[Senate Hearing 108-73]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-73
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
MARCH 27, 2003--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
87-629 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
James W. Morhard, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Page
Statement of Hon. Tom Ridge, Secretary........................... 1
Opening Statement of Chairman Ted Stevens........................ 1
Prepared Statement of Senator Robert C. Byrd..................... 1
Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye................... 2
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu................... 2
Statement of Secretary Tom Ridge................................. 4
Wartime Supplemental Request..................................... 5
Office for Domestic Preparedness................................. 5
Counterterrorism Fund............................................ 6
Prepared Statement of Secretary Tom Ridge........................ 7
Introduction..................................................... 7
Wartime Supplemental Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2003......... 7
Office for Domestic Preparedness................................. 7
Counterterrorism Fund............................................ 8
First Responder Funding.......................................... 9
Expediting First Responder Funding............................... 10
Delays in Requesting Funds....................................... 11
Delays in Getting Funding Out.................................... 11
Nuclear Security................................................. 12
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Coast Guard..... 12
Federal Energy Management Agency (FEMA).......................... 13
Grant Formulas................................................... 14
Port Security Assessments........................................ 14
Intelligence Analysis............................................ 15
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act............................ 17
Port Security.................................................... 17
Switch Panels to Department of Defense........................... 18
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Statement of Hon. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense....... 21
Dov S. Zakheim, Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller.......... 21
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense...................... 21
Financing the Costs of the War................................... 22
Relief and Reconstruction........................................ 23
Flexibility Needed............................................... 24
Comparing Costs.................................................. 24
Prepared Statement of Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld............... 25
Statement of General Richard B. Myers, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of
Staff.......................................................... 27
Phases of the War in Iraq........................................ 29
How Much of Request Needs Flexibility............................ 30
Congress' Budget Role............................................ 31
Budget Flexibility............................................... 31
Timing of Supplemental Passage................................... 33
How Funds Will be Disbursed to Services.......................... 34
Direct Appropriation for Costs Already Incurred.................. 34
International Sources of Funds................................... 36
Overcommitted Manpower........................................... 37
Will More Funding Be Needed?..................................... 39
How Aid is Being Provided........................................ 39
Humanitarian or Reconstruction Aid for Afghanistan............... 40
What Budget Flexibility is Needed................................ 40
Time Frame of Supplemental Request............................... 41
Reconstruction Responsibilities.................................. 41
Cease Fire Initiative............................................ 42
Helping Military Families and Mobilized Reservists............... 42
Military Construction in the Supplemental........................ 44
Foreign Bases.................................................... 45
Responsibility for Reconstructing Iraq........................... 45
New Health Care Technologies..................................... 46
Clarification of Iraq Cease Fire Answer.......................... 49
What Will Happen in Baghdad...................................... 49
Iraqi Republican Guard Forces.................................... 50
Iraq Relief Operations........................................... 51
International Contributions...................................... 51
How Costs Were Estimated......................................... 53
Timing of Supplemental Request................................... 54
Iraq Reconstruction.............................................. 55
Special Military Pays............................................ 56
Funding for War on Terrorism..................................... 57
Assistance for Turkey............................................ 58
Secretary Wolfowitz's Earlier Views on Iraq...................... 58
Helping Families in Distress..................................... 60
Military Casualty Notification Process for Members of Congress... 60
Notification of the Next of Kin (NOK)............................ 61
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY--RESUMED
Fiscal Year 2003 and War Supplemental Funding.................... 65
Expediting First Responder Funding............................... 66
Vulnerabilities.................................................. 67
Protecting Privacy and Civil Liberties........................... 67
Privacy Officer.................................................. 68
Timing of Supplemental Request................................... 68
Need for Supplemental Request.................................... 69
Request for DOD.................................................. 70
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Request.................... 71
Spending Authorities............................................. 72
Need for Spending Flexibility.................................... 72
Preparing for Markup............................................. 73
Specifics of Supplemental Request................................ 73
Details of the Request........................................... 75
First Responder Funding.......................................... 76
First Responder Funding Aggregate................................ 77
Grant Formulas................................................... 78
Small State Minimums............................................. 79
Additional Committee Questions................................... 80
Questions Submitted to Hon. Tom Ridge............................ 80
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran...................... 80
Counterterrorism Fund............................................ 80
General Questions................................................ 81
Secret Service................................................... 82
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.......................... 82
United States Coast Guard........................................ 82
Transportation Security Administration........................... 84
Emergency Preparedness and Response.............................. 85
Question Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison............... 85
Question Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd..................... 86
Vulnerabilities.................................................. 86
Question Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin......................... 87
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray...................... 88
Inadequacy of $1.5 Billion Request for DHS Counterterrorism
Fund--Congressional Earmarks for Other Purposes................ 88
Details of the $1.5 Billion Request for the Counterterrorism Fund 89
24-Hour Manifest Rule--Lack of Action by Canada or Mexico........ 89
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu.................. 90
Coast Guard Fuel Shortages....................................... 90
First Responder Funding.......................................... 90
District of Columbia............................................. 90
Counter Terrorism Fund........................................... 91
Unfunded Requirements List....................................... 91
Questions Submitted to Hon. Donald H. Rumsfeld................... 91
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.............. 91
Question Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback...................... 92
Iraqi National Congress (INC).................................... 92
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein.................. 93
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu.................. 94
Military Assistance From Allies.................................. 94
Colombia......................................................... 95
Oil Fire Fighting................................................ 96
Buy American..................................................... 96
Guard and Reserve Procurement.................................... 96
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-106, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Specter, Domenici,
Bond, Burns, Shelby, Gregg, Bennett, Campbell, Hutchison,
DeWine, Brownback, Byrd, Inouye, Hollings, Leahy, Harkin,
Mikulski, Reid, Kohl, Murray, Dorgan, Feinstein, Durbin,
Johnson, and Landrieu.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM RIDGE, SECRETARY
opening statement of chairman ted stevens
Chairman Stevens. Please rise. Let us have a moment of
silent prayer for those who have given the supreme sacrifice or
who have been injured in this war.
Thank you all very much.
Mr. Secretary, we are delighted to see you here. These are
very difficult days for all of us to schedule. I do hope that
my colleagues will agree with me that we will just waive
opening statements and listen to your statement, which we will
place in the record in full. We hope you will shorten it as
much as possible.
Any member who wants to submit an opening statement can do
so, and they will be placed in the record at this point.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Robert C. Byrd
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. This is an
important funding request, and Congress has a responsibility to
thoroughly examine it and understand it. It is our job, as elected
representatives of the people, to ensure that this spending request
meets the needs of our troops overseas and our citizens here at home.
Equally important, we must make sure that this request does not commit
the nation to going beyond the current mission in Iraq, and that is
does not open the door to any unwise policy decisions taken in the name
of expediency.
I have said many times that I am committed to giving our troops in
Iraq the resources they need to ensure their safety and to win this
war. I am also committed to investing needed dollars in homeland
security measures to protect Americans here at home. This
Administration seems to be fixated on the military side of the equation
at the expense of the domestic side. I believe both are important, and
both deserve adequate funding.
Secretary Rumsfeld, I noted a comment you made at a Pentagon press
briefing the other day (March 25). In discussing the supplemental
request, you said, ``the budget figure the president announced up there
is not the cost of the war.'' You went on to say that the supplemental
covers funding needed by various agencies, including the Defense
Department, from the beginning of this fiscal year to where we are
today and hopefully through the rest of the year.
That is a very important point to make. The impression has been
left that this supplemental will cover the cost of the war. It will
not. It is merely a down payment on the cost of the war. Whether the
``major conflict'' phase of the war lasts weeks or months, the true
costs of the war, including the long term impact on the military and
the reconstruction and occupation of Iraq, will continue to accrue far
beyond the end of this fiscal year. The Administration has an
obligation to be honest and forthcoming with the American people about
the costs of this war, both in terms of the sacrifices that will be
demanded of our men and women in uniform and the financial obligations
that will be imposed on the American taxpayers far into the future.
I am also extremely concerned about the massive shift in
appropriations authority from the legislative to the executive branch
that is being proposed in this supplemental under the guise of
flexibility. Congress has the constitutional authority to appropriate
funds and the solemn responsibility to exercise that authority wisely.
Handing a check to the Secretary of Defense or Homeland Security or the
Attorney General without specifying how it is to be spent is not a
responsible exercise of the Congressional power of the purse. Stop-gap
spending bills are not the appropriate vehicle for setting long term
domestic, foreign, or defense policy.
That said, I welcome you, Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Ridge,
and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the supplemental funding
request before us today.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing today to
discuss the supplemental for the on going war on terrorism, including
the costs of the war in Iraq.
The administration is requesting an expedited consideration of this
measure to ensure that the Defense Department has the funding necessary
to continue to prosecute the war on terrorism.
I support the desire to get the funding to the military services. I
am sure there is a universal desire in the Congress to support our
military forces.
However, it is the responsibility of the Congress to oversee
Federal spending. It is challenging to do that when the administration
only submits its request one week before the committee must mark up the
bill in order to complete action prior to Easter.
I am grateful that the administration has agreed to send
Secretaries Ridge and Rumsfeld to testify today in order that they can
explain, and justify the funding that the administration seeks.
I know all my colleagues will do their part to complete action on
this bill before the recess, but I must note that the unwillingness of
the administration to submit this measure or discuss its plans in
advance of submitting the bill makes it extremely challenging for the
Congress to exercise its proper role under the Constitution.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Mr. Chairman: Allow me to open my remarks with a quotation:
``I need not tell you, gentlemen, that the world situation is very
serious. That must be apparent to all intelligent people. I think one
difficulty is that the problem is one of such enormous complexity that
the very mass of facts presented to the public by the press and radio
make it exceedingly difficult for the man in the street to reach a
clear appraisement of the situation. Furthermore, the people of this
country are distant from the troubled areas of the earth and it is hard
from them to comprehend the plight and consequent reactions of the
long-suffering peoples, and the effect of those reactions on their
governments in connection with our efforts to promote peace in the
world.''
That statement might have come from any policy maker in this
country, since we began the war against terrorism and campaign in Iraq.
However, it did not. It is the opening paragraph of George C.
Marshall's speech at Harvard University where he announced the Marshall
Plan.
I think this quote is important for two reasons. First of all, the
supplemental appropriations request from the President begins the
process of reconstruction in Iraq. So, the context is similar.
Secondly, the enterprise that we are about to undertake--the rebuilding
of Iraq--will require a similar fortitude and vision on the part of the
American people, and this Congress. It is not clear to me that we have
fully realized that yet. Therefore, it is important that we bear in
mind the wisdom of America's greatest foreign policy success, as we
work to create a new vision for the Middle East.
Mr. President, I have essentially three issues regarding this
supplemental request. Its sufficiency, its oversight, and its
objectives.
Starting with sufficiency, let me again reference the Marshall
Plan. As you all know, the Marshall plan occurred after occupation--it
was offered in 1947. It occurred after the fundamental infrastructure
was reestablished. That is what made it such a marvel. It was not a
plan to keep the Europeans afloat; they might have done this on their
own. It was a plan to help Europe flourish again. In a four-year
period, we spent $13.3 billion on the Marshall Plan. In today's dollars
that constitutes $107 billion. Again, that was not the cost of the war,
that was not the cost of the occupation--the Marshall Plan was
something quite different. However, the vision of the Marshall plan is
what this administration keeps alluding to in public. We will rebuild
Iraq's schools, their health care system. We will return Iraq to the
standard of living they enjoyed 20 years ago when they had one of the
most developed economies in the Middle East. It is a noble ambition,
and one worthy of America's best efforts. However, it is unclear to me
whether the public will and the political will have been properly
readied for the price tag. The Office of Management and Budget have
announced that this supplemental should last for six months--it has a
$74 billion price tag, and includes very little by way of
reconstruction for Iraq outside of immediate relief supplies.
More startling, while OMB suggests this should cover six months of
effort. Sources within the departments are suggesting that this will
only take them through the next 30-45 days. This makes me wonder if we
are being forthright about the expense of this war. It also makes me
wonder how much of the forthcoming effort to rebuild Iraq should be
built into the regular budget process. During the budget debate, we
created a $100 billion reserve fund to cover the costs of the war.
However, it is clear that such a contingency fund will be nowhere near
adequate given that we will spend three-fourths of that in the next six
months under OMB's best guess, and in the next 30 days according to
some sources within the departments.
It is a very large mistake to assume that you can just hide the
costs of this war from the American public. Whenever the subject has
arisen, the White House and members of the Administration have
downplayed the cost. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz told the House Budget
Committee that the war costs would range from ``$10 to $100 billion.''
Yet when former Economic Adviser Lawrence Lindsey suggested that the
war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion, he was roundly
criticized by the White House. Not surprisingly, Mr. Lindsey--the
economist--seems a bit more prescient than Mr. Wolfowitz.
However, as someone who has supported the use of force, and will
support the President's request for supplementary appropriations, I
suggest we lay out a strategy that sets realistic expectations. What we
need is leadership. The American public must understand and brace
themselves for the costs of this war. It is incumbent on this President
to outline those costs. It is an undertaking that Harry Truman accepted
when creating the Marshall Plan. It is an undertaking we expect
President Bush to accept. He must use his bully pulpit to explain why
we must expend so many scarce resources to rebuild Iraq. If not,
political support for reconstruction will vanish. That will be a
mistake, and a setback for our war to eliminate the threat of terrorism
from our shores. The President should act to head it off immediately.
The second question I have is regarding the President's request is
its oversight. This Committee is fortunate to have the Senate's
foremost expert in the Constitution as its ranking member. He also
happens to be the foremost defender of the Congress' prerogatives and
power within that Constitution. He could cite the Constitution's
authority to this Committee, chapter and verse by mere memory. He often
reminds us of the important role that the Founders set out for the
Senate and this committee. Yet, given the President's request, I think
it bears repeating.
Article I, Section 9, Clause Seven States:
``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of
Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be made from time
to time.''
We have a Constitutional duty to provide for the appropriations
required by the nation. The People of Louisiana did not send me to the
Senate abrogate that power in favor of the President. In fact, one of
the reasons that they returned me to the Senate was to look after their
interests through this committee, and protecting them from adverse
decisions made by the Executive branch that frequently overlooks
important state interests.
Finally, let me address some of the objectives in the supplemental.
Let us begin with the proposition that our troops, and the State
Department should have all the money they need to bring this war to a
successful conclusion. I will certainly support these aspects of the
request. We also need to do everything we can to protect American's at
home. So, if anything, the funding request for the Department of
Homeland Security should be expanded. But in between those items, there
are some issues of concern.
Why, for instance, in the middle of a War with Iraq, a crisis in
North Korea, the threat of a nuclear armed Iran, and troop deployments
in the Philippines are we spending $64 million to heighten our
involvement in Columbia? I have supported our counter drug activities
in Columbia in the past. Yet, there are limits to American power and
the American purse. It seems extremely unwise to escalate our
involvement in other conflicts at this time, and the President's
submission offers little justification on this point.
Secondly, it is very odd that we would consider a billion dollars
in grants to Turkey. What kind of precedent does this set? Why should a
parliament that voted to obstruct vital U.S. war plans still receive
aid? Why are we not recognizing those states who have chosen to assist
our effort. Could we not spend a billion dollars helping Poland? What
about Romania and Bulgaria?
Finally, there are a number of items not included in the
supplemental which ought to be. First, of course, are additional
resources for first responders. While the supplemental asks for $2
billion in ODP grants, this correlates almost precisely to the amount
we had to cut from first responders in fiscal year 2003 conference. We
already know from the National Governor's Association that the needs
are nearly triple that amount. So in effect, we are undoing a wrong,
not making things right. Secondly, while there was a specific provision
for the increase in fuel costs for the military, there was no corollary
for the Coast Guard. This is an ongoing problem. The Coast Guard is
consuming fuel at alarming rates with the heightened security. Without
additional funding in this area, they will hazard their
responsibilities for search and rescue, as well as safe navigation.
Lastly, as ranking member of the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee, I
think it is concerning that there are no funds for the District event
though multiple law enforcement agencies have identified the District
as the number one target in the nation.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you as we move through
this process. As always, I appreciate your willingness to work through
my concerns. I think, together, this committee can craft a supplemental
bill that will have broad bipartisan support.
Chairman Stevens. We are going to limit members for the
round--the first round to 5 minutes. And I hope you can keep
your answers as succinct as possible.
For the information of members, the Secretary of Defense is
scheduled to be here about 10:50 and--at 10:50, and we will
shift to his testimony. I have spoken to Secretary Ridge, and
if we have additional questions for Secretary Ridge or his
assistants, we will have to schedule another meeting next week
probably. It would be next Tuesday probably. But we know we
cannot fit them both in for a full time this morning, and it
would be my intention to ask each Department to send back
witnesses to answer technical questions about the supplemental
and its use in terms of money.
So I would urge that members keep their questions here to
the policies--the matters that are involved in the request
before us. We have two--one request in terms of the
supplemental, but there is an amount for the Homeland Security
Department, and that is the one that is before us now.
Unless there is another objection to my request to you, I
would ask the Secretary to present his statement.
STATEMENT OF SECRETARY TOM RIDGE
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Senator Stevens, Senator Byrd, distinguished
members of the Committee. I am certainly privileged to be with
you today to discuss the President's wartime supplemental
budget request for the Department of Homeland Security.
As I begin, along with you, I want to take a moment to
acknowledge the men and women of our Armed Forces, who are
bravely serving our Nation in defense of our freedom and our
values. Their efforts on behalf of this Nation are truly
noteworthy.
In particular, I want to recognize the sacrifices that each
of these men and women are making and thank their families on
behalf of a grateful Nation for their service. As all of us
know, it is not just the men and women who wear the uniform
but, unfortunately, their spouses, their children, and the
mothers and fathers who seem to put on and wear that uniform.
Senator Johnson, you probably know it better than anybody
else in this chamber right now. I appreciate that.
As we are already seeing, freedom comes at a price; for
some, the ultimate price has been paid as they have laid down
their lives in service to our country.
I would also like to pause to reflect on the men and women
who are providing security to our homeland. We build on our
effort overseas with dedicated individuals at home who have
accepted the call to safeguard our homeland, from first
responders to those who secure our borders, and our ports, our
waterways, and our critical infrastructure. Their efforts are
also critical and crucial to preserving our way of life.
Collectively, our Armed Forces and our men and women
securing the homeland exemplify the best of our national spirit
and determination to defend our liberties at home and abroad.
It is with gratitude for their sacrifice and for their service
that we request this supplemental budget to the Congress to
help support their efforts in this war on terrorism.
WARTIME SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
As America executes Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Department
of Homeland Security requests an increase of $3.5 billion to
support Operation Liberty Shield and other measures to enhance
our security at home. The resources provided through this
supplemental budget request will allow the Department to assist
our partners at the State and local level, to prepare our
Nation's first responders, and to protect our Nation from the
threat of terrorism.
OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS
Specifically, the Department seeks $2 billion for State and
local terrorism preparedness and prevention. These resources
will support further enhancements to State and local terrorism
preparedness efforts, including federally coordinated
prevention and security enhancements. This request will help
support our State and local first responders. As part of
Operation Liberty Shield, the funding will also improve
protection at critical infrastructure facilities and help
secure high threat urban areas.
The supplemental budget request builds upon ongoing efforts
of the Office for Domestic Preparedness which made available
nearly $600 million to States earlier this month. It also
enables States and localities to meet emerging and short-term
homeland security needs.
Funding is requested for three activities. One and a half
billion dollars of the supplemental request will go towards
enhancing the capacity of State and local jurisdictions to
prepare for incidents of terrorism on U.S. soil. Grant funds
for State and local terrorism and preparedness activities may
be used for acquisition of equipment, training exercises, and
planning.
Consistent with past practices, at least 80 percent of the
total amount will be passed through to local governments for
first responders in the various cities around the country. To
the extent practicable, State and local spending plans should
be consistent with the most recent State preparedness strategy.
Four hundred fifty million dollars is requested for States
to augment security at critical infrastructure facilities
during the duration of Operation Liberty Shield. Grants will be
allocated to States by formula, but no less than one-third of
each grant must be allocated to local jurisdictions.
Fifty million dollars is requested to enable the Secretary
of Homeland Security to support additional protection or
preparedness needs of selected urban areas facing a
particularly high threat.
COUNTERTERRORISM FUND
The supplemental also includes $1.5 billion for the
Department of Homeland Security for the costs of providing
support to prevent, counter, investigate, and respond to
unexpected threats or acts of terrorism during this period of
heightened threat.
This funding is intended to support increased operations
tempo in the Border and Transportation Security directorate,
including additional screening of visitors crossing the border;
more secondary inspections of visitors at ports of entry and
immigrants; increased inspection of high-risk goods and cargo
at ports of entry; additional flight hours for aerospace
security; and increased security between ports of entry on the
northern border; pre-deployment of Federal emergency response
assets in preparation for potential terrorist attacks; enhanced
Coast Guard protection of critical U.S. ports during the
duration of the conflict. Funding will also support Coast Guard
forces already deployed or in the process of being deployed to
the operational theater and the protection of the military out-
loads in U.S. ports.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the supplemental budget request for the
Department of Homeland Security supports the Administration's
objectives to support our troops abroad and increase our safety
at home. The supplemental budget will provide the Department
with the resources to manage its responsibilities and continue
its work of securing the homeland for the American people.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, Senator Byrd, and members of the committee,
this concludes my prepared statement. I would be, obviously,
pleased to answer any questions you may have at this time.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Secretary Tom Ridge
introduction
Good morning. Chairman Stevens, Senator Byrd, and distinguished
members of the Committee--I am pleased to be with you today to discuss
the President's wartime Supplemental Budget Request for the Department
of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2003.
As I begin, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the men and
women of our armed forces who are bravely serving our nation in defense
of our freedoms and values. Their efforts on behalf of this Nation are
truly noteworthy. In particular, I want to recognize the sacrifices
that each of these men and women are making and thank their families on
behalf of a grateful nation for their service. As we have already seen,
freedom comes at a price and for some, the ultimate price has been paid
as they laid down their lives in service to our country. They
sacrificed the freedoms and liberties we as Americans know and cherish
to secure and extend those freedoms to the Iraqi people.
I also want to pause to reflect on the men and women who are
providing security to our homeland. Our effort abroad would be
incomplete without dedicated individuals at home who have accepted the
call to safeguard our homeland--from First Responders to those who
secure our borders, ports, waterways, and critical infrastructure--
their efforts are crucial to preserving our way of life.
Collectively, our armed forces and our men and women securing the
homeland exemplify the best of our National spirit and determination to
defend liberty at home and abroad. It is with a great sense of pride in
these men and women, and unwavering support for their efforts that the
Administration is submitting this supplemental budget request to the
Congress for action.
wartime supplemental budget request for fiscal year 2003
As we execute Operation Iraqi Freedom overseas, and continue
prosecuting the war on terrorism, the Department of Homeland Security
requires an increase of $3.5 billion to manage requirements, to support
the overall war effort, and to enhance our homeland defense. The
Department has unique and complementary roles to those of our armed
forces--to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, to
reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism, and to minimize the damage
and assist in recovery should a terrorist attack occur. The resources
requested through this wartime supplemental budget request will allow
the Department to continue efforts to prepare our first responder
community and to protect our Nation from the threat of terrorism.
office for domestic preparedness
Within the overall supplemental budget request, the Department
seeks $2.0 billion for state and local terrorism preparedness and
prevention. These resources will support further enhancements to state
and local terrorism preparedness efforts, including Federally-
coordinated prevention and security enhancements. Through the Office
for Domestic Preparedness, the Department will enhance and continue to
strengthen America's First Responder community and make our homeland
safer from emerging threats. This request will help state and local
First Responders with new equipment, training, and better emergency
planning. As part of Operation Liberty Shield, the funding will also
improve protection at critical infrastructure facilities and secure
high-threat urban areas.
