training
exercises for the Russian Ministry of Defense. I am told the Department
of Defense is also investing in this Russian Counter Training Center.
Considering that Russia is reinvesting in its military, do you
believe it is in the best interest of taxpayers to invest $6 million in
a live fire and training facility for the Russian military?
Answer. The figures quoted related to Department of Energy (DOE)
budget requests. DOD and DOE have conducted an integrated program to
improve Russian nuclear warhead security based on commitments by
President Bush at the 2005 U.S.-Russia Summit on Nuclear Security
(``Bratislava Summit''). DOD completed its Bratislava Commitments in
December 2008, and DOE competed its commitments in early 2009. As part
of the Bratislava commitments, and previous nuclear security
commitments undertaken prior to 2005, DOD and DOE provided a range of
training, equipment, and services to improve Russian guard forces'
capabilities to protect warhead storage bunkers. DOD and DOE also
provided special railcars used to transport warheads from operational
bases to dismantlement or enhanced-security storage facilities. One
element of DOD's early assistance under this program was provision of
12 self-contained small-arms practice ranges. DOD completed this work
in the 2004 timeframe. The final aspect of the Bratislava commitments
is improving Russia's ability to sustain the warhead security systems
installed by DOD and DOE. We are working with Russia and DOE to ensure
that this is accomplished; Russia will assume full responsibility for
sustainment by the end of 2012.
MISSILE DEFENSE
Question. Secretary Gates, based on your recent speeches it seems
as though the near-term focus of the Administration concerning missile
defense is on theater systems and completing the deployment of the
Ground-Based Missile Defense that can provide limited protection
against traditional threats. With an uncertain future that includes the
possibility of more nuclear-armed states with ICBM capabilities, what
measures are you considering to develop and strengthen systems that add
additional layers of protection to our missile defense system?
Answer. The ascent phase concept leverages existing sensors and
weapons and therefore offers a potential lower risk/lower cost solution
that could be fielded much more quickly than traditional boot-phase
concepts.
Question. While working to provide the best balance of systems to
protect against attack, what are your thoughts on investing in
flexible, adaptable, mobile weapon systems like Kinetic Energy
Interceptors (KEI) to counter emerging threats instead of continuing
the fielding of older, stationary systems? Would you agree that would
more accurately reflect a priority on programs that allow us to stay
ahead of evolving threats? Shouldn't we ensure that we are providing
adequate resources for flexible, next-generation weapon systems like
KEI, and sensors and command-and-control technologies?
Answer. [Deleted].
Question. Mid-course discrimination seems a tough problem and
continues to become harder as our enemies deploy more advanced future
threats. It has been widely discussed and agreed upon that it is more
effective to engage early, before a threat missile has had a chance to
deploy countermeasures or multiple warheads. If this is the case, why
would you target boost-phase systems for termination in the future
budget? If the currently designed systems were not proving adequate,
what plans do you have for other systems that would attack a missile
threat in the boost phase?
Answer. [Deleted].
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
DETAINEES
Question. Has the Department of Defense had any discussions with
U.S. state and local officials about the possibility of transferring
detainees from Guantanamo to locations in the United States? If not,
does it intend to do so?
Answer. As Secretary Gates has indicated in the past, the
Department has been working on contingency plans to close the detention
facility at Guantanamo for some time. Prior to the end of the Bush
Administration, the Department visited DOD facilities in various
states.
As previously stated, no decisions have yet been made to bring
detainees into the United States for continued detention. However, when
the facility at Guantanamo Bay closes, there will likely be some number
of detainees who are awaiting trial, are awaiting transfer or release,
or who cannot be tried, but who are too dangerous to release. For those
detainees, it is likely that we will need a facility or facilities in
the United States in which to house them. Pending the final decision on
the disposition of those detainees, the Department has not contacted
state and local officials about the possibility of transferring
detainees to their locations.
Question. Would you be willing to receive and consider formal
assessments of an installation's suitability for a detainee mission
from the commanders of installations where detainees might be sent?
Answer. The Department of Defense is willing to receive and
consider formal assessments of an instillation's suitability for a
detainee mission from the commanders of installations where detainees
may be sent. As part of the planning process, the Joint Staff conducted
site visits to assess possible locations for a post-GTMO detention
facility in the event that a decision was made to transfer detainees to
the United States. Each of those visits included receipt of information
from the appropriate installation commander. The Department of Justice
is also conducting assessments of possible post-GTMO sites should the
decision be made to transfer some detainees to the United States.
AID TO LEBANON
Question. The fiscal year 2009 supplemental request calls for $98.4
million in FMF for Lebanon to provide additional equipment and training
to the Lebanese Armed Forces. A Hezbollah-led majority in parliament
would give the terrorist organization control over the decisionmaking
process and possibly control over the LAF.
Why are we providing UAV's to the LAF? What assurances do we have
that those planes--or the information they provide--will not be
transferred to Hezbollah? Will restrictions be placed on where they can
fly?
Answer. The USG has provided four Raven unmanned aerial vehicle
systems, funded by fiscal year 2007 FMF supplemental funds, to the
Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to improve the LAF's border security and
counterterrorism capabilities, important aspects of our broader effort
to enhance the ability of Lebanese state institutions to exert
sovereign authority throughout the national territory. The requirement
for a tactical UAV capability was validated by two USCENTCOM
assessments and is an integral element of the LAF's 5 year plan to
enhance its ability to control Lebanon's borders and counter terrorist
threats in Lebanon. The LAF continues to have an impeccable end use
monitoring record for U.S. equipment. The Office of Defense Cooperation
in Beirut will implement enhanced end use monitoring requirements on
the Raven UAVs, including serial number verification twice a year. The
USG is working with the LAF to ensure that the Ravens will be operated
no closer than two miles from the Blue Line, the border between Lebanon
and Israel.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator George V. Voinovich
BUDGET PROCESS AND SUPPLEMENTAL SPENDING
Question. This increase in supplemental spending is outrageous when
you considered our long-term fiscal outlook. And we must have
entitlement reform to address our long-term fiscal problems, because
without meaningful reform we will spend all of the governments funds on
Medicare, social security, and interest.