The supplemental budget request builds on ongoing efforts of the
Office for Domestic Preparedness, while also enabling states and
localities to meet emerging and short-term homeland security needs.
Funding is requested for three activities:
--First Responder Preparedness.--$1.5 billion of the supplemental
request is to enhance the capacity of state and local
jurisdictions to prepare for incidents of terrorism on U.S.
soil. These funds will be allocated by formula to states, which
are best-suited to coordinate regional and local terrorism
preparedness and prevention efforts. Grant funds for state and
local terrorism and preparedness activities may be used for the
acquisition of equipment, training, exercises, and planning.
Consistent with past practices, at least 80 percent of the
total amount will be passed through to local governments for
First Responders. To the extent practicable, state and local
spending plans should be consistent with the most recent state
preparedness strategy.
--Heightened Critical Infrastructure Protection.--$450 million is
requested for states to augment security at critical
infrastructure facilities during the period of hostilities with
Iraq. These hostilities create new homeland security
requirements for states and localities, particularly an
immediate need for adequate protection of critical
infrastructure facilities. Grants will be allocated to states
by formula, but no less than one-third of each grant must be
allocated to local jurisdictions.
--High-Threat Urban Areas.--$50 million is requested to enable the
Secretary of Homeland Security to support additional protection
or preparedness needs of selected urban areas facing a
particularly high threat. The Department will work closely with
governors and mayors in developing site protection plans so
that funds may be released rapidly to meet identified needs.
The request for the Office for Domestic Preparedness is intended to
help states and localities address security and response needs prompted
by current events. As such, these funds are only requested for
availability through December 31, 2003. Grant funding will not be
subject to this limitation once awarded, but we will encourage grantees
to use these funds promptly.
counterterrorism fund
The supplemental budget request also includes $1.5 billion for the
Department of Homeland Security for the costs of providing support to
prevent, counter, investigate and respond to unexpected threats or acts
of terrorism--in particular, during this period of heightened threat
awareness resulting from the conflict with Iraq.
This funding is intended to support:
--Coast Guard forces already deployed or in the process of being
deployed to the operational theater; protection of the military
outload in U.S. ports; and protection of economically-critical
U.S. ports from terrorism during the duration of the conflict.
The funding will support the activation of over 6,000
reservists. Approximately $580 million is required for these
efforts. This estimated is based on current assumptions about
the war and maintenance of security levels.
--Increased operations tempo in the Border and Transportation
Security directorate, including additional screening of
visitors crossing the border, more secondary inspection of
immigrants and visitors at ports-of-entry, increased inspection
of high-risk goods and cargo at ports-of-entry, additional
flight hours for airspace security, and increased security
between ports-of-entry on the northern border.
--Pre-deployment of federal emergency response assets in preparation
for potential terrorist attacks, and activation of government
emergency response plans and activities as well as other urgent
homeland security requirements based on threats that may
emerge.
The Administration requests flexibility in the appropriation of
these funds to enable us to respond quickly and deploy our assets in
different configurations, strength levels, and tempo of operations as
circumstances may require as we face this new challenge to our homeland
security.
conclusion
The Department of Homeland Security plays a crucial role in
protecting our homeland and we continue our efforts to protect our
Nation from terrorism. While much has been accomplished, we can do
more--especially at this critical time of war. We must stay focused and
engaged in our effort to secure the homeland and meet the challenges
that we face at this time in our Nation's history.
In summation, the supplemental budget request for the Department of
Homeland Security supports the Administration's objectives to support
our troops abroad and increase safety at home. This nation is
mobilizing for action at every level--Federal, state and local
governments, the private sector, and the American people--to protect
our homeland. This supplemental budget will provide the Department the
resources to manage its responsibilities and continue its work of
securing the homeland for the American people.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, this concludes my
prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have at this time.
Chairman Stevens. I am going to not ask any questions at
this time. I have some technical questions for later. I do hope
we can--we will recognize members on both sides of the aisle in
the order of seniority today, because there are some
subcommittees meeting and they will be coming and going. We
will recognize you if you are here at the time your time would
occur.
Senator Byrd.
FIRST RESPONDER FUNDING
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for coming. We have
looked forward to your being here a long time, too long.
Secretary Ridge. I remember several conversations about
that over the past several months, Senator.
Senator Byrd. Too long. Too long. But thanks for being here
today.
As good-naturedly as I possibly can, I want to say that--I
want to cooperate with the chairman in getting this legislation
passed if at all possible by April 11. But I chafe under these
restrictions. I think you have an exceedingly important bill.
We ought to be allowed to make opening statements, as the
witnesses are allowed to make opening statements.
And we ought certainly to have more than just a shirttail
full of questions, time to answer questions here on this
important matter. So I am going to register my concerns right
at the top.
I think we have a full attendance of the committee here
this morning almost. And yet our members are going to be
severely limited. I say this with all due respect to my
chairman. His purpose is good, and I respect him for that. But
I have to say that I do not think it is in the people's
interest of this country to rush this bill as it is being
rushed here this morning.
Now, having said that, let me ask you, Mr. Secretary, one
or two questions. One of the biggest disagreements in the
homeland security debate is between mayors and Governors, as
both think that they are the more appropriate receivers and
administrators of Federal homeland security resources. The
Administration has, for the most part, sided with the
Governors. You were--you are a former Governor yourself.
Evidence does not show that States are the best
administrators of the funds, however. For example, $330 million
out of the $500 million allocated to the States from the Office
for Domestic Preparedness from 1999 to 2002 is unspent. States
are actually spending less on emergency management this year as
compared with last year. According to the National Emergency
Management Association, States are spending $10.55 per capita
on emergency management this year versus $11 per capita in
2002.
Conversely, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors,
cities are spending an additional $1 million per week on their
personnel costs, police, firefighters, and so on, associated
with emergency management alone.
Question--your Administration requests an additional $2
billion for the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP). These
funds are distributed by the Office for Domestic Preparedness
to the States. Our first responders reside at the local level,
and I am concerned that they are not getting the resources they
need and were promised by the Administration.
The Capitol Hill paper, The Hill, reported yesterday that
of the $500 million, as I have already indicated, $330 million
is unspent. Similarly of the $1 billion that Congress approved
14 months ago for grants to States to increase the ability of
State and local public health departments to prepare for
bioterrorism, only 19 percent has been spent.
My question to you is, if it is taking so long for States
to get the money to our cities and our first responders, why
does the Administration request that ODP funds go to the States
and not directly to the local jurisdictions?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, it is our belief that we should
use the Governors and their State emergency management teams to
develop statewide plans to deal with issues of terrorism
preparedness, of vulnerability assessment and the like. We are
prepared to assist the Governors in that effort, because as you
have indicated, some of the dollars that Congress appropriated
in previous years have yet to be drawn down, or been drawn
down.
Having said that, we also recognize that when there is a
problem at the local level, they do not dial the State capital.
Too often--and they certainly do not dial area code 202. They
dial the local first responders. And that is the reason that we
look to send 80 percent of the dollars through the States down
to the local communities in support of their statewide plan.
We agree with you, Senator. We have been working with the
League of Cities, the mayors, the National Governors
Association trying to get them to buy into the notion that we
build statewide plans from the local level up. We will use the
States to distribute the dollars, but that 80 percent of those
dollars would be distributed directly to the local communities
based upon a plan. We are interested in both inputs in terms of
dollars, but also outcomes as to where they are spent.
EXPEDITING FIRST RESPONDER FUNDING
Senator Byrd. Well, experience is showing, and the record
shows, that the monies are not getting to the local responders
through the State channels. And if it is true that State review
of local plans is tying up these critical funds, then your
Department should be proposing ways to expedite that process.
Are you doing that?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, it is a very important
observation you have made. It does appear that some of the
States have delayed their application because of their
inability, not their unwillingness, but their inability to put
together their statewide plans. ODP and the Department of
Homeland Security are certainly prepared to work with any State
to accelerate the development of the plan so we can distribute
the dollars.
You should know, Senator, that the first responder money
that is transmitted through the fire grant program, however,
goes out directly to the individual fire departments.
Senator Byrd. Do I have more time? What is--is my time up?
Chairman Stevens. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. It is. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stevens. I am going to exercise the prerogative of
the chair. Having served 8 years as whip, I can testify no one
has less time to attend committee hearings than the whips on
either side, so I will recognize the distinguished Senator from
Nevada.
DELAYS IN REQUESTING FUNDS
Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Ridge, my question has been for some time--and you
answered it partially for Senator Byrd. We have heard now for
months about the money being there but not being drawn down.
Explain again why it is not being drawn down, because my State
is desperate for monies. And if you want to be specific about
Nevada, why are they not asking for the money that they are
entitled to according to you?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, it is a question that we are
probing for an appropriate answer, because if there is an
antidote, if there is a reason that we need to be more involved
with the States and the State emergency management officials
and these organizations responsible for putting together a
statewide plan, we accept that responsibility to do that.
Your point is well taken. Senator Byrd pointed out that
some of the dollars that we--that Congress appropriated in
previous years for the Office for Domestic Preparedness have
not been drawn down. Some have, but not all have. And we need
to expedite the process to get those dollars out the door.
On March 7th, we put our applications for the $600 million
that Congress appropriated to the States in the 2003 budget.
And because it is formula-driven, the dollars go out as soon as
we get the request for reimbursement in.
Now, admittedly, they have only been up for 3 weeks, but we
have yet to receive a request from the individual States. So
given the fact that only 3 weeks have elapsed and we have not
had a request is not news yet, but we are trying to work with
the States and through the National Guard Association (NGA) to
get them to accelerate their request for these dollars, because
80 percent of them are going to go back down to the local
level.
DELAYS IN GETTING FUNDING OUT
Senator Reid. But you understand our concern. We hear from
State and local governments in our States, they are desperate
for money, they cannot get Washington to react. And then we
hear from you and your subordinates that the money is in the
pipeline. No, it is not being drawn down.
Secretary Ridge. Well----
Senator Reid. For those of us who are trying to respond to
our constituents at home, it seems like this is a catch-22 that
you----
Secretary Ridge. Yes.
Senator Reid [continuing]. Where it is not being drawn
down.
Secretary Ridge. Yes.
Senator Reid. And why is it not being drawn down? It is,
you know, a typical Government snafu.
Secretary Ridge. Well, you--Senator, you are right. We are
all accountable to get the money out the door, because we all
have a place in that process. The accountability at the State
and local level, I think, and one of the recommendations that I
would respectfully make when you hear that concern expressed is
they--particularly at the local level that they try--that they
work with their Governors and whomever the Governor has
assigned to develop these plans. And if there is need for
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be involved with them
in developing the plans, we are certainly prepared to do so.
You should know in furtherance of this effort, the
President's Homeland Security Advisory Committee has--is
prepared to send out a statewide template for State and local
planning to assist them in this effort. That document should be
released in the next couple of days, and it is a work product
of mayors, Governors, first responders, because, you know, in
the past couple of months they have asked us, ``How do we put
these plans together? We need a template.'' Well, that is--it
is on its way.
So I say respectfully to those who expressed concern about
the delay in getting dollars out at the local level: Get with
the Governor, develop that plan, get it into us, and we will
get the money out the door as quickly as possible. And if you
need more technical assistance, come to us and we will provide
it.
NUCLEAR SECURITY
Senator Reid. One last question, and this was a cursory
glance of the supplemental. I have been concerned because my
responsibilities on the--one of the subcommittees, one of these
subcommittees' appropriations, about nuclear security. What do
you have in the supplemental, if anything, for securing the
safety of our nuclear plants around the country?
Secretary Ridge. Well, first of all, part of the Liberty
Shield dollars goes to the States who have employed----
Senator Reid. I do not know what Liberty Shield dollars--I
do not know what that means.
Secretary Ridge. Part of the supplemental, would be a
better way to characterize it, is to reimburse the States who
have deployed either State Police or National Guard at various
facilities around the country. Many of these facilities----
Senator Reid. But what--pardon my interruption. My question
is, is there anything specific in the supplemental?
Secretary Ridge. Yes.
Senator Reid. Yes. Okay.
Secretary Ridge. Yes, there is. It is to reimburse the
States or the locals who have added layers of protection to
nuclear facilities.
Senator Reid. Senator Stevens, thank you very, very much.
Chairman Stevens. You are welcome.
Senator Cochran.
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA) AND COAST GUARD
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
The other day when we came over to The White House to meet
with the President and the Vice President and Director of
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to get an idea of what
the supplemental request would be, we were given a broad
general outline of the request. And I recall asking a question
at that meeting about whether or not there was a specific
request for the Transportation Security Administration. I was
advised that there was not.
Now we find though, with staff coming up to talk about the
details, that there is an intention to make available some of
this money to the Transportation Security Administration.
We also had difficulty finding out how the Coast Guard
request would be spent by the Coast Guard. There were very
general statements that had been made about what the needs
were. Reservists were being called up. There were additional
requirements for the Coast Guard in preventing terrorism
activities.
Do you have, this morning, any more specific information
about----
Secretary Ridge. Yes, we do.
Senator Cochran [continuing]. How much money would go to
these specific activities under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Homeland Security?
Secretary Ridge. Yes. Senator, the Transportation Security
Administration piece of the funding request is about $100
million for overtime, increased perimeter security, and
additional law enforcement at the airports around the country.
The Coast Guard's request is about $580 million. They would
have access to that. About $400 million is to support the Coast
Guard's redeployment of people and crews and vessels to the
Gulf, as well as the protection they afford the supply chain
out of our domestic ports. That is about $400 million.
And $180 million goes to enhanced security, not only at
ports during this period of heightened alert, but also at--
there are several very critical pieces of infrastructure
dealing with energy, nuclear, natural gas, and the like that we
have 24/7 coverage on during this period. So about $100 million
for TSA, and roughly $580 million for the Coast Guard.
FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)
Senator Cochran. While this request relates to the events
following the Iraqi war, and the Department of Defense piece
certainly is related to that in a much broader way than the
homeland security request. One of the agencies under your
jurisdiction now is the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
And we know that they have been called upon to do a lot of work
in addition to what had been anticipated when their budget for
this fiscal year was written in connection with the shuttle
disaster.
Secretary Ridge. Right.
Senator Cochran. They have been going around trying to
supervise the accumulation of some of the debris. And a lot of
expense, I am sure, that was unanticipated has been incurred by
that agency. Does this supplemental request seek additional
funds for FEMA to take care of those unanticipated expenses?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, it does not include any
additional money for that unanticipated requirement. It is a
cost that unfortunately, because of the tragedy, that we are
doing our very best to absorb within the sums of money that the
Congress gave us in the 2002 and 2003 budget. It is about
managing this additional requirement with additional resources.
However, the new--this request does provide for about $15
million, because we do have the regional operation centers at
FEMA now up 24/7. And I think there is about $15 million here
for anticipated costs as we stay--keep the regional offices up,
and deploy some of the assets in the possibility that they
might be needed.
But there are no additional dollars requested for their
work with the--in response to the Columbia disaster.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will reserve my
time for other questions later.
Chairman Stevens. Sure.
Senator Inouye.
GRANT FORMULAS
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Mr. Governor, in your prepared statement you have indicated
that distribution of funds to States will be made according to
a formula. Somehow the statement does not describe the formula.
Is that formula based on population or based on threat level?
Secretary Ridge. Well, Senator, you raise a very important
point, and this is as good a time publicly to discuss it,
because the formula under which the Office for Domestic
Preparedness historically worked when it was at Justice did
not, in my judgment, take into the--into account, as strongly,
threat, vulnerability, critical infrastructure needs and the
like.
And one of the challenges that the new Department of
Homeland Security will have in working with Congress as we move
forward to address not only the amount of dollars, but how
and--how well and how appropriate they are expended, is to
revisit that whole question of whether it is an appropriate
formula.
We think there needs to be some adjustment to it. I am not
sure it can be done in the limited period of time between now
and when the supplemental is concluded. But it is not--it
causes a lot of your colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in
both chambers, as well as our Department, cause to rethink how
we distribute in the future terrorism preparedness dollars.
PORT SECURITY ASSESSMENTS
Senator Inouye. I appreciate your very candid response, Mr.
Secretary. I have just another question. In response to the
security problems in our ports, the Congress passed last year
the Maritime Transportation Security Act. And the purpose of
that act was to provide funds, make an assessment of security
problems in the most critical ports, 55 of them.
As of this moment, we have completed assessments on five,
and we have been told that possibly eight more will be finished
by the end of the fiscal year. At this rate, it would be 2009
before we finish these assessments, and I am certain you will
agree with all of us that this is very critical. The time is
now. How long is it going to take to make these assessments?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I had a very good and very
explicit conversation about that goal with Admiral Collins
within the past week. In the 2004 budget, our request for
dollars to go to information analysis and infrastructure
protection is, I think, in the vicinity of $800 million. And
some of those dollars we would use to accelerate the
vulnerability assessment of those ports.
It is our intention--and I will get back to you with a
specific time frame, but I think clearly we would like to get
that done not according to the timetable that you projected,
which is far, far too long, but within the next fiscal year, if
we possibly can. And I think we can accomplish that.
Senator Inouye. And there are no funds in here to implement
the recommendations of the assessments. Do you intend to have
funds requested for these purposes?
Secretary Ridge. Well, again, Senator, we recognize the
mandate that Congress gave the Department with the Maritime
Transportation Security Act, and, again, as the Coast Guard has
done so well in the past, that is a priority that you have set,
and we just have to find a way to get it done with little or no
money at all.
We know that some of it had been undertaken even prior to
that piece of legislation, just as an ongoing response to the
9/11--just a reaction to the 9/11 tragedy and our notion that
it is a--it is the first war of the 21st century. We have to
think differently about combating terrorism, and we will use
whatever resources and transfer authority we have within the
new Department to get them the funds to get it done as quickly
as possible.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, can we submit written questions?
Chairman Stevens. Well, the--Mr. Secretary, will you
respond to written questions?
Secretary Ridge. Oh, absolutely. I would be--I understand
the time restraints, and I want to recognize that. And I know
by--I am sure there are literally dozens of additional
questions, and we would be happy to respond to them.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir.
Secretary Ridge. Yes, sir.
Chairman Stevens. Mr. Specter.
INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for taking on this very difficult
job, from leaving the governorship of our home State,
Pennsylvania, and now being Secretary of Homeland Security.
I want to revisit with you a subject which we have
discussed extensively in the past, and that is the overall
direction on intelligence analysis. There were many of us in
the Congress who thought that it should be the Secretary of
Homeland Defense's authority to put all the dots on one board
in light of what happened on 9/11, where there is substantial
reason to believe that had all the dots been in one place, 9/11
might well have been prevented. We will never know for sure,
but possibly that could have been the case.
There was no opportunity to offer an amendment in the
Senate without substantially delaying the enactment of the bill
because the House of Representatives had gone home and left us
with a bill, pretty much, take it or leave it. We have not
moved to alter the bill in light of the President's Executive
Order putting everything under the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA).
There has been a great deal of conflict over the years with
the Department of Defense commenting from time to time
dissatisfaction with CIA, with the absence of clear-cut
authority by CIA, because the funds are really with the
Department of Defense and other agencies. My question to you
is, how is it working out on a day-by-day basis? What is the
practical effect of the President's Executive Order, and how do
you function? You are really responsible for homeland security
to the extent it can be pinpointed anywhere in the Executive
Branch below the President.
How is it working out to get the analysis from all of the
intelligence agencies, having them work together so that you
see the big picture, and you see all the dots on the board, or
you see what has to be corrected, and what authority do you
have?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, since we have set up the
Department effectively March 1st, we have continued to receive
the kind of cooperation and collaboration that you have
advocated for quite some time from the intelligence community,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the other
intelligence gathering agencies in the Federal Government.
To that end, we actually have analysts assigned to us from
those agencies as well as other agencies. Within our own
Department of Homeland Security, there are several agencies
that have intelligence-gathering responsibilities that have
developed their own analysts. We have pulled them in.
So we have developed internally within a short period of
time our own analytical capability. We do not have the numbers
yet. We will grow the numbers, but we do have a broad reach
across all of the intelligence community to gather that
information.
We participate on a regular basis--in a formal way, I do
with Director Tenet and Director Mueller every morning. We
participate twice a day in teleconferencing with all the
intelligence gathering agencies within the Federal Government.
So in a very short period of time, we have set up, as I said
before, our own internal analytical unit.
We are in contact and working with the intelligence
community, the FBI and others to formalize our connection--and
this is, again, something you have advocated for a long time--
to formalize our connection with the President's Terrorist
Threat Integration Center. We will have our analysts there.
The Congress has said you want us to be a full partner in
that effort. You have also said you want us to have access to
raw data, because that is the ultimate collection point. That
process is ongoing as well.
So I think we make significant progress every day. We have
our own analytical capability. It is growing every day. And
ultimately we will be connected in a formal way as a full
partner getting access to the raw data we need once the
Terrorist Threat Integration Center is completed.
Senator Specter. Permit me to ask you one further question
before my red light goes on.
Secretary Ridge. Yes, sir.
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT
Senator Specter. Please keep us informed as to what is
happening so it is institutionalized. Right now with the great
pressure there may be more incentives for cooperation, but let
us see that that is institutionalized.
My next question is: What steps can you take when the FBI
uses the wrong standard for probable cause under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act? A couple of weeks ago, Director
Mueller was here, and we explored that they were using the
wrong standard, more probable than not as opposed to suspicion
under the totality of the circumstances, and they were not
getting the warrants they should have been getting.
With you being responsible for homeland security, what can
you do to see to it that the FBI uses the right standard?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I was present during that
particular hearing when you had that exchange with Director
Mueller. I believe that there is a respectful disagreement as
to whether they are using the right standard. I have had this
conversation with Director Mueller. I am familiar with the very
aggressive use of that authority within the FBI, and I will
just have to acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion
between yourself and the Director.
We are joined at the hip with the Director. We get all that
information that we request, and I am hopeful that the two of
you can resolve your differences because the Director himself
believes that the standard that he has employed is really
consistent with your interpretation. Obviously, he has not
convinced you of that point, and I do not think I could either.
So I am going to----
Senator Specter. Okay.
Secretary Ridge [continuing]. Defer it back to him.
Senator Specter. Well, I will take it up with you
privately, but it is not a respectful disagreement.
Secretary Ridge. All right, sir.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stevens. I would announce that Senator Hollings is
next.
Senator Hollings. Yes.
Chairman Stevens. Governor Ridge, with your indulgence, we
would like to interrupt your testimony after Senator Hollings,
and call in the Secretary of Defense.
Secretary Ridge. Yes, sir.
Chairman Stevens. And we will negotiate with you what we do
after that. I would hope that once the Secretary finishes, we
could go back to your testimony and finish the questioning of
you, and then go to the Secretary of Defense subordinates.
Secretary Ridge. That is your----
Chairman Stevens. Senator Hollings.
PORT SECURITY
Senator Hollings. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Ridge. As you wish, Mr. Chairman, whatever.
Senator Hollings. And thank you, Mr. Secretary. I am
looking forward to working with you.
A lot has been done since 9/11 on homeland security. We
moved immediately, passed an airline security bill unanimously
through the Senate, working with Secretary Mineta and Admiral
Loy. And now it has been funded.
On the other hand, as Senator Inouye's questions, we passed
a port security bill unanimously, all the--Republican, every
Democrat. And this week we reaffirmed in the budget a unanimous
agreement of $1 billion a year for 2 years.
If we do not have the money forthcoming, what happens is
that you have got a correlation problem immediately with the
captain of the port, some young lieutenant or lieutenant
commander. If there is a security breach, he is the fellow,
poor fellow, who is in charge, but he has got to get together
the Coast Guard, the Customs, the Immigration, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), the local sheriff, the FBI,
and everybody else of that kind and on--last week when you had
that orange, alert orange, the Governor of South Carolina--we
dream of National Guard. They are all committed, gone. Reserves
gone. And what he had to do was get parole officers around the
Port of Charleston and that kind of thing.
So if you can help us get that money out and help--they
have all been working, collectively, Customs, Bonner, Admiral
Loy, and now Admiral Collins, everybody has been working
together, but we still cannot identify every ship coming into
port. We do not have that coordination following through. If
you just--if survey is five a year, you and I will be dead and
gone. We have got to start moving faster and get the money out
to the folks, because they are working hard around the clock.
Thank you a lot, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Ridge. And, Senator, I just appreciate your
acknowledgment of the good work the Coast Guard is doing.
Senator Hollings. Yes.
Secretary Ridge. But to allay some of your concerns--I am
not going to eliminate them all--but the Customs--we are
beginning to build rings of defense around our ports. We have
initiated the Cargo Security Initiative in major ports offshore
where we will put the Customs people and non-intrusive
technology coupled with a 24-hour request for the manifest, so
we can do some inspection work even before those containers are
put on the ports.
Clearly, the Coast Guard has substantially increased the
number of aircraft as well as vessels since 9/11 at our various
ports. The Congress did authorize a couple hundred million
dollars, I think, in the 2003 budget for enhanced port
security. Those grants will be coming out. So--and in a very
methodical and, I think, a very appropriate way, we begin to
build layers, perimeters of defense around our ports. And I
look forward to working with you to make them stronger in the
months ahead.
Senator Hollings. Thank you very much.
SWITCH PANELS TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Chairman Stevens. Thank you.
Now, Mr. Secretary, we will keep in touch with your staff.
I understand the Secretary of Defense will be here for about 1
hour. We will see how that lasts and go back to your testimony,
sir, when he is finished. Is that agreeable?
Secretary Ridge. That would be fine.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you, sir.
Yes, sir. You can stay there or you can go to another
office, whatever you want to do, Governor.
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Stevens. Yes.
Senator Murray. If the Secretary is not able to come back,
and we are not able to get our questions answered, I heard him
say that we could submit them. I just want to make sure that we
will be able to get responses back before the markup on
Tuesday.
Chairman Stevens. I am not sure the markup will take place
for sure on Tuesday. We will schedule it for Tuesday. We are
going to try to get through this hearing by that time, but----
Senator Murray. I will revise that to before markup.
Chairman Stevens. Yes. All right. Before markup. I am sure
we will have that cooperation, trying to get the answers here
as much as possible.
And I apologize for this. The Secretary of Defense has
demands on both sides of the Capitol and also with--in the war
room, so we--with the consent of the Secretary of Homeland
Security, have had this bifurcated hearing.
But we will continue in this room for--with Secretary
Ridge, and then with Secretary Wolfowitz and Zakheim after that
today.
Senator Leahy. And, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what you
have to do to do this. I agree that we should be able to submit
whatever questions necessary. I do not think anybody wants to
be dilatory, but we are being asked to commit a huge amount of
money in a very short period of time. All of us support making
sure our troops are supplied in the field, but I think to do
that, we also have a responsibility to our own constituents.
Chairman Stevens. Well, I would remind you, we put up $40
billion for New York after 9/11 in 2 days. And we are at war
now.
Senator Leahy. We can--nobody questions that, but I think
also you are asking for an enormous amount. I am sure the
witnesses are going to be eager to answer the questions we do
ask.
Chairman Stevens. Secretary----
Secretary Ridge. If somebody wants to sit here, I will get
out of the way.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DOV S. ZAKHEIM, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, COMPTROLLER
PAUL WOLFOWITZ, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Chairman Stevens. Secretary Rumsfeld, we are pleased to
have you and General Myers here.
Mr. Zakheim, Secretary Wolfowitz, if you would like to join
the Secretary, it is all right with us. But the Secretary is to
guide who he wants at the table.
Mr. Secretary, we have waived opening statements. We would
like to have your statement as short as possible. I know you
are under some time restraints. And after you finish, we would
go on to your secretaries, Secretary Wolfowitz and Secretary
Zakheim, to answer the balance of the question.
General Myers, I know we all know you are under tremendous
pressure, so we would accept your time, what time you have
available for us, sir.
Secretary Rumsfeld.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Would you prefer that I not make a
statement, or should I----
Chairman Stevens. I prefer you make your statement. We will
put the whole thing in the record--or I have already seen it.
I--and members have it in front of them, but whatever statement
you wish to make, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are now less than a week, about a week, into the
Operation Iraqi Freedom. The major ground attack began on 10
o'clock last Thursday, and the air war began on Friday, the
following day, at 1:00 p.m., so it will be a week tomorrow.
While the conflict is well begun, it has really only begun, and
we are still closer to the beginning than to the end.
The coalition aircrews have flown thousands of sorties,
striking at leadership and Republican Guard targets day and
night, except for the periods of very bad weather. They have
raced across on the ground some 200 miles of Iraq to reach a
point about 50 kilometers south of Baghdad in less than a week.
It is an impressive rate of advance.
They have secured the Iraqi southern oil fields. There
are--were 10, I believe, plus or minus 10 oil fields that were,
or oil wells that were either aflame or had been ruptured, and
crews are working on them to put out the fires at the present
time.
In the North, the coalition has launched attacks on
terrorist targets, and is having success in disrupting
terrorist operations, and prevented an Iraqi advance against
the Kurds, at least thus far. And in the West, the forces have
had good success in securing the region and dealing with the
regime's capability to threaten neighboring countries from the
Scud baskets in that part of Iraq.
The campaign could well grow more dangerous in the coming
days and weeks, as the forces close in on Baghdad, and begin to
have to deal with the Republican Guard forces north of Tikrit,
south of Baghdad.
But the outcome is assured. The regime of Saddam Hussein
will be removed, and the only thing that remains unclear is
precisely how long it will take.
FINANCING THE COSTS OF THE WAR
We do know that these efforts cost money. The costs of
military operations in Iraq and the other missions currently
underway in the global war on terror can obviously not be
absorbed without an emergency supplemental appropriation that
the President has requested.
Since the new fiscal year began, every month since October
of 2002--that is October, November, December, January,
February, March--we have had to borrow from other programs,
because the war on terrorism was not funded.
We have to recognize that that pattern cannot really
continue much longer. The services have already gone through
all of their discretionary spending for the first, second and
third quarters of 2003, and will soon have exhausted the fourth
quarter discretionary spending--discretionary funding.
If this continues, we will run out of discretionary funds
by late spring or early summer, depending on what the costs
are, which are not knowable at the present time. And that could
force a curtailment of training, maintenance and other critical
activities.
The President's supplemental request is for $74.7 billion.
That includes some $62.6 billion for the Department of Defense
(DOD) to support military operations in Iraq and throughout the
global war on terror.
The request includes, among other things, $7.1 billion for
the round-trip costs of transporting the forces and equipping
to and from the theater of operations; some $13.1 billion to
provide war fighters in theater with fuel, supplies, repair
parts, maintenance, and other operational support that they
need; about $15.6 billion for incremental personnel costs, such
as for special pay and compensation for the mobilized
reservists; $7.2 billion to start the process of reconstituting
our forces by replacing the cruise missiles, the smart bombs,
and other key munitions that are being expended in the course
of the conflict; $12 billion for stability operations, military
operations to root out terrorist networks and deal with any
remaining pockets of resistance, humanitarian assistance, and
operations to search for and destroy Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction; $1.5 billion for coalition support for the global
war on terror, including $1.3 billion for reimbursement to
Pakistan and other key cooperating nations assisting in the
effort in Afghanistan, and $165 million for training of the
Afghan National Army; and $6.1 billion for other requirements
outlined in the request to support military operations in Iraq
and the global war on terror.
Of the $62.6 billion the President requested in this
supplemental for DOD, some $30.6 billion are funds that have
either already been spent or have been committed, including the
cost of flowing forces into the region to support the
diplomatic efforts before Operation Iraqi Freedom began.
If the Iraqi regime had agreed voluntarily to disarm and
prevent a war, the costs of sustaining that military pressure
through the rest of the fiscal year would have been in excess
of $40 billion. So even without a war, the costs of disarming
Iraq would have been significant.
RELIEF AND RECONSTRUCTION
The President has also requested funds in the supplemental
for both an Iraqi Relief and Reconstitution Fund, and a Natural
Resources Risk Remediation Fund to help with emergency fire
fighting and repair of damage to oil facilities.
But let me be clear: When it comes to reconstruction,
before we turn to the American taxpayers, we will turn first to
the resources of the Iraqi government and the international
community. That is why the President last week seized frozen
Iraqi assets in the United States, so that they can be put to
use to help rebuild the country.
Once Saddam Hussein is gone, the United States will work
with the Iraqi Interim Authority that will be established to
tap Iraq's oil revenues, the funds Iraq is owed in the United
Nations's Oil for Food program, and other Iraqi resources to
fund the effort.
Reconstruction will require a significant international
effort. And the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime is a
global threat, which is why some 49 nations have now publicly
associated themselves in the coalition against Iraq, and many
more nations are helping privately, some 10 or 11. I think the
total number of countries cooperating in one way or another now
is approaching in the midsixties. Already a number of countries
have indicated that they want to help with reconstruction and
stability in a post-Saddam Iraq.
In addition to needing this supplemental, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee, we also need greater flexibility as
to how that money is spent, so we can adjust to the changing
circumstances.
It is our hope that the period of intense combat in Iraq
will be as short as possible, but it is not knowable; and that
the coalition operations can shift fairly quickly from combat
to restoring stability and civil order, supplying humanitarian
assistance, and helping Iraq's people rebuild and assume
functional and political authority from the coalition. That is
the hope. But when it will happen is not knowable.
We do not know when the period of intense combat will end.
We do not yet know how much damage there will be to the Iraqi
infrastructure, though the coalition forces are making efforts
to keep that damage minimal while inflicting maximum damage to
regime targets. We do not know how the international effort
will unfold and the specifics of what each country may be
willing to offer.
We cannot know the extent to which the United Nations
(U.N.) will be permitted to help the Iraqi people, what access
the coalition will have to the U.N. Oil for Food program fund,
what economic sanctions might be lifted, and the answers to
many other questions.
FLEXIBILITY NEEDED
The point is that with so many unknowns, the Administration
clearly needs some flexibility. Just as the military plan that
General Franks developed has flexibility built into it so that
our forces can deal with unexpected events on the battlefield,
our budget plan must also have flexibility to deal with the
changing circumstances on the ground.
That is why we believe it is important that the funding
request for the Defense Emergency Response Fund be appropriated
in that fund, with its own transfer authority so we will have
the flexibility to respond to the changes on the ground.
It is also important that Congress approve the general
provisions the President has requested in the supplemental,
especially the request for increased general transfer
authority. The President has requested a transfer authority
ceiling of 2.5 percent of the fiscal year 2003 defense budget.
We believe that figure is reasonable, and that the increased
flexibility is needed.
COMPARING COSTS
We cannot know how long the effort in Iraq is going to
last, and we certainly cannot tell what it is going to cost.
What I do know is that whatever it ends up costing, it will be
small compared to the cost in lives and treasure of another
attack like the one we experienced on September 11th or a
weapons of mass destruction attack that could be far worse.
The Milken Institute estimated that metropolitan areas
throughout the United States sustained losses of about $191
billion as a result of 9/11 and some 1.6 million jobs were lost
as a result of the attacks. That is not to mention the cost in
lives and the pain and the suffering of so many who lost
husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters, sisters
and brothers on that terrible day.
Our mission in the global war on terror is to do everything
in our power to prevent a chemical, biological or nuclear
attack that would make 9/11 seem modest by comparison, an
attack where we could lose not just 3,000, but 30,000 or
300,000, or more.
There is no question but that $74.7 billion is a great deal
of money, but the cost of not investing that $74 billion would
be far greater. We need the funds. We need the flexibility as
to how they are spent, so we can adapt to the unknowable
circumstances that are unfolding in the weeks and months ahead.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We will continue to brief the Congress regularly as events
unfold on the ground, and as these unknowns come into better
focus. We appreciate the strong support that Congress has shown
for the men and women in uniform. They are doing a truly
remarkable job, and I know that they will succeed in their
mission.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to update you on our progress in the global war on terror,
and to discuss the President's emergency supplemental request to fund
worldwide operations in support of that war.
We are now less than a week into Operation Iraqi Freedom. The major
ground war began last Thursday at 10 p.m., and the major air war
started on Friday, the following day at 1 p.m. Eastern Time. So while
the conflict is well begun, it has only begun--we are still closer to
the beginning than the end.
Already, coalition forces have made good progress. The men and
women in uniform--U.S. and coalition forces alike--are doing a superb
job. They have engaged the enemy in demanding circumstances--enduring
wind gusts in excess of 85 miles-an-hour, and sand storms so intense
that they literally turn day into night, blacking out the sun. They
face an adversary which has demonstrated its contempt for the laws of
war--dressing its forces as liberated civilians; sending them out
waving white flags, feigning surrender, in order to draw coalition
forces into ambushes; using hospitals as a base from which to launch
attacks and hiding behind human shields.
In spite of these challenges, what coalition forces have
accomplished in less than a week is remarkable:
--Coalition aircrews have flown thousands of sorties, striking
leadership and Republican guard targets day and night.
--Coalition ground forces have raced across more than 200 miles of
Iraqi territory--through enemy fire and inhospitable terrain--
to reach a point just south of Baghdad in less than a week. It
is an impressive rate of advance.
--They have secured Iraq's southern oil fields, preventing an
environmental disaster and the destruction of critical
resources that the Iraqi people will need once Saddam Hussein
has been removed.
--In the North, the coalition has launched devastating attacks on
terrorist targets, is having success in disrupting terrorist
operations, and has prevented an Iraqi advance on the Kurds.
--In the West, coalition forces have had good success securing the
region and dealing with the regime's capability to threaten
neighboring countries from that part of Iraq.
As the battle unfolds in Iraq, coalition forces are also engaged in
operations elsewhere in the world in support of the global war on
terror. Just a few weeks before the Iraq campaign began, the al-Qaeda
network was dealt a serious blow with the capture of one of their most
senior operatives--Khalid Sheik Mohammed. And last week, as Operation
Iraqi Freedom got underway, coalition forces also launched a major
assault on terrorists operating in the southern mountains of
Afghanistan--Operation Valiant Strike. Many other anti-terrorist
efforts are underway throughout the world-efforts that are, of
necessity, often unseen, but which are helping to protect our people
from further acts of terror.
The point is this: all elements of national power are fighting the
global war on terror on all fronts. The coalition is putting steady
pressure on al-Qaeda, in Afghanistan and across the globe. And the
Iraqi regime is discovering they made a serious miscalculation in
rejecting 12 years of efforts to secure their peaceful disarmament.
The campaign could well grow more dangerous in the coming days and
weeks, as the forces close in on Baghdad. But the outcome is assured.
Saddam Hussein's regime will be removed. The only thing that remains
unclear is precisely how long it will take.
We do know this much: these efforts cost money. The costs of
military operations in Iraq, and the other missions currently underway
in the global war on terror, cannot be absorbed without the emergency
supplemental appropriation the President has requested.
Since the new fiscal year began, every month since October 2002--
October, November, December, January, February and now March 2003--we
have had to borrow from other programs to pay for the costs of the
global war on terror.
That pattern cannot continue much longer. The Services have already
gone through all of their discretionary spending for the 1st, 2nd and
3rd quarters of 2003--and will soon have exhausted 4th quarter
discretionary funding.
If this continues, we will run out of discretionary funds by late
spring/early summer--which could force us to curtail training,
maintenance and other critical activities.
The President has submitted a supplemental request of $74.7
billion. It includes $62.6 billion for the Department of Defense to
support military operations in Iraq and throughout the global war on
terror. Our troops are depending on it--those engaged in battle, those
preparing for battle, those stationed at critical outposts across the
globe, and those deployed here in the United States defending the
homeland.
The request for DOD includes, among other things:
--$7.1 billion for the round-trip costs of transporting our forces
and equipment to and from the theater of operations;
--$13.1 billion to provide war fighters in theater with the fuel,
supplies, repair parts, maintenance, and other operational
support they need to prevail;
--$15.6 billion for incremental personnel costs, such as for special
pay and compensation for mobilized reservists;
--$7.2 billion to start reconstituting our forces by replacing the
cruise missiles, smart bombs, and other key munitions being
expended in the course of the conflict.
--$12 billion for stability operations, military operations to root
out terrorist networks and deal with any remaining pockets of
resistance, humanitarian assistance, and operations to search
for and destroy Iraqi WMD.
--$1.5 billion for coalition support in the global war on terror--
including $1.3 billion for reimbursement to Pakistan and other
key cooperating nations assisting the effort in Afghanistan,
and $165 million for training of the Afghan National Army.
--And $6.1 billion for other requirements outlined in the request to
support military operations in Iraq and the global war on
terror.
Of the $62.6 billion the President has requested for DOD in this
supplemental, $30.3 billion are funds that have already been spent or
committed--including the cost of flowing forces into the region to
support the diplomatic efforts before Operation Iraqi Freedom began.
If the Iraqi regime had agreed to voluntarily disarm and prevent a
war, the costs of sustaining that military pressure through the rest of
the fiscal year would have been in excess of $40 billion. So even
without a war, the costs of disarming Iraq would have been significant.
The President has also requested funds in this supplemental for
both an Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, and a Natural Resources
Risk Remediation Fund to help with emergency fire fighting and repair
of damage to oil facilities. It is important that we have these
resources available.
But let me be clear: when it comes to reconstruction, before we
turn to the American taxpayers, we will turn first to the resources of
the Iraqi government itself and the international community. That is
why the President last week seized frozen Iraqi assets in the United
States--so that they can be put to use to rebuild the country. Once
Saddam Hussein is gone, the United States will work with the Iraqi
Interim Authority that will be established to tap Iraq's oil revenues,
the funds Iraq is owed in the U.N.'s ``oil for food'' program, and
other Iraqi resources to fund their reconstruction effort.
Reconstruction will require a significant international effort. The
threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime is a global threat--which is
why some 47 nations have publicly associated themselves with the
coalition in Iraq, and many more are helping privately. Already, a
number of countries have indicated that they want to help with
reconstruction and stability in a post-Saddam Iraq.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to needing this supplemental, we also
need greater flexibility in how we spend it--so we can adjust to the
constantly changing circumstances of the war.
It is our hope that the period of intense combat in Iraq will be as
short as possible--and that the coalition operations can shift quickly
from combat to restoring stability and civil order, supplying
humanitarian assistance, and helping Iraq's people rebuild and assume
functional and political authority from the coalition.
That is our hope. But when it will happen is not knowable.
--We do not know when the period of intense combat will end.
--We do not yet know how much damage there will be to Iraq's
infrastructure--though the coalition forces are making efforts
to keep that damage minimal while inflicting maximum damage to
regime targets.
--We do not know how the international effort will unfold and the
specifics of what each country is willing to offer.
--Moreover, France has announced it will veto any new Security
Council resolution and block coalition efforts to give the
United Nations an appropriate role in the post-Saddam
reconstruction effort.
--That means we cannot know the extent to which the United Nations
will be permitted to help the Iraqi people, what access the
coalition will have to the U.N.'s ``oil-for-food'' program
funds, when economic sanctions might be lifted, and the answers
to many other unknowns.
The point is that: with so many unknowns, we will need some
flexibility. Just as the military plan General Franks developed has
flexibility built into it so that our forces can deal with unexpected
events on the battlefield, our budget plan must also have flexibility
to deal with changing circumstances on the ground.
That is why it is important that the funding requested for the
Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF) be appropriated in that fund--
with its own transfer authority--so we will have the flexibility to
respond to the inevitable changes on the ground.
It is also important that Congress approve the general provisions
the President has requested in the supplemental--especially the request
for increased general transfer authority (GTA). The President has
requested a General Transfer Authority ceiling of 2.5 percent of the
fiscal year 2003 DOD budget. That figure is reasonable. Increased
flexibility is needed.
The President has requested a war supplemental of $74.7 billion.
That figure is not the cost of the war; that figure is the best
estimate of the money that the State Department, the CIA, the
Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense need to
carry us from October 1, 2002 through the end of this fiscal year.
We can't know how long the effort in Iraq is going to last--and we
certainly can't tell what it is going to cost. It is not knowable.
What I do know is that, whatever it ends up costing, it will be
small compared to the cost in lives and treasure of another attack like
the one we experienced on September 11th--or a weapons of mass
destruction attack that could be far worse.
The Milken Institute estimated that metropolitan areas throughout
the United States sustained losses of about $191 billion as a result of
9/11 and some 1.6 million jobs were lost as a result of the attacks.
And that's not to mention the cost in lives lost and the pain and the
suffering of so many who lost husbands and wives, fathers and mothers,
sons and daughters, sisters and brothers on that terrible day.
Our mission in the global war on terror is to do everything in our
power to prevent a chemical, biological or nuclear attack that would
make 9/11 seem modest by comparison--and attack where we could lose not
3,000 people, but 30,000 or 300,000, or more.
Yes, $74.7 billion is a lot of money--but the cost of not investing
that $74.7 billion would be far greater.
Mr. Chairman, we need the funds--and we need flexibility in how
they are spent, so we can adapt to unforeseen and unknowable
circumstances that will unfold in the weeks and months ahead.
We will continue to brief the Congress regularly as events unfold
on the ground, as these unknowns come into better focus. We appreciate
the strong support you have shown for the President, and for the men
and women in uniform. They are doing a remarkable job and I know that
they will succeed in their mission.
I'd be happy to take your questions.
Secretary Rumsfeld. General Myers.
Chairman Stevens. General Myers.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL RICHARD B. MYERS, CHAIRMAN, JOINT
CHIEFS OF STAFF
General Myers. Mr. Chairman, I have a short statement. Good
morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is a
pleasure to be here with you.
I will not repeat the Secretary, but I would like to take
this opportunity to point out the dramatic successes that our
servicemen and women have achieved this week in Iraq. They have
executed our plans superbly and have exploited the flexibility
inherent in that plan. The performance is marvelous and I think
we are all very proud of them.
The environment is demanding, and our men and women are
offering exceptional examples of the dedication, bravery and
professionalism of our joint force.
In the first 100 hours of the ground phase of Desert Storm
back in 1991, we moved a bit over 100 miles into Iraq. Yet, as
Secretary Rumsfeld mentioned, coalition troops moved over 200
miles into Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom in the first 36
hours. That is about twice as far in less than half the time.
I must also point out that our Special Operations teams
throughout the country, in cooperation with other U.S.
Government agency assets, have done an incredible job and a
largely unrecognized job so far for good reason.