I am pleased to see President Obama's commitment to make this the
last planned war supplemental. But my question is why during a year of
unprecedented deficits, why are you coming back to Congress to request
yet another emergency funding request? Shouldn't your funding compete
in the regular order?
Answer. After passing the fiscal year 2009 bridge funding in June
2008, Congress acknowledged: that the amount passed would only be
enough to cover about half the fiscal year, and that the new President
would need to submit a supplemental for the remainder. This
Congressional action necessitated use of a supplemental to cover war
costs for the rest of fiscal year 2009.
In the fiscal year 2010 budget request, the Department has included
$130 billion for overseas contingency operations (OCO). It is the
intent of the Administration that the Congress considers this $130
billion request along with $533.8 billion needed for the Department's
base budget.
FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING AND DEFENSE TRADE COOPERATION
Question. International arms sales help to sustain U.S. jobs,
reduce the cost of weapons procurement by the Department of Defense,
help to grow small businesses, and support the national security and
foreign policy objectives of the U.S. government. The Obama
Administration must continue to support U.S. arms sales as an important
foreign policy tool.
I understand that some of our foreign military assistance funds
have been used by the Iraqis and Afghans for the procurement of Russian
aircraft and helicopters ill-equipped to interoperate with U.S.
personnel and hardware in the field. Can both of you elaborate on the
technical and policy rationale for such use of U.S. military
assistance?
Answer. Iraq Security Forces Fund (DOD funds) funded approximately
40 percent and the Government of Iraq (GoI) funded approximately 60
percent of the Mi-17 aircraft procurement. The procurement is being
done by U.S. Army through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system. The
GoI requested that the United States buy the Mi-17 aircraft on its
behalf since the GoI had already purchased Mi-17s in 2005. The GoI
wanted standardization of its rotary wing fleet. Military commanders
assessed that, of the aircraft available, the Mi-17 was the ideal
medium-lift helicopter airframe for the relevant environment and pilot
skill level. The Department funded 40 percent of the aircraft
procurement in order to provide an incentive for the GoI to utilize the
FMS system to accelerate the development of the Iraqi Security Forces,
and to ensure that major acquisitions are transparent and free of
corruption. Congress received formal notification of the intent to
procure the Mi-17s through the FMS system in late 2006.
The United States has used Afghan Security Forces Funding (DOD
funds) to purchase Mi-17 aircraft and parts for the Afghan National
Army Air Corps (ANAAC) so that they can make an immediate contribution
to ongoing combat operations. The Mi-17's ability to operate in a high-
altitude, high temperature, rugged environment make it uniquely suited
for Afghanistan. Additionally, the Mi-17 is easy to operate and
maintain by personnel with limited technical skills. The Afghans had
been flying the Mi-17 since the early 1980s and are familiar with
operating and maintaining this platform. The ANAAC Mi-17s are
refurbished to ensure interoperability with U.S. and Coalition forces.
Additionally, many NATO and regional partners operate the Mi-17 and are
providing training and support to the ANAAC.
DOD FUNDING FOR COUNTERNARCOTICS/SOUTHWEST BORDER ACTIVITIES
Question. Can you provide the Committee in writing your plan for
the use of the $350 million included in the supplemental request for
the Department of Defense for counternarcotics and other activities on
the U.S. border with Mexico?
Answer. According to the request, the $350 million is ``for
counternarcotics and other activities including assistance to other
Federal agencies, on the United States' border with Mexico.'' The
Secretary of Defense may transfer the $350 million to ``appropriations
for military personnel, operation and maintenance, and procurement to
be available for the same purposes as the appropriation or fund to
which transferred.'' Of this $350 million, $100 million may be
transferred ``to any other Federal appropriations accounts, with the
concurrence of the head of the relevant Federal department or agency
for border-related activities.''
This $350 million provides the President flexibility should he
decide to deploy military personnel to the Southwest border in support
of Department of Homeland Security activities. The President has made
clear that the current situation does not require the militarization of
the border. The President also has made clear that he will continue to
monitor the situation at the border carefully and will take additional
steps if necessary to ensure the border remains secure. Should the
President determine that a military deployment is necessary, military
personnel would not operate in Mexico under this provision. Instead,
consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act and DOD policy limitations,
military personnel would provide non-law enforcement support to Border
Patrol agents. This $350 million in contingent DOD funding is a prudent
measure to ensure that adequate resources are available, on short
notice, if circumstances require increasing efforts to augment civilian
law enforcement activities along the Southwest border.
Question. Specifically, if you have any indication from the White
House or the Office of Management and Budget as to when decisions will
be made as to the use of these funds, what activities the Department of
Defense will perform, and which agencies will be supported?
Answer. The President continues to monitor the situation at the
border carefully and will take additional steps if necessary to ensure
the border remains secure.
DOD has been supporting Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
efforts to conduct a mission analysis regarding how to secure the
Southwest border. DOD has not finalized its planning for the type of
support to be provided to DHS, but I would note that the support
provided in the past by Joint Task Force North and support that was
provided during Operation Jump Start from 2006-2008 highlight represent
relevant examples of the kinds of support that DOD could provide:
aviation support, intelligence analysis, civil engineering, radar
coverage, and reconnaissance support.
COMMITTEE RECESS
Chairman Inouye. With that, I thank you very much. The
session is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., Thursday, April 30, the hearing
was concluded, and the committee was recessed to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
-