We are additionally engaged in a global war on terror in
the Philippines and in Georgia, and we are still fighting the
al-Qaeda and remnants of al-Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan.
The global war on terror is, in fact, global in scope and in
nature. All of our Nation's Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines,
and Coastguardsmen, as well as our Department of Defense
civilians and coalition partners, have performed exceptionally
well.
But this effort, protecting America in our new and
challenging strategic environment, has generated significant
costs. The American and British people have borne the dramatic
and tragic price of casualties in battle here recently. And we
grieve with the families of these heroes. We will not forget
their sacrifice. They are a reminder of the best our country
and Britain has to offer.
There is no doubt that we will succeed in disarming Iraq.
We will remove their weapons of mass destruction. We will
remove their thuggish leader, and we will lift the people of
Iraq from under the boot of their oppressor.
But we must recognize, though it pales in personal
importance, that we have borne steep monetary expenditures
fighting the war on terror and prosecuting the campaign in
Iraq. As we meet here today, our Nation's military forces are
in need of prompt and full passage of the President's
supplemental request.
The Department cannot absorb the more than $62 billion in
incremental costs the war on terror has demanded. In fact, as
the Secretary has said, the four military services will soon
exhaust borrowing from their fourth quarter operations and
maintenance accounts.
Without prompt passage of supplemental appropriations, most
of the services' operational and maintenance and military
personnel accounts will run out of funding. Prompt funding is
needed to sustain our troops in the field as well. And it is
important to ensure that those in training at home have the
best possible support to accomplish their vital task of
providing for the common defense for today and for tomorrow.
And if our full request is not appropriated, shortfalls
would cause a severe curtailment of training, maintenance and
other funding from later in the fiscal year. This would
undoubtedly reduce the readiness and the morale of our hard-
working and hard-fighting men and women. And it would reduce
Defense Department efforts to fight the global war on
terrorism.
Indeed, prompt funding will further demonstrate to our men
and women that they have the full and unwavering support of the
people of the United States. While we have troops in combat,
the importance of support from home cannot be overstated. It is
up to all of us to show them that our words are reflected in
our actions.
Furthermore, given the challenging dynamics on the war on
terror, at this time flexibility of execution is just as
important as flexibility on the battlefield, as the Secretary
said. And this flexibility in execution will enable the
Department to rapidly meet unknowable, unforeseen requirements
to achieve the greatest payoff.
Members of the committee, Secretary Rumsfeld has outlined
our expenses by operational phases and other funds and
provisions. These are our best projections of our expenses in
defeating the Iraqi regime and winning the war on terror.
We appreciate your support and it is essential to our
success in protecting America and winning the war on terror
that we pass this supplemental. Thank you very much.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you. Let me thank you for three
things: First, for your tremendous leadership; second, for the
briefings that you have given to us now every day since this
war has commenced. This is not a classified hearing here so we
do not expect to go into some of the things you have told us in
those sessions.
But, third, I want to thank you for the embedded journalism
that you have developed. It has given the world an experience
in terms of knowing more and knowing the trials and
tribulations of those who must fight a war. And clearly it was
a risky decision, but the right one to make. So I personally
thank you for that.
I have but one question and that is--I might have some that
we will submit in writing to your staff, Mr. Secretary. But
your supplemental request outlines four broad phases of the war
that we are conducting. Can you outline here for us now, what
are those phases and where are we today in regard to those
phases?
PHASES OF THE WAR IN IRAQ
General Myers. Yes, sir. We are currently in phase three,
which is combat operations. The first two phases were getting
ready for that. The second phase was building up the forces and
being prepared.
Then the fourth phase is at the end of the conflict, is the
reconstruction of Iraq. It is--and it has many different parts
to it, but the principal parts would be ensuring the
territorial integrity of Iraq; to ensure that the factions are
not fighting among themselves in the various ethnic groups; to
ensure that we can locate, secure and take appropriate action
with weapons of mass destruction sites; and that we bring on or
along--at the same time, that we bring on an Iraqi interim
administration that can stand up and, hopefully, fairly
expeditiously start running their country. And that is the
phase four. That follows the phase that we are in right now,
which is phase three.
Secretary Rumsfeld. One way to think about it is if you
think of Afghanistan. The entire country does not necessarily
move from one phase to another. In Afghanistan, for example, we
are in phase three in some places where there are still
kinetics. In other places, we are in phase four, which is in
the post-conflict stabilization period. And I suspect that that
will be happening in Iraq as well, that there will be--it will
roll across the country. And we will be beginning the phase
four probably in portions of the country before the rest of the
country is stabilized.
HOW MUCH OF REQUEST NEEDS FLEXIBILITY
Chairman Stevens. That raises another question. You have
got a request for $62.6 billion, and the statement is that
$30.3 billion have already been spent or committed. So the
flexibility you seek is on the funds that are left to be spent
or committed, right?
Secretary Rumsfeld. The flexibility is--each statement--the
first statement is correct. We believe that of the total
request of $60-plus billion, some $30-plus billion has either
been spent or committed. That is to say, it is what the global
war on terror is costing. It is what it costs to flow forces
over. It is an estimate on things that have already expended,
munitions.
The request, however, is for the flexibility for the entire
amount and I think it is correct to say--Dov, go ahead and
clarify it.
Dr. Zakheim. Sure. Regarding the $30.3 billion, Senator,
you are absolutely right. We have a pretty good sense of the
accounts and where the money will go, but I stress that it is
still an estimate.
We still may have overages and underages in those accounts.
So we still need the flexibility throughout. What we tried to
do was to give the committee a better sense of where the money
was going when we knew it. But it is still only a sense, sir.
We do need the flexibility for the entire amount.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Secretary. Thank you, General.
I am sure that I speak for everyone here when I compliment
the fighting men and women who are out there under very extreme
and serious circumstances. I compliment them for their bravery
and for their doing their job so well.
Let me--I am very sorry that we do not have the time that
we ought to have on this very, very important bill. Let me
first, Mr. Secretary, say that in your prepared statement, I
have noted the word ``flexibility'' at least a half a dozen
times. And I have heard that word kicked around here by others.
I heard it down at the White House the other night.
I expressed my suspicions concerning the word
``flexibility'' at that time, and as I sit here, I must ask
you--I wish I could ask more questions; I wish we had the time,
because this is a very--to me, this is a very serious thing
that we are being asked to do.
The Defense portion of the supplemental includes $1.4
billion for the support of coalition partners in the war on
Iraq and the war against terrorism. You request the authority
to exempt these funds from Congressional notification
procedures and from all laws that regulate how the United
States may give to its friends. Those laws are there for a
reason. We should be careful about what we give to other
countries.
During the Iran/Iraq war, the United States sent anthrax,
brucella and botulinum to Iraq, which may have formed the basis
of their biological weapons program. Can you explain, Secretary
Rumsfeld, why the $1.4 billion in foreign aid should be exempt
from any kind of oversight outside of the Department of
Defense, Department of State, and the Office of Management and
Budget? Why should Congress not have some say as to how the
money is used, so that we can ensure that the aid is consistent
with the long-term national security interests of the United
States?
CONGRESS' BUDGET ROLE
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, there is no question but that
Congress has a critically important role to play, and
particularly with respect to the purse strings. I can give you
possibly some examples of things that occurred very recently
that we were not able to do for long, long periods of time.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, I hope you will excuse me for
interrupting you; my time is limited. Could you give me a more
direct answer to the question I asked? If I had more time, I am
sure that what you were about to say would be helpful, but I
think we can get to the questions and the answers more quickly,
if we might.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, you indicated that there would
not be notification to Congress. There would be. Congress would
be fully aware of how the funds were spent. The--any
implication to the contrary, I think, would be inaccurate. The
question is whether there should be prior notification to a
number of committees and then a long period of months prior to
the time that those funds can be expended.
And I will give you two specific examples. The United
States owed Pakistan, I do not know, several hundred million
dollars for months and months and months and months, and we
were unable to pay them. And if we are asking countries to
cooperate with us and assist us and provide fuel and provide
apron space on an airfield, and we are not able to pay them for
the funds that they are owed for that service, because--for, I
think, it was in this case 6 months--I could be wrong.
General Myers. More.
Secretary Rumsfeld. More. He says it is more. But we could
not pay the Afghan National Army, for example, to help train
them. We could not get that started in time. It took months. We
had to finally go out and scrounge around and figure out a
dozen different ways to do things.
There are certainly things that come up that are not
knowable in advance. It would be wonderful if everything were
knowable a year and a half in advance, but they are not.
Senator Byrd. Well, Mr. Secretary, this is not the first
war we have fought. And I am sure the same thing could have
been said in any of the wars that have proceeded this--World
War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and other
wars. And I cannot see the necessity of having additional
flexibilities given in this instance that we have not had
before. It would seem to me that Congress will certainly
respond quickly to any needs that can be substantiated by the
Department in this period of time.
BUDGET FLEXIBILITY
Secretary Rumsfeld, the supplemental request includes $59.9
billion for the Defense Emergency Response Fund. Last year, the
Defense Department requested a similar $10 billion reserve fund
for operations in Afghanistan. Congress disagreed and worked
with you to specify accounts for funding. Is there a specific
reason why such an approach would not work today?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, because the Congress did not
provide the $10 billion that we requested, the Department of
Defense had to borrow from other accounts all through October,
all through November, all through December, all through
January, until we finally got $6.1 billion, thanks to this
committee and the Congress, to pay back money that had already
been spent. It is just a terrible way to operate. To have to
run to other accounts and pull money out, and spend it for
things you know you are going to have to spend it for is simply
not in my view a good way to manage our affairs. We did----
Senator Byrd. Well, Mr. Secretary, I understand it may be a
terrible way, but we are talking about the expenditure of the
taxpayers' money. And the American people have a right to
believe that their money is being spent most prudently. And I
know it is--I know it may be difficult to have to have the
taxpayers' representatives in Congress to have to limit--place
limitations on the various Departments, but this is something
that has to be done. We are talking about the liberties of the
American people.
And it seems to me that we have done very well over the
several decades in fighting the wars. There are limitations.
There will be limitations. There ought to be limitations. And I
regret that you have to live under these limitations, but it is
not asking too much of the American people to have their
representatives in Congress require the agency heads to answer
questions and to place limitations on their spending.
I cite Madison Federalist number 48, ``Power is of an
over--encroaching nature.'' I am sorry. I do not have my
glasses with me, so it slows me down a little bit. ``Power is
of an encroaching nature, and it ought to be effectually
restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.''
Now, Mr. Secretary, I am sorry you have to labor under
these limits, but we have always had them. And we have had wars
before, and it is not too much to ask the Department to live
within these limitations.
Edmund Burke said, ``The people never give up their
liberties, except under some delusion.'' So here we are being
asked to give up the people's liberties under the--in the
interest of flexibility.
Mr. Secretary, I am against giving additional flexibility.
I will give every dollar--I will support every dollar I can to
help the troops and provide their--for their safety, and to
help win the war. But to have a--to extend these limitations to
the extent that they are--is being asked here, I just do not
think--I think it is too much.
The reason we have separation of powers is to protect the
liberties of the people. And checks and balances and the
separation of powers has served the people well now for 215
years. And so count me out when you ask for these additional
flexibilities.
I think Congress will respond to the needs whenever the
case is made. But we cannot afford to give this Administration
or any other Administration a blank check. We did not give you
a blank check when you were Secretary of Defense in the 1970s.
And I do not expect to support giving a blank check to any
Administration.
The people have the right to know how their monies are
spent and to believe that they are being spent prudently. And I
hope that the Congress will be very reticent when it comes to
giving up these limitations because, after all, they protect
the liberties of the American people.
As long as we have a separation of powers, and checks and
balances that are written into this--which you have to live by,
which I have to live by, then the liberties of the American
people will be secure.
I guess I have overrun my time. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Yes, sir. Senator, my recollection is
there was a defense emergency response fund in the September
2002 supplemental.
Senator Byrd. Yes. I remember that. If I had time, I would
go into that.
Chairman Stevens. And, Mr. Secretary, there will be one
this time too.
Senator from--Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
General Myers, one question that I have that I think we
would all be interested in hearing a response to is the extent
to which you have what you need to wage the war in Iraq so that
we do have a successful conclusion. Are there any items of
munitions or equipment or men or women who are necessary for
the conduct of this war successfully that you foresee right now
to lack funds or shortfalls in funding?
General Myers. Senator Cochran, right now, I think our men
and women have everything they need to prosecute our effort in
Iraq and also prosecute the global war on terrorism, which Iraq
is a part of, of course to include our efforts in Afghanistan
and other places around the world.
As we indicated in both our opening statements, though, and
I do not think it is a question of equipment as much as it is
of funding personnel costs and other operations and maintenance
costs. The money that has been used to fund what we have been
doing up until now has been taken from fourth quarter funds
from the various services, now creating a need to replenish
those funds, or we are going to find out here in May or June
that the services are out of their personnel funding in their
accounts or they are out of their operations and maintenance
accounts.
So--but right now, we are fine. And if we get this
supplemental in a timely manner, it will continue to be fine. I
cannot think of anything at this point that we can put funding
to that would have an impact on this battlefield today.
Clearly, you will see some things in the fiscal year 2004--and
you already have--in the fiscal year 2004 budget that shore up
some of our systems in the future. But now we are in good
shape.
TIMING OF SUPPLEMENTAL PASSAGE
Senator Cochran. Mr. Secretary, I assume that there may be
an application of a phrase that I remember from law school,
``time is of the essence.'' If we act quickly, you can use the
funds that we are appropriating more efficiently and more
effectively to ensure that we win the war and that we win the
war against terror as well.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Absolutely, Senator. There is no
question. We have already gone through, as I say, some period
of months without the supplemental funds that are needed, and
we are anxious to have the appropriation so that we can proceed
in an orderly and businesslike way.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stevens. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
HOW FUNDS WILL BE DISBURSED TO SERVICES
Mr. Secretary, since the bulk of the funds in the request
are not broken down by service, how can the services know what
portion they will get so they can make appropriate plans to use
such funds?
Secretary Rumsfeld. The--of course, the war is not being
fought by services; it is being, as you well know, is being
fought by--in a combatant command by joint forces. And how they
are--how the decision is made by the combatant commander to use
one element of a service or another of a different service is
something that evolved as the circumstance on the ground and in
the air and at the sea take place.
The allocation will end up being based on usage and
consumption. And that is the judgment that evolves as the
combatant commander makes decisions as to how he wants to use
the various forces. And it ultimately then goes into the normal
accounts of the services, as a reimbursement for the
expenditure of that usage or that consumption.
Senator Inouye. The chairman of this committee has
indicated that he will do his best to finish this process by
Easter. Can you assure this committee that the funds will be
disbursed as expeditiously as this committee is doing? Because
these are reimbursements, are they not?
Secretary Rumsfeld. They--what we will have to do is to go
back and immediately start using the funds that are
appropriated by the Congress to replenish the accounts that
have been drained during the--already now for three quarters
worth of those accounts.
Chairman Stevens. Will the Senator yield?
Senator Inouye. Yes.
DIRECT APPROPRIATION FOR COSTS ALREADY INCURRED
Chairman Stevens. Why can you not give us those figures or
put it in the law? Why do we have to wait?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Dov.
Dr. Zakheim. Again, Senator, as I mentioned earlier, what
we know already or think we know we have listed, and that was
the $30.3 billion that we discussed earlier. And as the
Secretary just said, as we consume and as we know what we have
consumed, then, of course, we will allocate directly to the
accounts and we will keep the Congress fully informed. We do
not know how the war exactly will play out in terms of specific
consumption, and that is why we cannot predict exactly to what
account money will go.
Secretary Rumsfeld. For example, we know what it costs to
flow forces over. It--General Franks very likely will make
judgments as to which forces he wants to put in theater, which
forces he does not want to put in theater, depending on how
long the conflict goes, which forces he wants to use as
replacement forces, so that forces that have been in the battle
for a period can be flowed home. And that would vary from
service to service.
We can come up with gross numbers in terms of what it is
likely to be, but in terms of being confident today that you
would know precisely which service would need to be reimbursed
in advance, it is simply not possible.
Senator Inouye. This supplemental request will reimburse
for funds expended, is that correct?
Secretary Rumsfeld. No, sir. The--it is--the supplemental
that--the DOD portion of the supplemental is not the cost of
the war, it is not for all that has been expended; it is for
what has been expended, what has been committed, but not
expended--that is to say once you take the forces over, you
have got to be able to bring them back. So there is funds in
here to bring them back, even though it is not expended. We
think of it as committed, and for a reasonable anticipation of
what will be required for the remainder of the fiscal year. It
is really those three categories.
Senator Inouye. And this request will meet all the
requirements of the services?
Secretary Rumsfeld. No, sir. I cannot say that. They--how
this conflict will play out is not--I cannot know. I do not
know anyone on the face of the earth who can know. And,
therefore, it is not possible to say that it will meet--it
could--it is conceivable that there will be needs that will not
be met. And we would have to come back and discuss those kinds
of things. But it is not--I am not saying that is the case. I
just cannot promise you that they would all be met. Certainly,
we would go back and meet the needs of the services in terms of
the things they have expended already.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Bond.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary,
and General. I hope you will convey the, as all of my
colleagues do, the best wishes on behalf of the people that we
serve for the military men and women who are at risk and know
that our thanks and prayers are with them.
A question about, I guess to General Myers, we are reading
about the Iraqi Fedayeen, Saddam, and the other paramilitary
groups harassing the supply lines. Is this just mere deadly
harassment, or is this going to require more time and resources
to be spent on protecting the supply lines and the rear and
delaying our advance to Baghdad?
General Myers. This will not delay the execution of the
plan, as laid out by General Franks. It can be, I think,
characterized more as harassment at this point, and it is being
dealt with appropriately, I think. I will not get into the
operational details, but General Franks is taking means to deal
with this group.
It is tough to characterize them because of the way they
act. If you were watching TV this morning, they had some
soldiers from Lawrenceville Hospital that happened to run
across one of these groups that were dressed in traditional
garb, took that garb off--pretended to surrender, took that
garb off when they got closer, and revealed that they, indeed,
had uniforms underneath, and weapons, and, of course, they were
taken care of. But I think a better description is probably
regime death squads, because that is what they are doing.
They are putting guns to people's heads, the Iraqi
citizens, to force them to continue to fight, when they would
much rather give up, but there are enough of them where it is a
bit of a--it is something that needs to be dealt with, so we
are dealing with that as we speak.
Senator Bond. Obviously, there is a hope, but not broadly
realized, that there will be more major units defecting. At the
same time, we hear reports that these death squads are
threatening anybody who seeks to desert with death. They are
using the paramilitary groups. How long do you think that can
last? At what point do you think we will have degraded their
capabilities sufficiently that they will not be able to prevent
major defections?
General Myers. I do not know if that is knowable exactly. I
think the larger population centers are probably different from
the less-populated areas, certainly along the lines of
communication. Our supply lines, like I said, it is not having
a major impact. In fact, it is not having any impact on the
supplies reaching our troops, our forward troops. We are just
going to have to stay at it.
There are a lot of other pieces, and it starts to get into
operational matters, and I would prefer not to talk about it
here, but it is part of the overall campaign, to quickly
diminish their capability. We are doing that. Hundreds of them
have been engaged. Hundreds of them have been dealt with, and
that will continue.
Senator Bond. Mr. Secretary, you have talked about phase
four, and there is a request of some $2.4 billion for the new
flexible account for humanitarian relief to the people of
Afghanistan.
In phase four, how long is the Defense Department going to
be responsible for that reconstruction humanitarian aid? Is
this going to be moved over to another account where we should
be funding, either the State Department, USAID, or others?
INTERNATIONAL SOURCES OF FUNDS
It is a two-part question. The second part is, you have
raised in your written statement, the concern that France is
threatening to veto the Food for Peace program. How much money
do you see as available from international sources to provide
the humanitarian relief and reconstruction that we hope and
expect for Iraq?
Secretary Rumsfeld. These are issues that are currently
being discussed, and negotiated, and considered. The sources of
funds include the following, at least. One is frozen assets in
our country and other countries. A second source is, there is
some number that is not quite clear, $10 billion or $12 billion
in the U.N. Oil for Food accounts, some portion of which is
committed to existing contracts, but the contracts were
contracts entered into by Saddam Hussein's regime, and one
would think that a serious review of those contracts would free
up a lot of that money as well.
So if it is $7 billion out of the $12 billion that are
committed to contracts, I would anticipate that a careful scrub
of those contracts would mean that there would be less than $7
billion committed, and, therefore, more available.
Third, there are potential oil revenues. It looks at the
moment as though the bulk of the Iraqi oil wells are not
damaged and are not aflame, which is very fortunate. And, of
course, those are revenues that ought to be available for the
Iraqi people, and for the people of that country.
Third, there are coalition contributions. Already,
countries are making contributions in the country. World Food
is providing assistance. The United Kingdom has a ship, the Sir
Galahad, that is off the port south of Iraq, waiting to come in
as soon as they are certain that the mines have been cleared.
Neighboring countries have offered medical assistance, and a
whole host of things.
So there undoubtedly will be an international donor's
conference to raise money, and there are a variety of places
that funds can come for this.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stevens. Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OVERCOMMITTED MANPOWER
Mr. Secretary, do not worry about the money. You know and I
know that you are going to get the money; otherwise, rather
than a money supplemental, we ought to be thinking about a
manpower supplemental. We just set aside Secretary Ridge and
you and Secretary Ridge are fighting over the same manpower.
Last weekend with the orange alert, all our Guard was
committed, all our Reserves are committed, so the poor
Governor, he had to put parole officers around the Port of
Charleston.
You cannot have 12 peacekeeping commitments, a war in
Afghanistan, and a war in Iraq, and these long commitments,
because what we are teaching them hereafter this engagement is
that they will not be able to afford to serve in the Reserves,
they will not be able to afford to serve in the Guard, but most
particularly, Mr. Secretary, get this Administration to ask not
just for the money, but how to pay for it.
The people of America are ready to sacrifice; they are
ready to pay for this. I know Karl Rove thinks you need a tax
cut in order to get reelected, but this is an embarrassment to
this Senator. I have been in government for 50 years, and what
you have me doing is telling that grunt, ``We want you to go
into battle, and we hope you do not get killed, and the reason
we hope you do not get killed is we want you to hurry back so I
can give you the bill. This generation, this Congress, this
Administration is not going to pay for it. We need a tax cut so
I can go to Disney World.'' Now that is outrageous nonsense.
So just do not ask for the money; please hurry up and
submit how you folks think we ought to raise the revenue and
pay for the war. Now is the time for the sacrifice.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, on the people piece of it, you
are right. The Guard and Reserve folks do a wonderful job, and
they are critically important to the total force concept, and
there are times when the call-up occurs, that some of the
people in the call-up are people who do police work, or they do
fireman work, and various things that the homeland security
people would like to have.
Two things we are trying to do in that connection: One is,
we are trying to get people in uniform out of jobs that are not
military tasks. There are so many people, men and women in
uniform, who are doing functions all across this town, and
around the world, that are not truly military activities, and
we can fix that.
Second, we need authority, additional authority, so that we
can, in fact, contract out to civilians to do certain
functions. We have a terrible time, for example, trying to hire
security people in the United States to protect various aspects
of bases. We are required, to some extent, to use military
people, or at least have been over a period of time, and to the
extent we can get military people doing things that involve our
core competence, and not being required to do things that are
not core competencies of the military, we will be a lot better
off.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran [presiding]. Senator Gregg.
Senator Gregg. I thought we were recognizing on the basis
of seniority, which would put Senator Shelby before me.
Senator Cochran. I assumed you were senior, but you are
not.
Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, Secretary Wolfowitz and General Myers, I
will be brief, but I want to commend you, all of you, for what
you have done, what you are doing, and for your leadership. I
do not believe you have asked for a blank check. You have been
specific. You have asked for flexibility, and you have asked
for resources you need.
I think that we need to give you all the resources, Mr.
Secretary, to prosecute and win this war. We should not even
blink. We should give you the flexibility that you need to
finance and conduct this war.
As you said clearly in your statement, there are a lot of
unknowables here. You do not know everything. There is no way
to know everything, but the least I believe this committee can
do, is to expedite the supplemental as fast as we can, to make
sure that you have the resources to do what you do best.
That is all I want to say. I am here to support you.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby.
Senator Cochran. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I do not think either you or anybody at the
White House, or it certainly was not the impression given at
our meeting we had at the White House with the President and
the Vice President a couple days back, no one has any question
but that you will get the money for the troops in the field. We
all know that. The question is, how much, when, and why?
We have Tom Ridge noted in today's Washington Post that the
fighting has been a lot more ferocious than planned; it could
take longer than expected. I think General Myers and the others
would be the first to say that there is no such thing as a
military plan where you could anticipate every single
contingency. It is impossible.
We know we have the best trained, best equipped men and
women in our Army, our Air Force, our Navy, and our Marines,
but there are unexpected things that happen, whether it is a
friendly-fire incident, or whether anything else. You will get
the money.
WILL MORE FUNDING BE NEEDED?
What we want to know is: Is this going to go on a lot
longer than may have been expected? Are you coming back in the
weeks and months ahead for more fiscal year 2003 money? Do you
anticipate that you will?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, the people who looked at this,
and they looked at the Department of State, the Department of
Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the intelligence
community, and came forward with the best estimate they could.
Is it going to prove out over the coming months? I do not know.
Do we believe that it is the best possible estimate at the
present time? Yes.
Senator Leahy. I was looking at some of the pictures of
U.S. aid arriving in Southern Iraq yesterday. I know you are
committed----
Secretary Rumsfeld. I could not understand you. I am sorry.
HOW AID IS BEING PROVIDED
Senator Leahy. I looked at some of the pictures of United
States aid, food, and what-not, arriving in Southern Iraq. I
know you are committed, the President is committed, General
Myers, and everybody else is committed to getting aid there.
Obviously, initially, it was rather haphazard. People were
grabbing things off a truck, and so on. The desperation is
obvious.
Who is in charge of the aid right now? Is it General
Garner, or is it United States Agency for International
Development (USAID)?
Secretary Rumsfeld. First, the aid is coming in in a
variety of different ways. It is coming in directly with
military forces, coalition forces, as they go into the country,
are bringing food. They are bringing water that is available
for people. There is not, at the moment, any evidence, any good
intelligence that suggests there is a humanitarian crisis in
that country.
The people have been given extra rations over a period of
months now, and the estimate has been that they have somewhere
between 2, 4, or 6 weeks of food, many of the people in the
country.
Next, the food aid is then coming in through international
organizations. World Food is bringing food in. The British have
a ship standing off the port ready to bring in food, 380 tons
of food.
Senator Leahy. I do not question that, Mr. Secretary, but
my question is this, some of the same people who are in the
ships staying outside say, of course, they cannot move until
security is adequate. I mean, who determines that? Who is----
Secretary Rumsfeld. General Franks.
Senator Leahy [continuing]. In charge.
Secretary Rumsfeld. General Franks. It is a war zone, and
it is a unified command, and it goes right up to him.
Senator Leahy. Once he determines that there is enough
security to go in, then who takes over? Is it USAID, or is it
the military?
Secretary Rumsfeld. It depends on the portion of the
country. If it is an area that is not secure, it is obviously
under the combatant commander and his land forces, General
McKiernan. To the extent it is an area that is secure, then the
land component commander would very likely turn to some of
these nongovernmental organizations, and they would begin
finding the ability to move in, just as they did in
Afghanistan, in a secure environment, and provide the kind of
food assistance, and water, and the like that is available. The
British are currently running a pipeline from Kuwait into Iraq
to provide water, for example.
HUMANITARIAN OR RECONSTRUCTION AID FOR AFGHANISTAN
Senator Leahy. You mentioned Afghanistan. We have money in
the supplemental, I noticed, for a road repair project for the
Afghan National Army, and I believe that is important. There is
nothing for humanitarian or reconstruction needs in
Afghanistan. There are thousands of displaced Afghans. I know
in the fiscal year 2003 budget, there was no request for
foreign aid for Afghanistan.
Should there not be something in the supplemental if you
have all of these hundreds of thousands of displaced Afghans?
Do you plan to ask for humanitarian or reconstruction needs,
other than the road and the Afghan National Army?
Secretary Rumsfeld. That side of the activity in
Afghanistan is being handled through the embassy and through
the Agency for International Development (AID). And whether or
not they requested funds, I just simply do not know.
Do you know?
Dr. Zakheim. I am not aware. I do know that----
Senator Leahy. There is nothing in this budget that I could
find.
Dr. Zakheim. Well, I do know--I was just at the donor's
conference about 10 days ago in Brussels. We are still the
leading individual country, in terms of donations. There was
$900 million for 2002 and 2003, combined. We are exceeding what
we had promised, and we are still very much expending, as we
promised we would.
So it is not just a matter of what is in the supplemental,
Senator; it is what has been requested over the last couple of
years. These are just additional projects and additional
activities over and above what we have already committed.
Senator Leahy. Well, last year, nothing was requested.
Senator McConnell and I found money and put it in.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Senator Gregg.
WHAT BUDGET FLEXIBILITY IS NEEDED
Senator Gregg. Mr. Secretary, I was wondering if you could
review again for us this issue of flexibility and what the
scope of it is, and why you feel it is important, and the time
frame that it would--is timed obsolescence tied to it? Is it
tied to the war, or is it----
Secretary Rumsfeld. I am sorry. I am having trouble hearing
you.
Senator Gregg. Is it a permanent authority, you want, and
what is the scope of it----
Secretary Rumsfeld. The authority runs----
Senator Gregg [continuing]. And why is it important?
Secretary Rumsfeld. The authority runs to the supplemental,
and it ends in the fiscal year, as I understand it. The reason
it is needed is that we have committed a large number of
forces. They are still flowing into the region. They will be
used in different ways, depending on decisions made by the
combatant commander.
We need the flexibility to move money between services and
between accounts, so that we could reimburse those people who
actually expend the munitions. For example, we do not know
which munitions will be expended at what rates, but we do know
they are expending munitions at a high rate, and they vary. So
what we need to do is to be able to have the money, and be able
to reimburse the services that have used those capabilities.
The same thing is true with fuel. The same thing is true with
the timing that they are there.
To give you an example, we mobilized a lot of Reserves and
Guard. We are going to be stopping that mobilization at some
point. The decisions by the Combatant Commander as to what
forces he wants to have there at any given time, and what
forces he can flow back to the United States and demobilize,
are questions that are not currently decided; therefore, one
cannot know which accounts need to be used for those longer
periods or for the shorter periods. Therefore, the flexibility
is absolutely critical, and there is not any way to diagram it
out.
TIME FRAME OF SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
Senator Gregg. Thank you. In the area--you used the term,
this request reasonably anticipates for what will be needed to
the end of the year. So I am presuming it anticipates what is
needed to the end of this war, because I--whatever your time
frame is, I presume that it is shorter than the end of the
year.
Secretary Rumsfeld. No, sir. There is anticipated that
there will be costs after the kinetic aspect of the war ends,
and what numbers of forces would be needed would depend on a
variety of unknowables, how many other countries will offer
forces and assist, how many other countries will offer
financial assistance, how long will it actually take, as you
bring down the number of forces that are there for the combat
portion and assist in the stabilization, and the transition to
an Iraqi national authority.
Depending on how the war ends, it could affect how long a
stabilization period there would be. So it is entirely possible
that--I do not know in your using the word ``war'' you meant
the entire process, but I assumed you did mean the entire
process, and, therefore, I would think there would be costs
next year that would relate to Iraq that would run into the
next fiscal year.
Senator Gregg. I was more focusing on the conflict period
versus the reconstruction period, but I appreciate the answer.
To what extent will the revenues that might be energized
from the oil that is there be used to reimburse the costs of
reconstruction?
RECONSTRUCTION RESPONSIBILITIES
Secretary Rumsfeld. I do not believe that the United States
has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense. What we
have is a responsibility to get that country on a path that it
has a representative Government that fulfills the standards
that General Myers outlined.
We want to participate in reconstruction. Other countries
will want to participate in reconstruction, and the funds can
come from those various sources I mentioned; frozen assets, oil
revenues, and a variety of other things, including the Oil for
Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of
dollars in it.
CEASE FIRE INITIATIVE
Senator Gregg. Do you expect a diplomatic initiative? I
understand there is one coming forward from some of the Arab
states, supported, I guess, by France, and it appears even
tacitly supported by General Secretary Annan to go to the
United Nations, and attempt to initiate a cease fire prior to
our believing it is in the interest of our forces to have a
cease fire? Do you expect that type of diplomatic initiative to
occur? And if you do, or anything similar to that to occur,
what is your reaction to it?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I have no idea what some country might
propose, but there is not going to be a cease fire.
Senator Cochran. Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to
you, Mr. Secretary and General Myers. Like my colleagues, I
want to express our support to you, and to the troops who are
fighting, and in harm's way today.
That essentially takes me to my question, because I want to
support them not only with words, but with deeds, to make sure
that they have the best weapons and the best support that they
can. This then takes me to morale, to pay, and to military
families, which I am not sure is in the supplemental; we are
taking a look at it.
HELPING MILITARY FAMILIES AND MOBILIZED RESERVISTS
Mr. Secretary, we face a very significant issue in the
sense that as we mobilized our active duty, we mobilized our
Reserve, and our National Guard, and since September 11th,
those units have been mobilized more frequently and for longer
periods of time, and many right now are in the desert sands of
Iraq.
My question to you is that the families, because the
families are facing hardships--we are now hearing stories in
Maryland of a small-business man who because he has been called
up so many times, and is now overseas, they have had to close
their business; they have gone through their education funds;
they are now living with parents and relatives. And I could go
through any number of case examples, where, as National Guard
people and Reserves, they were prepared to be called up, they
were prepared to serve their country, but they were not
prepared to be a part of a regular force called up several
times, some three to five times since September 11th, and be
away from their homes for more than 200 or 300 days.
My question to you is: What is the United States Government
and the Department of Defense doing to think about how to help
those military families? We are working to close the gap in
supporting the regular forces. We agree, no marine, soldier, or
sailor's family should ever have to even think about being on
food stamps again, but we are now facing that problem with the
National Guard and with reservists, and I really seek your
advice, I seek your assistance, and you may seek my support to
deal with this compelling issue.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Thank you, Senator. There is a
substantial amount of money to pay for required military and
civilian personnel in this supplemental. Normal pay and
benefits, of course, are in our annual budget, but the
supplemental is important, from that standpoint.
There is one other thing I should say, which is that all of
these people, of course, are volunteers, and you are right,
some of them have been called up more often than others, and
the reason for that is two-fold. In some cases, a lot of people
have volunteered to be called up. They have said, ``Put me in
the front of the queue, because it fits my life, I want to do
it, and I am willing to serve.''
Others, through decisions that were made decades ago, are
in activities and skill sets that only exist in the Reserves,
and we have to fix that. Those people keep getting called up
every time there is a Kosovo, or a Bosnia, or an Afghanistan,
or a----
Senator Mikulski. Well, while we are fixing that, though,
what about the fact that, again, if they have been called up
frequently, or for long periods of time--and, again, no one is
talking about shirking duty. They know when they joined the
Guard or stayed with the Reserves that they could be mobilized.
But what about the financial gap facing families? Have we
looked at that?
Dr. Zakheim. In fact, that is why we have $3.8 billion in
this supplemental for the Reserves, another $3.1 billion for
the Guard.
I do know exactly what you are talking about. My neighbor
around the corner has three kids. The oldest is five. My
neighbor has been away for a year, and he almost went away for
two, but he is exactly in the kind of specialty that the
Secretary was talking about, things like civil affairs, some of
the medical specialties.
Those are things that if we do not have in the Reserves, we
just cannot do. We will not have the capability, but----
Senator Mikulski. But what do you have in there to help his
family?
Secretary Rumsfeld. As I said, we have, for the mobilized
Reserve forces, $6.9 billion.
Senator Mikulski. But would you be looking at, say, extra
money for people who have been serving more than 200 days, more
than 400 days?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I would have to get you an answer for
that for the record.
[The information follows:]
The DOD's supplemental request includes $6.9 billion for
reservist pay and allowances. Included in this amount, above
the reservist basic pay, are several other benefits, such as
Family Separation Allowance (FSA), Imminent Danger Pay (IDP),
and health benefits for the mobilized reservist and their
families. FSA currently averages $100 per month and IDP
currently averages $150 per month.
The DOD's supplemental request does not include extra money
for reservists who have been serving more than 200 days, more
than 400 days consecutively. On October 8, 2001, the Department
suspended certain PERSTEMPO management processes in the
national security interests of the United States. The
accumulation of deployed days for the purposes of determining
eligibility for high deployment per diem (HDPD) was suspended.
The HDPD accumulation period started on October 1, 2000, and
this suspension was effective before any individual could
possibly have accumulated the minimum of 401 days out of the
preceding 730 days to be eligible for payment of HDPD. By
policy, the Services continued the tracking and reporting
requirements.
Senator Mikulski. Because I think we need both the money
and a framework for doing it, while dealing with the long-range
issues of skill sets that the Secretary has indicated. Be
careful with contracting out, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Cochran. Senator, your time has expired.
Senator Mikulski. I had a rent-a-cop defending my office,
and he was asleep from 10 o'clock every morning until
lunchtime. I hope National Security Agency does not face what
we did.
Senator Cochran. The Senator from Texas.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL
Mr. Secretary, as chairman of the Military Construction
Subcommittee, I am, of course, interested in that part of your
request, and I do understand the need for flexibility. I want
you to have that, because I know that you might not be able to
anticipate an added runway, or a taxiway, or an apron, and you
need to be able to do something quickly, and pay the foreign
government, if that is the case; however, I do also want to ask
that you notify us, and make sure that we do stay in the loop,
so we know where our military construction dollars are going.
We have been concerned that maybe the operating and
maintenance has been used for construction projects, and we
want to make sure that we are staying on top of the military
construction needs that you have, and also make sure that we do
the job right for the military.
So I am going to submit some questions for the record,
particularly about some runways, and taxiways, and some aprons
to make sure that we are current in the request, and also the
part about the additional temporary facilities at Guantanamo
Bay. You and I visited Guantanamo Bay, along with Senator
Feinstein, my Ranking Member, and I thought you did an
excellent job in a very short time at equipping Guantanamo Bay.
My question, though, is, should we not start doing
something more permanent there, if we are going to have the
need for those facilities, rather than continuing the temporary
construction of more temporary facilities?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, first, Senator, I am told that we
have a briefing prepared on military construction with respect
to this supplemental that should be available in a day or two.
Second, with respect to Guantanamo Bay, I am so respectful of
the taxpayers' dollars that I am resisting anything permanent
down there at the present time, and I have not seen anything
that has persuaded me that we ought to make dramatic changes.
We are in the process of trying to have countries that the
people in Guantanamo Bay are nationals of take some of them and
house them themselves. And to the extent we can manage the
numbers, and not get too many people down there, I would feel
better about the whole thing. So we are working the problem,
and they have had to make some incremental improvements since
we were there. They needed more locations that involved
solitary confinement for hard cases, so that the interrogation
process would work better.
Senator Hutchison. Well, we wanted to be very supportive,
and I know that you are watching the taxpayer dollars as well.
I just wanted to make sure that we do not keep doing temporary
things if it is going to be long-term, and we want to do
everything that we need to do to maintain the security
requirements for keeping those prisoners.
FOREIGN BASES
My second point would just be--and I do want to see the
briefing on the military construction part, because we want to
stay current on that. But we will be working with the
Department on the foreign military construction part of our
responsibility, because we are concerned that with all of the
changes in priorities, and even troop strength in overseas
basis, that we not obligate dollars that may not be necessary
even 2 years from now, much less 10, and we will be working on
that down the road. But I want you to know I am very insistent
that we know what our foreign needs will be for the long term,
before we spend fiscal year 2004 dollars, and I think we need
to start looking at our foreign base changes, in light of a
potential 2005 base realignment and closure (BRAC) in America,
in case we are bringing troops home that would not have been
anticipated a year or so ago.
Secretary Rumsfeld. I agree completely. There is no
question but that we are looking at our global footprint. The
world has changed. We are going to be making adjustments in our
bases here in the United States, and we certainly are going to
be making adjustments in our bases overseas, and it is
important that we not pour a lot of money in in this interim
period prior to those decisions being finalized as to how we
can best be arranged going forward in this 21st century.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Senator Murray.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR RECONSTRUCTING IRAQ
Senator Murray. Yes, Mr. Secretary. Thank you very much for
being here today. The President outlined to the American people
that the Iraq war and Iraq's future will have broad benefit for
our country and for the Middle East, and your comment a moment
ago about our responsibility to reconstruct Iraq sort of
puzzled me. Does not the President's larger objective for the
Middle East, and for our relations with the Muslim world and
for the war on terrorism require us to have a long-term
commitment to reconstruction in Iraq?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Sure. I hope I did not say anything
that left the contrary impression. There is no question but
that I was referring to the military side. We feel we need to
stay there as long as it is necessary, but not any longer.
Conversely, if you talk about the United States and the
international community, we have to have an interest, and we
have to see that that country gets put on a path towards some
sort of representative government and that it is not going to
threaten its neighbors.
There is no question but that if that is successful, as I
believe it will be, that the economic circumstance in the
region will be vastly better for Turkey, for Jordan, and for
the other countries in the region.
Senator Murray. Your term of putting it on a path concerned
me. It sounded like we are going to put it on a path, and walk
away.
Secretary Rumsfeld. No. No. I do not mean to suggest that
at all.
Senator Murray. Well, then, are we working with the
coalition of the willing, however, 60 countries, whatever,
involved, to get these countries to join the American taxpayers
in paying for this reconstruction?
Secretary Rumsfeld. We are, indeed. Dov Zakheim has been
our, kind of, the lead person in helping to raise money, and
not just money, but in-kind contributions, and he has worked
hard on it, and the Department of State has worked hard on it.
They are sending out cables, and responses are coming in, and
nations are stepping forward.
Senator Murray. Are we going to work through the United
Nations to get those commitments?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I have no doubt in my mind that the
United Nations will have a role. I just do not know what it is.
I know that France has indicated they would prefer that the
United Nations not have a role, but I do not know what that
would mean.
Senator Cochran. Do you want to comment?
Dr. Zakheim. Yes. We have already--I am working alongside
my counterparts, Alan Larson, at the State Department, the
Under Secretary there, and Under Secretary John Taylor of the
Treasury, and senior officials at AID and other departments. We
are working together, reaching out to a number of countries who
have been very positive about their willingness to contribute
to reconstruction after the conflict.
We do not know, as the Secretary just said, where the
United Nations will be on this, but our intention is to reach
out, not just to individual countries, but to international
financial institutions, to the European Union (EU), basically
to anyone who is willing to help.
Senator Murray. I appreciate that.
NEW HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGIES
Let me ask you another question. We have seen a lot of the
news reports about the new health care technologies that are
being deployed in Iraq, and I think that is very impressive to
many of the families who are watching their sons and daughters,
spouses, over there. Can you talk about some of those new
health care technologies, and specifically whether this
supplemental request contains sufficient funding to speed care
for our military?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I do not know what is in the
supplemental on that subject. I know that the Armed Forces have
made significant progress in a variety of different ways.
Number one, of course, and the most important, has been the
ability to remove people from the battlefield very promptly and
get them into an environment, health care environment that is
as fine as can exist.
A second thing they have done is they have made advances in
techniques that can be used on the----
Senator Murray. I was talking about the technologies, the
new technologies.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Here is one--the skin exposure
reduction paste is an example. We could provide you a list of
some of these things that have been done.
[The information follows:]
The following new medical care products have been introduced into
the theater in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom:
--Oxygen Generation.--Two products with pressure swing absorption
technology were procured to reduce the sustainment and
transportation requirements for medical grade oxygen.
--Hemostatic Dressing (Fibrin Bandage) and Chitosan Bandage.--These
two separate bandages, which use differing technologies,
provide a means to control hemorrhage early, far forward near
the point of injury.
--Portable, Hand Held Ultrasounds.--The rapid reduction in size and
weight of this diagnostic tool allows it to be deployed farther
forward (Forward Surgical Teams) thereby enhancing medical
diagnosis, sometimes avoiding surgical or invasive
interventions.
--One-handed Tourniquet.--This simple, ratchet tourniquet will allow
the injured soldier to self-control bleeding.
--Litter for Surgical Transport and Treatment (LSTAT).--This platform
has had limited deployment to provide state of the art, life
support functions during longer evacuation legs.
--Skin Exposure Reactive Protectent Against Chemical Warfare Agent
(SERPACWA).--This cream provides additional barrier skin
protection on those areas of the body with the highest risk of
exposure to persistent chemical agents.
--Computed Radiology.--This technology allows for digitization of
radiographic images to alleviate the need for x-ray film
processors, chemical developers, and film, plus adds the
ability to do remote diagnostic consulting. This includes
products for medical and dental x-rays.
--Warmer Blankets.--These new blankets provide improved temperature
regulation of patients.
--Chem-Bio Analyzers.--Two levels of analyzers were procured to
support echelons of screening for the existence of chemical and
biological agents.
--Hetastarch.--This volume expander provides life supporting
resuscitation at the point of injury or anywhere along the
patient evacuation.
--Medical Informatics--Medical Communications for Combat Casualty
Care (MC\4\) (ASPB).--Several software packages coupled with
applicable hardware have been fielded to provide patient
encounter data (digitized patient record), medical surveillance
and trend analysis, and basic logistical automation (set
management and orders).
--Quick Clot Hemorrhagic Bandage.--To stop uncontrolled bleeding,
included in a new first aid kit for the Field corpsman (14,000
of these dispensed in theater).
--Forward Resuscitative Surgical Systems (FRSS).--Mobile, small
footprint surgical systems that allow for immediate,
stabilizing surgical capability in the forward combat areas (6
of these systems currently in theater).
--Enroute Care Capability.--These systems are integrated into Marine
Corps ground vehicles or aircraft to allow for the seamless
transfer of patients from the field or the FRSS to a higher
echelon of care (24 complete systems in theater).
--Digital Radiology.--Alleviates the need for x-ray film processors,
film, chemical developers, etc. Images can be loaded on a
laptop for viewing or for transmission to the rear for
specialty consultation (Marine Corps has 40 of these units--12
are currently in theater).
--Polymerase Chain Reactors (PCR's).--A new application of an
established technology that is being employed on the carriers
for Biological Agent Identification (one per carrier).
--Dental Back Packs.--Lightweight, mobile, small footprint equipment
sets that allows for acute dental care to be provided in a far
forward setting (30 of these in theater).
--New NBC litters.--New Tri-fold portable mesh litters that allow for
decon to be conducted on the litter (Marine Corps has 2000 in
theater).
--POGS.--New Patient Oxygen Generation Systems being utilized by the
Marine Corps in the field setting to reduce the sustainment and
transportation requirements for containerized medical grade
oxygen.
--Angiography Suite.--USNS COMFORT just installed on board. Even
though this is not necessarily new technology, it is a new
capability that is being studied in the hospital ship setting.
--WHSQ Antenna (T-1 Connection).--Installed aboard USNS COMFORT. Not
necessarily new technology, but new capability that will
enhance the ability of the hospital ship to communicate with
the fleet and the field units and enhance the capability of the
ship to consult through telemedicine technology.
--Hand Held Ultrasounds.--A new capability that is being used aboard
USNS COMFORT as a diagnostic tool.
--CHCS-NT and SAMS.--Preloaded (new capability), onto Deployed Fleet
Hospitals, prior to deployment to augment their ability to
manage their patients in the field. This is related to
clinical, pharmaceutical, blood program, and laboratory
applications. In addition, a new capability that was provided
to the Fleet Hospitals was the software for TRAC\2\ES which
allows the tracking and entering of patients into the medevac
system.
--Hand-held Biological Warfare Detection Assays.--Capable of
detecting more than 20 different agents. Assays were
subsequently provided to field units and transitioned to DOD
for the Joint Program Office for Biological Defense. Its
anthrax DNA-based assays have become the national standard,
used by the CDC and the Laboratory Response Network for
Bioterrorism.
--Sophisticated Biological Warfare Detection Laboratories.--Installed
on large Navy ships supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom, and
installation of basic labs aboard all Navy ships in the area.
This accounts for the majority of bio-detection capability in
the area. Training programs, analysis plans, doctrine and
procedures were also developed to appropriate use of labs.
--Expeditionary Surveillance Modules with Integration.--Being used at
AFMS EMEDS locations.
--Advanced diagnostics (microarray chips and PCR probes).--The RAPIDS
units are deployed with the 10 Biological Augmentation Teams
not necessarily with EMEDS units--microarray chips purchased
and coming for DT&E testing very soon (also includes part of
the SARS Corona virus).
--IM/IT Improvements.--The USAF deployed specialized IM/IT trouble
shooting teams. Help Desk support was enhanced for current
operations.
--TRANSCOM Regulating And Command & Control Evacuation System
(TRAC\2\ES).--A patient movement system that is currently
deployed.
Senator Murray. All right. I would appreciate that. I would
like to know what is in the supplemental on that.
One final comment in my last few seconds here. I think we
are all very disturbed by the images of the prisoner of war
(POWs), and I know their families here in this country are
really--there is a lot of anxiety, and I really want to urge
you to communicate with these families, stay in touch with
them. I know you are doing some of that, but I think that is
extremely important. But I just wanted to ask quickly if you
could update us on the efforts by the International Red Cross
to see these POWs, and whether or not we have had any progress.
Secretary Rumsfeld. I do not know what the status is of the
International Red Cross's ability to get access to our POWs. I
know that we have contacted the International Red Cross and
encouraged them to take a look and visit the now more than
4,500 prisoners of war that have been taken by coalition
forces, and that are currently in camps in Iraq just behind the
battlefields.
Senator Murray. How about our POWs, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Rumsfeld. As I say, I do not--to my knowledge,
the International Red Cross has not yet been successful in
gaining access to them.
Senator Murray. I would just encourage you to stay in close
touch with our families here who are watching news reports with
a great deal of anxiety.
CLARIFICATION OF IRAQ CEASE FIRE ANSWER
Secretary Rumsfeld. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a favor here?
Since there was--I may have answered an earlier question so
cryptically, or briefly, that there might have been a
misunderstanding.
When Mr. Gregg asked me about the efforts on a cease fire,
Senator, I gave you a short answer that there would not be a
cease fire.
Senator Gregg. I thought it was an excellent answer.
Secretary Rumsfeld. What I want to just underline, in case
there is any misunderstanding about that, at some point the war
will end, and it will end at that point where that regime does
not exist and a new regime is ready to go in its place. And at
that point, there will be something of a cease fire. You were
referring to the suggestions of a premature cease fire, and
that is what I meant to say that would not happen.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN BAGHDAD
Mr. Secretary, I do not know if this question has been
asked. I have been at another hearing where I had to preside.
We keep hearing, and I keep watching, and it is being said that
we are moving toward Baghdad. We soon will be in Baghdad, and I
will add to it now, and we will arrive at Baghdad.
What will happen then? Baghdad is a great big city, is it
not? What do we do when we arrive at Baghdad? Do we have a city
six times the size of Basra that we have to do what we did
there, or what do we expect?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, we have an example of that
problem taking place right now in Basra. Basra is probably the
third or the second--third after Mosul, or second ahead of
Mosul.
Senator Domenici. I said that, but I said it wrong. I said
we have already been there, and it is much smaller, and we saw
what happened there. So now I am asking, what is going to
happen at Baghdad? Is it going to be similar to that, or some
other situation?
Secretary Rumsfeld. It depends on whether the regime is
still intact, but the answer is that what one has to do is
first isolate it. There are in the City of Basra, just as in
the City of Baghdad, there are Shia, and they are not terribly
favorable to the regime. They have been repressed, and they are
at the present time in Basra assisting us, and if you think of
Baghdad as a city of 5-plus million people, and you think of
the population of Shia, and there are probably 2, 2\1/2\, maybe
3 million people of the 5 or 5\1/2\, the regime has tended to
be fearful of them and repress them. And my guess is that what
we will see are these death squads, the regime death squads, in
Baghdad, doing what they are doing in Basra.
They will very likely have weapons out. They will shoot
people who try to surrender. They will shoot people who try to
assist, and we will go through a period where we have to deal
with that problem. We will put in strikes as necessary. We will
undoubtedly get assistance from people inside the cities, and
we will attack them, and subdue them.
Senator Domenici. So when it is said that it might take
considerably longer than expected, it might be that it is that
kind of thing that we are talking about; how do you get from
the outskirts of Baghdad, through the outskirts, to where you
want to be to eliminate the regime? That is what might take a
long time, is that correct, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Rumsfeld. It could take some time. The forces,
the coalition forces have moved from outside the country to
within 50 miles of Baghdad in a week. The progress has been
substantial. They now have to face the more difficult forces,
the Republican Guard, and then the next phase after they have
been destroyed or surrender will be to deal with Baghdad.
Senator Domenici. Well, I am complimenting you. They moved
fast, and moved quickly. I am suggesting that my observations,
just as a halfway-informed citizen, is that once you have
arrived at Baghdad, that will probably go slower, but let us
just leave that alone. You have answered as best you can, and I
thank you for it.
IRAQI REPUBLICAN GUARD FORCES
I am wondering about the so-called Republican Guard.
Incidentally, as a Republican, I wonder why they call it that.
I had to tell some of my children that they were no kin of the
Republican party.
In any event, let me ask, with reference to the two major
Iraqi divisions, I have heard and seen evidence that they are
not conducting themselves the way they did in the first war
during Desert Storm. They are not taking a position with
armored tanks and moving on American Forces with a great number
of tanks. They are isolating the tanks and putting them in
shelters, and the like.
My question is, are we going to be able to fight those
divisions in a major manner, or are we expecting that it will
be all broken up in pieces, and which would be better for our
men and women?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, Dick Myers, you may want to
answer it. But I mean, the first choice is for them to be
moving. They are easier to get at. At the present time, they
have tucked back towards Baghdad somewhat, but now they are in
deployed positions, as you indicated. And what will happen is,
they will get degraded from the air, and then attacked by
coalition forces.
General Myers. I do not know if we should go into much more
operational detail, but the Secretary is exactly right. They
are dispersed. They are dug in, for the most part. When they
move, we try to hit them. We are bringing a lot of force
against them to include our Apaches and our fixed-wing air,
having some effect, we think, in degrading their combat
capability. And at some point, at a time of our choosing, we
will engage them, and we will see what kind of fight they have.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Secretary, could I just say with
reference----
Chairman Stevens [presiding]. Senator, your time has
expired. I am sorry to tell you that. I have just received word
from the White House that they are expecting the Secretary to
be there.
Mr. Secretary, Mr. Kohl was bypassed by me by mistake. I
would hope that you would answer Senator Kohl's questions, and
then we will terminate your appearance, and continue to have
the hearing with Secretary Wolfowitz and Secretary Zakheim.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
IRAQ RELIEF OPERATIONS
Mr. Secretary, as Ranking Member of the Agricultural
Appropriations Subcommittee, I have concerns about the lack of
specificity in the supplemental request for food aid to the
Iraqi people. There is $8 billion for relief, but the request
is vague about how that $8 billion will affect ongoing food aid
efforts, including our work in Africa.
The World Food Program has said that providing assistance
to Iraq could well turn into the largest humanitarian operation
in history. While I understand that supplies have started to
trickle in, I would like to hear more about our plans to
address this crisis.
Given the resistance that has been encountered so far in
Iraq, and the problems with the weather, are we concerned, Mr.
Secretary, about a humanitarian crisis, as the United Nations
seems to be? And, if so, do we have backup plans if the
resistance continues, and food and water shortages become
critical?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, sir, we do not have any
intelligence that would fit the words you have used of ``crisis
and critical,'' but there is no doubt but that there are places
where the water is not right, where some lines have been
broken. And we have trucks going in providing water, and the
United Kingdom has put a water line from Kuwait into the port,
and they are bringing water in.
The number of refugees has been very, very small. There
have been--people have speculated it could be a humanitarian
disaster, and hundreds of thousands, as in previous times. Thus
far, the numbers are very, very small.
Second, with respect to food, the question you raise is not
part of our supplemental. It is part of the Department of
State's, I believe, supplemental, and I would have to leave the
answer there.
But the forces, coalition forces have brought food and
water and medicine in. The fighting forces have brought food
and water and medicine in from day one. As each area is
pacified, and made more secure, additional food and medicine
and assistance is flowing in.
I think that to suggest that there is a humanitarian crisis
at the present time, I think, is not something we have been
able to find any intelligence to support.
Senator Kohl. Well, I am glad to hear that, and, of course,
we all hope, indeed, that that turns out to be the case.
INTERNATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Secretary, in the first Gulf War, as you know, 80
percent of the dollar costs were paid by our allies, and we are
hearing constantly and happily every day about more and more
countries joining our coalition. The supplemental request
includes $1.4 billion to help our coalition partners, but there
is no detail on what their contribution to this effort may be.
Do you have any comment on either what has been contributed or
what you would hope will be contributed to this effort?
Secretary Rumsfeld. There is a long list of countries that
have made contributions in terms of forces, and ships, and
medical supplies, and food, and various types of assistance. I
do not happen to have it with me, but it is a long and growing
list.
Second, there will be a donors' conference that will go out
and solicit funds from other countries. You are quite right; a
major portion of the Gulf War in 1991 was paid for. One of the
principal countries was the country that had been invaded,
Kuwait. A second country was Japan. I am sure that other
countries will be making contributions. Dr. Zakheim has been
kind of a lead person soliciting.
Senator Kohl. I thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, thank you, and General Myers, thank you. I
have been informed that the reenlistment rates are up. I think
that is a testimony to the leadership that you are providing,
and your men and women in uniform are providing. You have
inspired our younger generation to volunteer in such great
numbers. Thank you very much.
With your permission, we will continue on with Secretary
Wolfowitz and Secretary Zakheim. There are Senators who have
not had their questions answered yet, and it is my intention to
continue through until all of those get a chance to have their
questions answered.
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, can we ask if Secretary Ridge
is going to be returning here?
Chairman Stevens. I was just going to go into that.
Secretary Ridge has a meeting downtown. He will be coming back
at 3:30 p.m. We have a series of votes starting at 2 o'clock,
so it will be my intention to ask Secretary Wolfowitz and
Secretary Zakheim to stay here now to answer the questions of
the five remaining Senators, and then we will recess until
after the votes that take place. I think that will be
approximately the time that we will have Secretary Ridge
returning at 3:30 p.m.
Senator Feinstein. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Stevens. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. I would just like the Secretary to know
that 95,000 of the troops serving in Iraq at this time are from
California, and I want you to know that I have not had a single
complaint from anyone. I am beginning now to sign the letters
and learn about those who have been killed. I must tell you, it
is a very emotional experience to do that, but I am very proud
of the Californians. I believe by far it is the largest
complement of Americans over there, and I just wanted you to
know that.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary----
Secretary Rumsfeld. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stevens [continuing]. General Myers.
General Myers. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Stevens. Secretary Wolfowitz, we welcome you at
the table. The next person, I believe, is Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I must, in the tradition of the Senate, point out that the
State that has the largest percentage of its Reserves called up
is the State of Utah. We are equally as grateful for the kind
of leadership you have provided.
HOW COSTS WERE ESTIMATED
Now, Mr. Secretary, I know that if you ask for a specific
number on the cost of this war, the answer is that that is
unknowable. Things are constantly changing, and they are
constantly in flux, but you came up with a number which was the
basis for the White House's request. Can you give us just a
quick glimpse into the methodology of how you came up with this
estimate, what things you took into account to try to give us
the most accurate guess you possibly could?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Let me try to do it, and I think General
Cartwright may be able to help me on this, but it is a very,
very complex process that involves an enormous amount of
judgments by individuals, very frequently military judgment,
based on what they know from past experience, based on what
they can guess. And I emphasize it is a guess from examining
General Franks' plan as to what kinds of forces might be
needed, how long they might fight, how many targets they might
have to destroy, what the requirements for stabilization
afterwards might be, and it is such a complicated and diverse
process that it comes back to the point about why it is so
important to have flexibility.
In each case, you are making a guess, you may be making a
guess at how much you are going to have in additional pay for
Army forces or Marine forces. You will be making a guess at how
much money you are going to need for precision-guided bombs for
the Air Force, or how much money you are going to need for fuel
for tanks.
Some of those guesses are probably going to be high, and
some of them are probably going to be low, and if you do not
have the flexibility to move money from the accounts where you
have overestimated into the accounts where you have
underestimated, the net result is you are going to have to come
in with a much higher number. And the reason we feel reasonably
comfortable that this is a number that gets us through the end
of the year, although even that you cannot say with confidence,
is because we believe that the Congress will give us that
flexibility to move from one account to another.
In no way is this an attempt to try to evade the Congress's
absolutely appropriate requirement for oversight. All of this
money is going to be spent for the purposes which are very
clearly identified, in support of a campaign plan which, on a
classified basis, we can brief you in some detail. But at the
end of the day, there is a great deal of guesswork and sound
military judgment that has to go into calculating things like
ammunition expenditure rates, or tank miles for a combat
engagement, or how many combat engagements there will be. And
that kind of guesswork is inevitably going to be high in some
cases, and low in others, and sometimes it will hit it just
right on the mark, we hope more often than not.
Senator Bennett. Well, not to trivialize what you said, it
sounds like what you learned in statistics class in college
about the law of compensating errors.
Dr. Wolfowitz. It is exactly that, Senator.
Senator Bennett. Guess one high, and guess one low, and I
think you have made a case for the flexibility.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all I have.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan.
TIMING OF SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Secretary,
there are many uncertainties in the appropriations process in
Congress, but I think the one certainty, now especially, is
that when we send our soldiers to war, Congress is going to
provide the resources that are necessary. I say that only
because the Secretary testified that because of difficulties in
this regard he needs additional authorities. Senator Byrd has
made a valid and very important point about that.
My sense is that, for example, the request for $62 billion
in supplemental appropriations, and the request that we
complete our work on this in 2 weeks and send the bill to the
President for signature in 2 weeks, is a suggestion that no one
really needs much additional authority. The Pentagon just needs
to determine what the costs are reasonably, send them to us,
and they will see a Congress that is willing to support the
troops in the field.
The choice of when you have sent to us a supplemental
request was yours. You have apparently spent $30 billion out of
the $62 billion already. I was wondering why 2 months ago, or 3
months ago we might not have seen a request, because the lift
of the soldiers halfway around the world is extraordinarily
costly, but you all have decided for your reasons--and they are
satisfactory to me, by the way--to ask us for this request now,
and I think the Chairman has said we will try to make sure this
is done in 2 weeks.
My point is that, I think whether it is 2 months from now
or 10 months from now, if you have additional needs, and send
us an additional request, I believe Congress will respond
expeditiously to that, without the authorities that are being
requested, unwisely in my judgment, along with the
supplementals.
So is there any reason to suspect that you will need the
authorities because you would not receive the appropriate
response from Congress to support the resources needed by our
troops?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I think we know that the process of
appropriating a supplemental is a time-consuming and difficult
process. I must say I appreciate very much, I know the troops
in the field appreciate very much, the obvious willingness that
Congress expressed very clearly today to support them and to
try to move this as quickly as possible, so the funds can be on
the way.
It is a cumbersome process. It does not lend itself to the
kinds of immediate requirements for funding, to pick some
examples from last year, as the Secretary mentioned, to train
the Afghan National Army. I mean we lost real time in getting
the Afghan National Army stood up and trained, which is a
critical function to helping our people get out of their tasks.
We certainly do not want to see that slow up when it comes to
discovering that we may have overfunded a personnel account,
but underfunded an account for bombs and bullets.
The Congress really has full transparency. And on a
classified basis, as I said, we are happy to go through line by
line and tell you what our guesses are, but they are
fundamentally guesses and will come out more or less in the
right ballpark. If we do not have the flexibility to move from
one account to another, we are going to need a much larger
total sum of money.
Senator Dorgan. I understand that some of these are very
difficult to predict, but my point was that $30 billion of the
$62 billion has been expended. I mean I think Congress would
have been willing 2 months ago, for example, to have begun a
supplemental. But having said all that, I think----
Dr. Wolfowitz. Senator, just to be precise, it is expended
or obligated. It includes in the $30 billion, for example, the
estimates of the costs of bringing troops back, but we do not
know exactly which troops are going to come back, or in which
sequence. We do not know whether it is going to be an Air Force
account, or an Army account, or a Marine account. So even
within that $30 billion, there is a fair amount of guesswork
going on.
Senator Dorgan. I understand. So that is not necessarily
expended, expended or obligated, you are saying.
Dr. Wolfowitz. Correct.
Senator Dorgan. But let me make----
Dr. Wolfowitz. I think ``committed'' actually was the word
we used.
Senator Dorgan. Let me make the point that I think Congress
is going to provide whatever you need to do your job on behalf
of the American soldiers that are committed. I am just telling
you as one member of this committee, and I think it would be
expressed by virtually every member of this committee, we are
going to provide the resources that you need to do this job.
And the question of additional authorities, and so on, we are
going to have to work through that, but my own view is that I
do not think anybody is going to hold you up in resources, hold
up in terms of time, and we should not do that.
IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION
Let me ask a question about reconstruction. I plan to offer
an amendment. Regarding our policy on this issue. The Secretary
said once Saddam Hussein is gone, the United States will work
with the Iraqi interim authority to tap Iraq's oil reserve, the
funds that Iraq has, and other Iraq resources to fund the
reconstruction effort.
Iraq, I think, has the second largest oil reserves in the
world, next to Saudi Arabia. I happen to think that the
reconstruction of Iraq should come from the resources from
their oil fields. There are plenty of resources there, in my
judgment, and I would like that to become a part of U.S.
policy, and would hope to offer an amendment in order to
accomplish that, and move in that direction. Do you have any
comments on that?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I think philosophically we are in 100
percent agreement. I mean there may be, contrary to
intelligence we are seeing so far, for example, if we were to
find the kind of humanitarian crisis that Senator Kohl referred
to earlier, I would not want that philosophical principle to
stand in the way of feeding people.
Senator Dorgan. Yes. I do not mean--I am talking about
reconstruction now. I view that separately from humanitarian
aid. I think humanitarian aid is----
Dr. Wolfowitz. Fair enough. Even on the reconstruction
piece of it, there may be things that need to be done quickly,
and speed may require something else, but I think it is very
important to, as much as possible, establish that principle
early on that they are responsible for themselves. I mean it is
a very important point, and it is different in this case from
our experiences in any other case that I can imagine, and
certainly the complete opposite of the situation in
Afghanistan, where that is a country that has no prospect of
being self sufficient for quite some time to come.
The people of Northern Iraq, who have been free of the
Baghdad regime now for some 12 years, thanks to our efforts,
have managed to be fairly self-sufficient on the 13 percent of
Iraq's oil revenues that they are allowed. They still operate
under United Nations sanctions, but they get 13 percent of the
Oil for Food money. It is not a bad principle.
Senator Dorgan. My hope is to offer an amendment on the
policy issue with respect to reconstruction and oil. Thank you
very much for your response.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SPECIAL MILITARY PAYS
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us with your
colleagues here today. I may be one of the last to ask
questions. Yesterday, there was a vote on the floor of the
Senate relative to imminent danger pay, combat pay, as well as
family separation allowances. The original amendment, which I
offered, suggested $500 for each, which would have been an
increase from $150 for combat pay, to $500 a month, and an
increase on family separation allowance from $100 a month, to
$500 a month.
With some negotiations, that was brought down. I was not
happy with the outcome, but we believe we have arrived at a
figure of $250 for each, and put provisions in the budget
resolution for that, and a 100-to-nothing vote in the Senate in
support of it.
I raise that issue because others have raised the question
of quality of life for the families that are affected here. Not
just the active personnel, but the Reserves and Guard are
playing a much larger role.
I would like to ask you whether there is provision within
this supplemental for that type of an increase, so that we
could offer imminent danger pay, and an increase in the family
separation allowance to the men and women fighting, as well as
those at home waiting for their return.
Dr. Wolfowitz. There is a considerable amount, I think, in
the supplemental for special pays. I do not know how it
allocates among different types of special pays. Do you, Dov?
Dr. Zakheim. I can get you that for the record. We have
money for all the various categories of special pay, whether it
is danger, whether it overseas, all of that.
[The information follows:]
No. The funds requested in the supplemental are based on
current authorities governing Hostile Fire Pay (HFP)/Imminent
Danger Pay (IDP) and Family Separation Pay (FSA). Current law
allows $150 per month for personnel serving in a qualifying
region for HFP/IDP, who would not have otherwise been in that
region. The estimated incremental cost for HFP/IDP at current
pay rates for potential military operations to disarm Iraq is
$370 million. Current law allows $100 per month for personnel
mobilized and separated from their families. The estimated
incremental cost for FSA at current pay rates is $246 million.
After discussions of possible rate increases, the
Department estimated the cost of increasing the rate for HFP/
IDP to $225 per month retroactively. An increased cost of $261
million in fiscal year 2003 would be required to support
mobilized forces. The estimated cost of increasing the rate for
FSA to $250 per month retroactively would be $564 million in
fiscal year 2003.
Dr. Zakheim. To your question, though, obviously, our
estimates are based on what is current law. Therefore, we have
postulated the request to the Congress based on what are
current rates, but we do have them in there. That is actually
the bulk of the active pay category, because regular pay is
already in the baseline budget.
Senator Durbin. I can also add--I am sure that you have
been contacted by the families who have been activated and
those who are in combat. Some of them are facing extraordinary
hardships that we have talked about earlier here. I hope that
the Chairman, as well as other members of the committee, and
the Department of Defense will be open to a change in the
supplemental that will accommodate an increased family
separation allowance, as well as increased imminent danger pay.
We can never compensate the men and women in uniform enough
for the dangers that they are facing. I think this would be an
excellent show of support from Congress and the American people
at this important time.
FUNDING FOR WAR ON TERRORISM
May I ask you, Mr. Secretary, when it comes to this
appropriation request, relative to the war, how much of this
relates to the war on terrorism? How much of this would have
been asked for were there no war in Iraq underway?
Dr. Wolfowitz. There is roughly $6 billion in there that
covers forces that, particularly things like aircraft carriers,
Marine forces that are--that we would still need out there even
if there were no conflict in Iraq.
Senator Durbin. So roughly 10 percent of it is for the war
on terrorism?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Dr. Zakheim is telling me that it is more
than $6 billion.
Dr. Zakheim. It is more than that, because the $1.5
billion, which includes the money for Pakistan----
Dr. Wolfowitz. Correct.
Dr. Zakheim [continuing]. And other countries is also
related to the global war on terrorism. In addition, there is
about $500 million to replenish munitions that have already
been expended in the global war on terrorism. So roughly, it is
the $6 billion that Secretary Wolfowitz was just mentioning,
plus about an additional $2 billion.
ASSISTANCE FOR TURKEY
Senator Durbin. Another question has been asked of me. Why
are we giving $1 billion to Turkey, if they were so
uncooperative?
Dr. Wolfowitz. They were not nearly as cooperative as we
had hoped, but I think it is a little unfair to say they were
uncooperative, and they have become much more cooperative in
the last couple of weeks. The overflight that we are getting
from Turkey is enormously important, and while it is true that
all our other North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies,
even France and Germany, have given us overflight, it is also
fair to point out that Turkey is the only NATO ally that shares
a border with Iraq, so we are overflying Turkey with Tomahawk
Cruise Missiles, with fighter bombers, with B-2s, and most
importantly, we are flying special forces and airborne troops
in through Turkish airspace.
Now, that is not the reason there is $1 billion in there,
but let me make it clear: The Turks granted us that overflight
unconditionally. But the view is, and this is now really into--
I am running the risk of explaining a piece of the State
Department's supplemental, but we have a big stake in Turkey
getting through this crisis without suffering an economic
crisis on top of it. And while we would have hoped for a higher
level of cooperation, Turkey remains a very valuable ally, and
a country particularly in a period when promoting moderation
and democracy in the Muslim world is particularly important to
America's interest. Turkey's success as one of the few
democratic countries in the Muslim world, I think that is
important.
So it is not a payment for something. It is not a reward
for something. It is a recognition that Turkey, as a front-line
State, stands to suffer some significant short-term economic
losses as a result of this conflict.
But let me say one more thing, especially to those Turks
that might be listening. This is going to bring a huge economic
benefit to Turkey in the medium and the long run, and I wish
they would have recognized that a long time ago.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one last question?
Chairman Stevens. Yes, sir. You waited a long time. We all
remember sitting down at the end of the table, by the way,
Senator.
SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ'S EARLIER VIEWS ON IRAQ
Senator Durbin. Secretary Wolfowitz, much has been written
about an article that you wrote many years ago with others
relative to our relationship with Iraq, and whether or not we
should be engaged in taking out Saddam Hussein as leader of
that country, and on the issue of the policy of preemption. I
would like to ask you, now that you have seen what it has taken
to bring us to the point of this invasion of Iraq, do you feel
that your rationale, written many years ago, was justifiable?
And secondly, where does this take us in the future by that
same rationale?
Dr. Wolfowitz. We could discuss which particular paper we
are referring to. I think you are referring to something that I
never wrote, and, in fact, I never read. It was written by a
staff member of mine, and it appeared in the New York Times
before I saw it, but that is the famous 1992 defense planning
guidance draft.
On the broader question, my views of Iraq have changed over
time, and I would never have thought before September 11th that
the kind of activity we are undertaking would be justified or
necessary. It is an unfortunate fact of history that had we
taken stronger actions of a more limited kind over the last 12
years we would not be facing this problem today, starting with
the end of the Gulf War, and going throughout most the 1990s, I
believe, but we are where we are now.
We have a regime that is an extreme threat to the United
States, and I think we have learned from September 11th that
those are threats that you simply cannot afford to live with,
and fortunately, we have incredible men and women who are
putting their lives literally on the line to free this country
from that threat, and in the process, I believe, and this is
important, they will also free the Iraqi people from a terrible
regime.
Some people have commented, ``Well, if that is the case,
why are not the people of Basra rising up and greeting us as
liberators?'' And the answer, I think, is increasingly clear.
It is because Saddam and the regime, whether Saddam is alive or
not, the regime has its death squads operating in Basra. We
heard a report that one Iraqi commander who tried to surrender
or at least not fight, was taken, executed, his head was
chopped off, and paraded around the city on a pole.
When you have a regime like that, it takes a little while
before people get their stomach up to oppose it, but I am
absolutely sure when it is gone, people will be cheering its
absence, and we will be the better for it.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stevens. Senator Byrd, do you have any further
questions?
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have one
question.
Let me preface this question to an unrelated matter that
was expressed--well, not matter, but expression that was in the
Secretary's statement, Secretary Rumsfeld. I got the impression
in listening to his statement, especially the last part of his
statement, that but for Iraq and its current regime, we would
not have suffered the events of 9/11. More than once his
statement alludes to 9/11 in that regard, and indicates that
the costs of this supplemental, and the costs of other
supplementals, as necessary, whatever it takes to rid the
region of Saddam Hussein, are very small in relation, or as
compared with the costs of 9/11.
I think it should be stated for the record, at least as far
as I know to date, there is no indication whatsoever that of
the 19 hijackers on 9/11, not one was from Iraq, not one. I do
not carry any grief for Saddam Hussein; but it seems to me that
it is fair to make that statement on the record.
Secondly, in response to some of the statements that have
been made by the Administration's witnesses here, the
Administration is not limited to one supplemental. And in
support of the arguments sustaining the requests for additional
authorities, an extension of authorities here in this bill, I
say the Administration, if it wants to send up another
supplemental, Congress will certainly take a close look at it,
examine it carefully, and we will respond, I think, positively.
If it is for support of the troops, and for their safety, I do
not think there will be any delay in that respect.
So those who perhaps leave the impression that it is
awfully slow up there on the Hill to get things done, getting a
supplemental through is a time-consuming exercise; therefore,
we need these authorities, so that we can shift things around.
There is nothing to keep the Administration from asking for
additional funds.
Third, you do have some flexibility in shifting from one
account to another. The impression is left here that you have
no flexibility at all. You have the flexibility of
reprogramming up to $2 billion annually, and it seems to me
that has worked very well in the past. Why this situation is so
different, I cannot understand. This country has fought several
wars, and much more demanding than this war will probably be,
insofar as to length of time for the war, and its duration, and
the costs, and the loss of manpower, and so on and so forth. So
I see no reason, let me say it again, for Congress to extend
these flexibilities.
HELPING FAMILIES IN DISTRESS
Now, my question of you, Mr. Secretary, is this: The family
of Private First Class Jessica Lynch, one of eight listed as
missing, after her fellow soldiers were taken captive by Iraq,
contacted my office with their concerns about her situation.
Being removed from military facilities, and waiting for
information has been extremely difficult for that family. At
first, things did not move, in my own judgment, as they should,
but later, the Department has been more responsive.
This raises the issue about how our military helps families
in distress. What has been done during the months of military
planning leading up to the war to prepare our Armed Forces, to
console the families that will be affected by the war?
[The information follows:]
Military Casualty Notification Process for Members of Congress
Every effort is made to notify Members of Congress that a service
member from their state/district has been severely injured, wounded,
killed or discovered missing. This will be done as quickly as possible
following notification of the Next of Kin (NOK), and consistent with
the wishes of the NOK. The NOK can withhold permission for the service
to notify their Members of Congress, as was done in a recent case.
DOD appreciates the desire of Members to personally express their
sympathy and support to family of a casualty. However, the Department
is restricted by privacy laws. We cannot release certain information
about the NOK. This restricted information includes residence,
addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, age or date of
birth. Should the family choose to withhold notification to Members of
Congress, the services will accept letters of condolence from Members
of Congress and deliver them to the family through their Casualty
Assistance Officers.
Access to official casualty reports is provided by OSD Public
Affairs. This information can be accessed through our web site,
www.defenselink.mil. These reports are not posted until the official
notification of the NOK has been made. Staff may sign up for automatic
notification of DOD releases by logging on to DefenseLink. These
releases include DOD casualty announcements.
Embedded media and 24 hour coverage provided of Operation Iraqi
Freedom have produced instances where casualties and captured service
personnel are revealed by the media before the official notification
procedures can be completed. These instances are especially unfortunate
for family members. Regardless of news coverage the military services
and the Department will not make public comment until formal
notification of the NOK has been accomplished.
At no time will the name of a service member who has suffered a
casualty or capture be officially released until the notification of
the NOK has been made.
Consistent with the wishes of a service member returning stateside
for further treatment, Members of Congress may be notified of the
location and condition of their constituent.
Please contact your respective service legislative affairs offices
should you have any additional questions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army........................................ Janet Fagan..................................... (703) 697-2583
Navy........................................ CAPT Mike McGregor.............................. (703) 697-7146
Marine Corps:
Senate.................................. COL Art White................................... (202) 685-6009
House................................... LTC Mike Shupp.................................. (202) 225-7807
Air Force................................... Cong. Inquiry Division.......................... (703) 697-3783
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification of the Next of Kin (NOK)
It is DOD policy that in the event a military member becomes a
casualty, the NOK shall be notified as promptly as possible in a
dignified, humane, professional, empathic and understanding manner.
Additionally, in those cases in which the military member is declared
deceased or missing, the Military Services shall appoint a casualty
assistance officer to advise and assist the immediate family in matters
concerning NOK entitlements.
Notification Process For Missing In Action
The initial notification of the NOK will be made in person by a
uniformed representative of the Military Service concerned.
All facts and circumstances on the casualty incident, known at the
time of the initial notification, shall be provided to the NOK.
In cases of serious injury initial notification in person to the
primary NOK by a uniformed representative is encouraged. When personal
notification is not possible telephone communication shall be used.
In all cases involving deceased or missing causalities, the
Military Service concerned shall appoint a causality assistance
representative who will contact the NOK within 24 hours of the initial
notification. The representative shall maintain contact with the NOK to
keep them informed on all matters relating to the case until the case
has been resolved and all entitlements and benefits are received.
In all cases involving serious injury the military service shall
regularly inform the NOK of the member's medical progress.
In cases of service members whose whereabouts are unknown, the NOK
will be kept informed of the progress in determining the member's
actual status. The service member's actual status should be determined,
whenever practicable, within ten days. This allows time to conduct an
investigation, or for search and rescue efforts to ascertain a member's
status. The commander of the service member in question will make a
preliminary assessment within ten days and forward his assessment to
the Service. The Service will appoint a board to conduct an inquiry
into the whereabouts and the status. The board will gather all
information relating to the case. There will be a counsel who will
represent each service member. The counsel's identity will be made
known to the NOK. Within thirty days the board will submit a report to
the Service on the status of the service member in question.
Dr. Wolfowitz. Senator, I do not know the specific case,
and I will look into what may have happened there. I do know
that the services have really, I think, made enormous advances
in the last 10 years in how they deal with these kinds of
issues. And I saw it first hand, and I was extraordinarily
impressed with how they worked with the families, surviving
families from September 11th, where we lost some 150 people in
the Pentagon, and it was General Van Alstyne of the Army, who,
in fact, led that effort for us.
[The information follows:]
Note: 184 people were killed at the Pentagon on September
11, 2001, not 150 as stated in the transcript. 125 of the
deceased were in the building and 59 were on Flight 77, not
including the terrorists.
Lt. Gen. Van Alstyne, was serving in the post of Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Personnel & Readiness)
(Military Personnel Policy) when he led the effort to provide
assistance to the family members of victims of the September 11
attack on the Pentagon.
The supplemental request submitted by the Department of
Defense included funding for the following medical
modernization items:
Alaris Iv Pump
Blanket Warmer
Blood/Clin Chem Analyzer (I-Stat)
Clinical Chem Analyzer (Piccolo)
Conseq Man Set
Cr Level Ii
Cr Level Iii
Defibrillator (Lifepak 10)
Dental Digital Imaging
Edocs Central Oxygen Generation Pci
Electrosurg Apparatus
Handheld Computer
Handheld Dental X-Ray
Handheld Ultrasound
Hematology Analyzer (Coulter)
Iridium Phones
Iv Pole
Litter, Decontaminable
Litter, Strap
Mms Path Opa (M436) (Microtome-Cryostat))
Mms Eye Exam (M315) (Litghet Slit)
Mms Maxofacial H&N Surg Aug (M318) M09098--Cranitome
Mms Opth Aug (M319) (Cryosurgical Sys)
Mms Opth Aug (M319) (Diode Laser Sys)
Mms Opth Aug (M319) (Scanner Ultrasonic)
Mms Opth Aug (M319) (Vitreoretinal Surg Sys)
Mms Path Opa (M436) (Tissues Processor)
National Guard Air Evac Backfill Units
Notebook Computer
Notebook Computer With Printer
Origen Analyzer
Patient Warmer
Patient Oxygen Generation System (Pogs)
Pulse Oximeter Level Ii
R.A.P.I.D. 7200 System
Regulator For Ventilator (754)
Serpacwa (200,000 Soldiers)
Server (Medium Networks)
Spinal Board
Suction Apparatus (326)
Udp
Ventilator (754)
Vital Signs Mon W Cap (M66558)
Vsat Commo
Vital Signs Mon W Pulse Ox (Z97117)
Water Distribution System
Usamma Materiel Fielding
Dr. Wolfowitz. And the impression I had, though--and I do
not mean to diminish any of the other services--was that the
Army, at least, had particularly focused on this issue, so I am
a little surprised if there was a slip-up with an Army Private
First Class, but let me look into it.
[The information follows:]
When PFC Jessica Lynch was reported missing March 23, Army
Casualty Headquarters staff designated her Duty Status
Whereabouts Unknown (DUSTWUN). A Casualty Notification Officer
was immediately dispatched to PFC Lynch's home and an Army
major notified her family of her status at 11:00 p.m. on March
23. The Lynch family was assigned a Casualty Assistance Officer
whose role is to keep the family informed on the status of PFC
Lynch and provide other assistance to the family.
The Department's family support managers have worked
diligently to ensure that support systems were in place for all
family members of our mobilized and deployed Service members
serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. There has been no
contingency where our families were better supported. In a
November 2002 program guidance memorandum, the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided
guidance for family support programs for this contingency. The
effort focused on comprehensive family support during the pre-
deployment, deployment and post-deployment phases. During the
months of military planning the Office of the Secretary of
Defense chaired monthly meetings with the Joint Family Support
Contingency Working Group to assist the Services prepare for
family-related contingencies.
The family support programs focused on assistance to all
family members including parents and Reserve component families
who may live long distances from a military installation.
Single Service members were encouraged to include their parents
in the pre-deployment programs, if possible, and to provide
relevant information to their parents and extended family
members throughout all three phases of the deployment.
As in the troop operations, family support during Operation
Iraqi Freedom is an extraordinary joint effort with all
components assisting family members. This includes pre-
deployment briefings, assistance with specific family issues,
obtaining family member ID cards and dissemination of accurate
information.
The Services' family support staffs have used technology
extensively to reach out to family members. This includes the
establishment of a number of comprehensive Web sites that
provide key information for the families and resources to
support them during the deployment. Units have established
special phone lines where families can call in and hear a
regularly updated recording on the deployed unit. The expanded
use of email in theater has significantly assisted in keeping
families connected when possible. Video-teleconferencing for
families and their deployed members, where available, has also
enhanced communication.
The family support managers are now prepared to provide
reunion programs for returning Service members and their
families. Past experience has proven these programs to be very
helpful in the healthy reintegration of Service members back
into their family and community.
We have great confidence in the professionalism and
dedication of our family support staff, chaplains and
volunteers. They are skilled in bringing information, counsel
and consolation to the families of our deployed Service
members. They are doing a superb total force job and personify
the meaning of the military taking care of its own.
Dr. Wolfowitz. I think it is understood how important this
is. It is understood that increasingly we cannot handle an army
of people with wives and children the way in which we handled
an army of mostly single men 50 or 60 years ago. I will find
out if there was any slip-up in this case. But it is
considered, from our point of view, a matter of the highest
importance because the morale of the families back home is
important to the whole effectiveness of the force, and it is
something we also owe them as a moral obligation.
General Cartwright. Could I add just----
Chairman Stevens. Yes.
General Cartwright. There are two pieces to that that I
think are very important to what you have raised here, sir. One
is the notification and making sure that the families are taken
care of. The other is organizing the dependents and the
families that have stayed behind, so that they have access to
information, and can stay informed. I think, and particularly
in the case of the Army, we cannot forget that front piece. We
have to organize the families so that they have a way of
getting the information in a timely fashion, stay informed.
Uncertainty is the biggest enemy we have for a family that
sits behind, and not knowing what is going on. And we have to
take care of that piece, too. It is part and parcel to what you
are addressing, sir.
Dr. Wolfowitz. It is another aspect of what is so terrible
about the Iraqis putting people on television. We learned for
the first time that some people were prisoners at the same time
that the families learned, and it does not give us much chance
to get in there ahead of them.
Senator Byrd. Well, thank you. Thank you very much. Will
you continue to review the support that is given to families,
our service members who have been taken prisoner, or who are
missing in action, so that the military can do their utmost to
provide the families with comfort at their most difficult
times?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I will do that personally, Senator. There is
a lengthy couple of pages here which I will give you, also, and
add for the record on the procedure that we are using.
[The information follows:]
Each of the Military Services' Casualty headquarters
assigns a Casualty Assistance Officer to families of those
missing, including POWs. Their job is to keep the families
informed with the latest information, as we know it, on their
loved one. The Casualty Assistance Officer provides other
assistance to the families as needed and requested by the
families. The Military Services take this responsibility very
seriously.
Senator Byrd. Very well. I thank you, Dr. Wolfowitz.
Dr. Wolfowitz. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Byrd. And thank you, General Cartwright, and Dr.
Zakheim.
Mr. Chairman, may we have our opening statements included
in the record?
Chairman Stevens. Yes. All of the opening statements have
been placed in the record, as read, and we will be back here at
3:30 to meet with Secretary Ridge.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Chairman Stevens. Dr. Wolfowitz and Dr. Zakheim, I want to
emphasize that we have to have the answers to these questions
to be submitted. I am going to ask that all questions be
submitted by the close of business today. We are not going to
wait for a series of questions ad infinitum, but those
questions that were sent today, we hope that you will respond
to them no later than Tuesday, because we want to try to mark
up Tuesday afternoon if it is at all possible.
Dr. Wolfowitz. That is fair, and we appreciate the speed in
which you are considering this.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., Thursday, March 27, the
committee was recessed, to reconvene at 3:30 p.m., the same
day.]
(Afternoon Session, 3:30 p.m., Thursday, March 27, 2003)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY--RESUMED
Chairman Stevens. Thank you, Governor, for returning to
us--Mr. Secretary, that is. And we do have additional Senators
that are on their way. I do have but one question, and it is
about the omnibus appropriation and its comparison to this
bill.
FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND WAR SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING
We put $3.5 billion in the omnibus appropriations bill. It
was for homeland security assistance to State and local
authorities, including first responders. This request includes
$2 billion to enhance State and local terrorism preparedness
and to assist first responders. Can you tell us the differences
between the two? We put up $3.5 billion, and now here is $2
billion. How do they fit together?
Secretary Ridge. In the President's supplemental, Senator?
Chairman Stevens. There is $2 billion in addition to the
$3.5 billion as far as the first responders part. Am I clear?
Secretary Ridge. I apologize, sir. You are not. In the
supplemental, there is $3.5 billion, and part of that $3.5
billion is $2 billion for the first responders.
Chairman Stevens. Yes, but that is part--and to enhance
terrorism preparedness and assist first responders.
Secretary Ridge. Yes, sir, I understand.
Chairman Stevens. That is an addition to what we gave you
in the $3.5 billion. What do you contemplate doing with the
money in this bill that you cannot do it, achieve with the $3.5
billion?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, the dollars that you gave us in
fiscal year 2003 are dollars that are going out through the
Office for Domestic Preparedness, dollars going out through--
the three-quarters of a billion in the fire grant program. The
fiscal year 2004 request has another $3.5 billion for strictly
first responder money and first preventer money, if you might.
The supplemental request is in part to defray added costs
incurred by the States and locals for critical infrastructure
protection we have asked them to secure as a result of the
hostilities in Iraq. And, it also includes some money for their
use to continue to build first responder capacity for
exercises, for training and the like.
If you take a look--to your point, Senator, if you take a
look at the dollars that Congress appropriated in fiscal year
2003, the $2 billion request here for first responders, and the
potential of getting as much as $3.5 billion in the fiscal year
2004 request, first responder dollars in the aggregate, if we
can get the budget out and approved by October 1, this fiscal
year alone would probably be somewhere between $7 to $8
billion.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you. During the luncheon recess, I
had a call from a Governor of--from a mayor of a major city,
and also some conversations with several Senators about the
problem of getting money through the States. Now we discussed
that a little bit this morning.
Secretary Ridge. Yes, sir.
EXPEDITING FIRST RESPONDER FUNDING
Chairman Stevens. But have you explored the problem from
the point of view of trying to get some group of mayors to give
us a device whereby the money could be mandated to flow through
the States? What I mean is, we could literally say the States
have to pass this on to some mayors within so many days. Once
you make a grant to them, they have to move it on to some city.
But the question is, they obviously do not get enough
money, any of them, to go on a per capita basis distribution to
all of the cities in their State. But there is no mechanism for
deciding who has the priority within each State.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I would welcome the opportunity
to work with you, and Senator Byrd, and others on this
committee to see to it that if we kept to that distribution
formula, the 80 percent that has to go down to the first
responders and the 20 percent stays in the States, that there
is some leverage that Congress imposes upon the distribution of
that money so that the 80 percent does not end up gathering
interest or dust in State capitals, but gets distributed
immediately to the States.
I mean, it is our view that if you take a look at the
totality of the dollars that would be available to the local
governments conceivably this year, there are enormous sums that
they ought to get. They just want some kind of assurance that
they will get it as quickly--shortly after we send those
dollars to the States.
Chairman Stevens. Well, it is----
Secretary Ridge. But it is still preferable than getting--I
think, dealing with the request of 1,000 or 2,000 individual
communities, because part of our desire is to build a national
capacity. So we asked the Governors to help design a plan for
their State. We asked the mayors to participate in the
development of that plan, but the quid pro quo in exchange for
the mayors working with the Governors is that we design a
mechanism to ensure that they get their money promptly. As soon
as you give it to the Department of Homeland Security, we get
it out the door, and we have got to get it to the mayors.
Chairman Stevens. Well, it was suggested that I suggest to
you is that you not give the States any money until they show
they passed the 80 percent onto the local governments.
Secretary Ridge. Well, Senator, I would love to work with
you on the language that levers immediate response from
everybody involved, because once you appropriate it, our job is
to get it out the door quickly. And that is both to the States
for training purposes and cost reimbursement, but also to the
mayors and to the cities. So working with you on that kind of
language that guarantees that the money flows expeditiously
from the States down to the local communities is something we
would welcome.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Byrd.
VULNERABILITIES
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, you have said that we are a Nation at war, and
another terrorist attack here in America is inevitable. You
have said that the attacks such as the attacks of September
11th are long-term threats. They will not go away. And sadly, I
have to agree with that assessment.
This threat presents our Government, your Department, and
this Congress, with a tremendous challenge and many difficult
decisions. Making our Nation safe from the terrorist threat
could be a bottomless pit.
How can we protect a society that desires to be free, safe
from a threat that is so ill-defined? Will the next attack be
biological? Will it be chemical? Will it be nuclear, or
radiological, or weapons brought into this country through any
one of the 361 ports? Or will it be another jet plane
containing 60,000 gallons of fuel crashing into a building?
These are all real threats. We have to be concerned about them.
As this committee tries to determine how best to meet these
threats, it would be useful to have your assessment of the 10
or 12--I would say 10--vulnerabilities that you are most
concerned about. If you could provide us with a conceptual
response today, or as soon as possible, and a classified
response in writing before we mark up next week, it would be
most helpful. Will you try to do that, please?
Secretary Ridge. Yes, Senator, would be pleased to.
PROTECTING PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
Senator Byrd. How do we protect ourselves from these
threats within our borders while protecting our privacy rights
and our freedom to move about this great country? That is the
question I have. How do we protect ourselves from these threats
within our borders while protecting our privacy rights and our
freedom to move about this great country, and all within the
constitutional concept? Do you want to try answering that?
Secretary Ridge. Yes, sir. I would be pleased to respond.
Senator Byrd. You may have to do part of that in writing. I
think it is important we have your response.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, our--this country's openness, its
diversity, its freedoms, and its values are in large measure
the target of our terrorist enemies. Anything they can do to
undermine any of those, either directly or indirectly, it gives
them the victory which we cannot afford them to even think
about.
Congress, in setting up the Department of Homeland
Security, has provided for the creation and integration of both
a privacy officer, or official, as well as someone whose sole
mission is to look over the strategy we develop, the tactics we
deploy, and the dollars we expend to ensure that it is
consistent with the civil rights and liberties of this country.
I would assure you that when these positions are filled
within the Department, their responsibilities to the Congress,
but more importantly--well, you reflect responsibility to the
country as a whole--will be integrated into everything we do.
We do not want to lose that which makes us so unique among the
countries on the face of this Earth; and that is, our civil
liberties, individual privacies.
And, again, in a transparent system through which and by
which we discuss these issues, we know if there is the
slightest inkling that we are going too far, that there will be
debate, there will be congressional involvement, and that is
just the way it needs to be in this country. But you have
helped by creating a couple of positions within the Department.
And I will assure you that as part of their integration into
this Department, they will be afforded the same access and the
same involvement as I am affording to our Inspector General. We
will have these men or women, whoever we decide to hold these
offices, involved at the front end as we develop strategy, and
policies, and programs.
PRIVACY OFFICER
Senator Byrd. Well, I thank you, Mr. Director. I know there
is much more that you could say on this, but our time is----
Secretary Ridge. I would be happy to follow up, Senator, in
a longer written response.
Senator Byrd. Can you tell us when the privacy officer will
be filled?
Secretary Ridge. The--we have a name. We have completed our
search for the--very able individual we have identified to
serve the Department, and the country, and the civil liberties
area. And we are conducting now a search and interviewing
people to complete our work to identify the privacy officer.
TIMING OF SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
Senator Byrd. Very well. In January of this year, I offered
an amendment to the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations
bill to add $5 billion for the critical homeland security
programs. The White House characterized my amendment as
unnecessary, extraneous spending that purported to be for
homeland security. Get that now, ``purported to be for homeland
security.'' This amendment included funding for first
responders, port security, aviation security, and border
security.
Now the President comes along and requests $4.2 billion for
virtually the same activities. The only thing that the
Administration's position on my amendment accomplished was that
of delaying for 2 months or more our ability to secure the
homeland. Why is it that this Administration has been so slow
to recognize a need to invest resources that the Congress has
made available? And I mean by bipartisan votes. And these
matters come out of my--I say ``my committee.'' I was chairman
at that time. Senator Stevens was Ranking Member and
supported--he and the Republicans supported these amendments
just as strongly as the Democrats did.
Yet the--why is it that the Administration was so slow to
recognize the need to invest resources in the security of our
homeland? And you remember even earlier than that, you wrote to
me and told me that, in essence, ``Well, just hold on, buddy.
We will let you know how much money we need and whenever we
need it.''
Secretary Ridge. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. ``We do not think--we think--we do not we
need your money now.'' So I had that same experience with you
when you----
Secretary Ridge. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd [continuing]. Were a lowly director and
working under instructions not to get near Capitol Hill unless
you came in with closed doors and all that. I say that very
kindly to you. I think you would have been here----
Secretary Ridge. I understand, Senator.
Senator Byrd [continuing]. Long before, had the President
let you come. Do you want to respond to that? Why is it that
this Administration has been so slow to recognize the need to
invest resources in the security of our homeland?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I believe that as we looked at
your request to provide additional sums, we knew that we had a
request before Congress in the fiscal year 2003 budget for $3.5
billion. We knew that our way ahead in the fiscal year 2004
budget was another $3.5 billion. We knew at the time that there
had been bioterrorism money that was available to the States
pursuant to, I believe, a supplemental that the Congress
generously provided in the end of fiscal year 2002 that had not
been drawn down; that there were a few other dollars in the
Office for Domestic Preparedness that had not been drawn down.
If you took a look at the totality of the money that we
believed would be available and still believe should be
available, it was well in excess of $7 billion. So number one,
we were looking at both the ability to get congressional
support for a substantial sum, and $7 billion is a very
substantial sum, but also to make sure that we set it up in a
way that it was expended on where it was needed as we took a
look, long term, at our responsibility to build up a national
capacity to prepare for a terrorist attack, to prevent a
terrorist attack, to reduce our vulnerability to a terrorist
attack.
Again, I think we took a--we do and we continue to take an
interest in getting adequate funds in every single year that
can be appropriately spent as we build over a period of years
additional capacity based on threats, based on vulnerabilities.
And we do think that the $7 billion we had anticipated would
have been a very, very substantial first installment.
Senator Byrd. Well, you are a good soldier, and you always
use your sword with a smile.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know how much longer you are going
to tolerate me.
Chairman Stevens. We extended your time, Senator, for 10
minutes.
NEED FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
Senator Byrd. Oh, did you? Oh, well, good. Thank you.
What has changed in the last 9 weeks, Mr. Director? Nine
weeks ago $5 billion for homeland security was extraneous. Now
$4.2 billion is important enough to be part of an emergency
supplemental bill. What has changed?
Secretary Ridge. Well, first of all, part of that money is
in recognition that the Governors and the States have, at our
request, incurred additional costs to protect critical
infrastructure. I think there is a recognition to the extent of
half a billion dollars in that regard.
And it was also an opportunity for us, looking at how some
of the dollars that we had initially requested in the fiscal
year 2003 budget where we--the Congress identified the
direction those dollars should go, including the fire grant
program, which was three-quarters of a billion dollars. Those
monies are being used by the first responders.
But the--there was not the flexibility attached to those
dollars that we had hoped to achieve in the fiscal year 2003
budget. And because of the enhanced security, because of the
activities and hostilities in Iraq, our need for the
supplemental and our need to continue to build that capacity,
the additional $1.5 billion was requested.
REQUEST FOR DOD
Senator Byrd. Mr. Director--or Mr. Secretary, excuse me.
The extraordinary feature in the President's request is the
extent to which funds are requested for unspecified purposes to
be allocated by the executive branch without further
congressional oversight. In many cases, there is not even a
requirement to notify Congress prior to expenditure. Instead,
the President proposes for agencies to report to Congress on a
quarterly basis after the fact. And generally speaking, it is
not less than 30 days after the end of the quarter.
These expansive authorities are not just for the Secretary
of Defense. Similar flexibility is requested for the Secretary
of Homeland Security, for the Attorney General, and for the
President. Now let me give a few examples.
The Secretary of Defense would receive $59.9 billion of the
$62.6 billion request for DOD through the Defense Emergency
Response Fund (DERF). The Secretary is required to inform the
Defense Oversight Committees no later than 30 days after the
end of each quarter on how the money was spent. You see, the
committee is--Appropriations are not going to be asked how to
spend it. It is not going to be--they are not going to be asked
whether or not they approve it. They will just be told 30 days
after the quarter has ended how it was spent.
Secondly, the Secretary of Defense would be allowed to
transfer up to $9 billion. Well, I have heard all these
crocodile tears being shed here this morning about the
straitjacket, as it were, that the Defense Department is being
put in to. And here it says the Secretary of Defense would be
allowed to transfer up to $9 billion, 2.5 percent, between
appropriations accounts compared to the current $2.5 billion
limit. The Secretary is required to inform the Congress of such
transfers.
Thirdly, the Secretary of Defense--I know I am getting out
of your Department, but in a way this pertains in a similar
manner to yourself and in your responsibilities.
The Secretary of Defense would receive a new authority to
spend $150 million for ``indigenous forces assisting U.S.
military operations or activities relating to the global war on
terrorism.'' The authority here is subject to the concurrence
of the Secretary of State, but not Congress. The Secretary of
Defense would be required to inform Congress on a quarterly
basis on how the transfer authority was used.
Next item: The Secretary of Defense would be given--I did
not get to say all these things to the Secretary of Defense,
but he will read about it. The Secretary of Defense would be
given--maybe.
The Secretary of Defense would be given new authority to
spend money out of the defense cooperation account,
contributions from foreign governments, without the approval of
Congress. Under current law, foreign contributions to the
defense cooperation account can only be spent after approval in
the Appropriations Act. This authority was created in 1990 for
Operation Desert Storm/Shield. The President proposes now to
waive this requirement for fiscal year 2003. This authority
would potentially allow the Secretary now to use the proceeds
of Iraqi oil sales to supplement the DOD budget without any
congressional oversight.
Next item--the Secretary of Defense would have expanded
authority to give $1.4 billion, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, to Pakistan, Jordan, and other key
cooperating nations for military and logistical support for the
war in Iraq or the global war on terrorism.
The proposal would make the fundings subject again now to
the Secretary of State--this would be funny if it was not so
serious--to the concurrence of the Secretary of State in
consultation with the Director of OMB. But, lo and behold, no
congressional approval or review is required. There is no
reporting requirement.
The next item--the President would be given a $2.4 billion
fund for Iraq reconstruction and relief. Am I dreaming? Let me
pinch myself and see if I am dreaming. My goodness. What do
these people downtown think has happened to us? They think we
must be children or fools who have forgotten the Constitution.
Next item--the President would be given $250 million to
prepare for, prevent, protect, or respond to a potential
terrorist attack. The funds could be transferred to any
authorized Federal Government activity. The director of OMB
would be required to notified Congress 15 days prior to
transfer.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) REQUEST
Now let us get down to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
The Secretary of Homeland Security would be given $2 billion--
that is a lot of money--for the Office for Domestic
Preparedness, for grants to States for terrorism prevention; in
other words, first responders. No specific formula for
allocating the funds is included. No specific requirement for
passing funds through to local governments is included. No
specific deadlines for making grants is included. The Secretary
is required to notify Congress 15 days prior to obligation.
The next item--the Secretary of Homeland Security would be
given $1.5 billion in a new counterterrorism fund for transfer
to any department of homeland security--agency for homeland
security programs. Curiously, the Secretary can only transfer
the funds to DHS programs, so that if the Department of Energy
needed additional funds for nuclear security, the Secretary
could not transfer the money. If Health and Human Services
(HHS) needed money for a new bioterrorism threat, or if the
Department of Interior needed the funds for protecting national
monuments, the Secretary could not transfer the funds. There
are no details on how these funds would be used.
The Coast Guard has significant costs associated with their
deployment of 11 cutters and 24 small boats to the Persian
Gulf. The Secretary would be required to notify Congress 15
days prior to obligation.
SPENDING AUTHORITIES
Well, I have other items that I could read into the record,
but these are the examples of the authorities that this
Administration is requesting. And it is seeking more
authorities, more power, and wishes above all that Congress
would simply step aside, salute, and go on off into the sunset.
I cannot believe that this Administration is asking for this. I
cannot believe that it thinks that Congress is going to just
willy-nilly lie down and pass these things.
I think this--you know, I--the thought just struck me that
we say we are fighting this war to liberate the Iraqi people,
and yet here is the executive branch seeking power. And with--
if Congress gives these additional powers to the executive
branch, then Congress's powers, by the same token, are going to
be lessened, are going to be taken away.
I cannot--I have great difficulty believing that the
Administration really thinks that we ought to do this. Remember
Lord Atkins' statement, ``Power tends to corrupt, and absolute
power corrupts absolutely.'' Edmund Burke--and I will close
with him. He was a great friend of the colonies and the States
prior to the Revolutionary War. And he said, ``The greater the
power, the more dangerous the abuse.''
I thank you, Mr. Secretary. I have taken too much time
already. But I have a feeling that you and I, and this
Committee, are going to work together now that you have had the
chains broken that kept you from coming before this committee.
I look forward to working with you. We are both interested in
the welfare of our country.
And just please remember that from my side of this table,
number one is the Constitution of the United States, and the
separation of power is doctrine, checks and balances. And I
will meet you halfway on getting your dollars, but when it
comes to taking away the prerogatives of the Congress under the
Constitution to have control over that purse, then that is
where I hope we will still be together.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you, Senator.
NEED FOR SPENDING FLEXIBILITY
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I am confident that we will. And
you and I have had conversations about the importance of
recognizing the certain principles of governance that are
enshrined in our constitution.
Clearly, those of us who serve in the executive branch
understand that the power of the purse, the power to
appropriate, the power to oversee the appropriations is
exclusively the province of the Congress of the United States.
The request for flexibility is--we have tried to project for
your consideration in recognition of that particular
constitutional responsibility that you have.
We cannot have flexibility over a single dollar unless you
appropriate the dollar. We will have to come back before
Congress and justify every single dime that has been expended.
We will be held accountable that it was expended for the
purposes outlined in the request for initial appropriation.
But under the circumstances with regard to the Department
of Homeland Security, the rationale is fairly straightforward.
We are in some respects in unchartered ground whether in
fighting the war at home. We know basically the costs
associated with Coast Guard's work, not only in the theater,
but the protection of the ports. We know the other costs that
we are incurring for the foreseeable future as we do things,
additional things, at our borders, at our airports. So there
are costs associated that we can identify totaling nearly $1
billion of that $1.5 billion.
But given the unpredictability of the future as it relates
to our needs, perhaps to surge to one area, to bring more
resources in another area, to make sure that because an
institution like the Coast Guard is still well equipped not
only to help us fight the war but to pay equal attention to its
non-homeland security responsibilities, that just gives us the
flexibility to make sure that we spend the money where Congress
has previously indicated, and that is the non-traditional role
of--the non-homeland security role of the Coast Guard, and
gives us a chance, when needed, to draw down and put the
resources, the technologies with the people to help us defend
America; obviously, accountable to you and your colleagues if
those dollars are expanded.
Thank you, Senator.
PREPARING FOR MARKUP
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
I am going to yield to Senator Cochran. I have to excuse
myself. I have some meetings that--Senators want to discuss
this amendment to this supplement. I do want to remind the
Committee that we have committed to recess at 4:15 p.m. so that
the Secretary may conduct a conference call that he had
previously scheduled. Again, I thank you for your courtesy of
coming back----
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Stevens [continuing]. To meet with us this
afternoon.
Secretary Ridge. Sure.
Chairman Stevens. And when we finish today, we will
announce the schedule for Tuesday some time tomorrow after I
consult with Senator Byrd.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you.
SPECIFICS OF SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
Senator Cochran [presiding]. Mr. Secretary, I am prepared
to try to help you get the funds you need to do your job and to
do it well. But it would be helpful to us in that effort to
have some specific information about what the needs are in
order to accomplish that goal. What we have before the
committee is a broad outline with broad categories of funding
and not much in the way of specific requests for activities.
We know that there are needs out there. We have called some
of the agencies that are under the jurisdiction of this
Department--the 22 agencies or functions of agencies, the Coast
Guard are included in this--to find out what they see their
needs to be. And they are not consistent with what the budget
request is, and there is a little confusion there in my mind
because of what we are finding out.
For example, Senator Byrd, Senator Stevens, and others,
including me, were invited to the White House to hear what the
budget request was going to be. And we were told it was $74.7
billion for the Department of Defense, $4.2 billion would be
for Homeland Security. And then the fact sheet gets sent up by
the Department of Homeland Security that indicates the $3.5
billion request and outlines the specifics which Senator Byrd
read into the record while ago. So I wonder what happened to
the $4.2 billion request. Is it now $3.5 billion, or is it
still $4.2 billion? If it is still $4.2 billion, what is the
other money for?
So it would be helpful for us--and I am going to submit
some specific questions about some of these accounts--to see if
we can find out what the specific needs are for the Coast
Guard, for the Transportation Security Administration. That is
another point of confusion. I had asked at The White House how
much was being requested for the Transportation Security
Administration and I was told nothing, none, no specific
request. Then we start meeting with your staff to find out if
there is any intention to provide money from this bill to the
Transportation Security Administration and you said, yes.
There is an assumption that there will be $120 million that
would be used from this supplemental spending bill by the
Transportation Security Administration to hire additional
screeners and to provide additional funding for overtime pay
for Federal screeners.
Well, then I am told that there is a statutory cap to limit
the hiring of screeners already, and it has already been
exceeded. So, how are we going to hire additional screeners if
that cap has been exceeded?
So, the more I dig into the specifics, the more I realize
we have got some work to do to find out what is actually
required. Can some of these funds that you are assuming you
need be spent legally? Do we have to make changes in this bill
in the law that created the Department and the authority to do
these things? So, I think we have got some work to do. Looking
at FEMA, for example, I asked the question this morning about
the cost of the agency's work in helping with the Columbia
shuttle recovery. That assignment was given to FEMA. It could
not have been anticipated when we funded FEMA last year. This
was certainly an expensive operation. And my question was, is
there any money in here for FEMA to take care of that? And my
impression was that there is none, or none was assumed. You
were going to absorb those costs.
The Secret Service, I am curious to know if the Secret
Service is going to get any money in this, from this
supplemental. There is no specific request for the Secret
Service, but I am told that there are expenses that they
anticipate incurring. It is up to $132 million for the cost of
Secret Service's Operation Liberty Shield activities and other
needs.
There is a similar concern in another agency under your
jurisdiction, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, for
example. I understand that additional supplemental funding is
thought to be needed in the amount of $1.736 million, but that
is not in the budget request. That is not in this supplemental
request.
So it would be nice to have the specifics. I think it will
help us help you if we had the specifics, because you can tell
right now by the tone of the questions and comments from other
Senators who are on this Subcommittee for Homeland Security
that we are not just going to appropriate $4.2 billion and say,
``This is for whatever purpose the Department of Homeland
Security wants to spend the money for.'' And that is sort of
what this request is. It is not exactly that. It is broken down
into more detail, but I think we are going to have to break it
down even in more specifics than your request has identified it
should be broken down.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, if I may----
Senator Cochran. I did not mean to make a speech. I am kind
of like Senator Byrd; I got carried away. I started thinking,
and talking, and never got around to putting a question mark on
the end of what I said.
Secretary Ridge. I just thought it was a several-part----
Senator Cochran. But it is a----
Secretary Ridge. I thought it was a several-part question,
Senator.
Senator Cochran. I do have a question.
Secretary Ridge. That is what I thought.
Senator Cochran. I will stop and let you respond to that,
if you will.
Senator Leahy. But we do know for those who have not had a
chance and have been waiting here since 10 o'clock this morning
to ask a question, we will get a chance before he leaves, I
hope.
Senator Cochran. That is right. That is the only question I
am going to ask.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, let me try to be as responsive as
I can to your very complex question.
Senator Cochran. I am sorry.
DETAILS OF THE REQUEST
Secretary Ridge. First of all, with regard to the
announcement at the White House and the $4.2 billion, the
request for the Department of Homeland Security is $3.5
billion. The additional $700 million can be broken down into
$500 million to the Department of Justice and the FBI, and the
$200 million that Senator Byrd referred to in order to absorb
an additional costs that some of the other Cabinet agencies may
incur as they take additional protective or preventive measures
during the period of hostilities with Iraq. So, again, it is
$4.2 billion that we are requesting for homeland security, and
$3.5 billion would be distributed to the Department of Homeland
Security.
With regard to the numbers, the first responders and
critical infrastructure protection, I think in response to what
I am sure will be a fairly lengthy list of questions we will
show you, certainly clarifies the mission and the intent around
the nearly $3 billion worth. Clearly, first responders are
going to get those dollars through the Office for Domestic
Preparedness. We will use the same formula that has been
historically used and the approach that Congress has directed
us to use in the fiscal year 2003 budget.
The Coast Guard estimate that we have arrived at to date is
nearly $600 million. There is $400 million for their support of
the war in Iraq, and about $180 million as they help secure the
ports. But there are also some critical pieces of
infrastructure that we thought was necessary to put vessels and
reservists so they had 24/7 protection during this period. That
is, about $180 million is what we estimate. So we will be able
to give you additional dollar estimates.
And, again, it is based on cost that we know in many areas,
but costs we will learn as a result of the enhanced security in
the Liberty Shield program. I have talked to a couple of
Governors who have assigned National Guard to power facilities
or other critical infrastructure within their respective
States. The cost varies a little bit from State to State, but
we have a general idea of what the cost of the Guard might be.
But the cost of guarding a bridge or a tunnel is a little bit
different than the cost associated with guarding a nuclear
power facility.
So as we go, as we work together down this path to try to
get more specificity to answer the concerns that you and your
colleagues have, I think clearly down the road we will have a
better idea, but I think we can show you fairly specifically
how most of this money is being spent. But because we cannot
tell you with the precision that you would like, nor can we
anticipate the needs, and we want to be prepared if the need
arises to deploy people or resources as a result of this
heightened state of alert, that is the reason we ask for the
flexibility. But we will be as specific in our responses to you
and your colleagues as we possibly can.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Senator Leahy.
FIRST RESPONDER FUNDING
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Ridge, thank you for your almost legendary
patience. But also, you are asking for a terrific amount of
money. It may all well be justified. We are in a two-front war
in one sense. One is war in Iraq, and Secretary Rumsfeld spoke
to us this morning about the need for money there.
You are protecting us in another war here at home which
directly affects us all a great deal. That does not involve so
much Iraq. Unfortunately, those who struck at us last time on
September 11th came predominantly from the countries of allies
of ours, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and those. And so we look
at that from a different point of view.
But we have to figure out where we spend the money. The
Administration has decided to ask for $8 billion of assistance
to foreign nations that it considers helpful in the war against
Iraq. And I know that we have a lot of countries that have
lined up to join this coalition, but my guess is as well-
intentioned as they are, we will probably not get an enormous
amount of help from Eritrea, or from the Cameroons, or from
Bulgaria, or a number of other of our allies in this. Their
good wishes are, of course, welcomed.
But the Administration has asked for $8 billion to help
these nations that may have helped us in Iraq, and will
ultimately ask for billions of dollars more. The President has
said that he wants to get health care for the people in Iraq.
He wants to rebuild schools, wants to put millions of Iraqis
back to work. I think that is a noble goal. If we are going to
show that part of the world that once we go to war there, that
there can be benefits, we have to do those things. But, of
course, we also have to do those same things here at home.
Having requested all this money, billions of dollars for
coalition partners, we have only $2 billion for first
responders here. The mayors and Governors say they need $8
billion. I know that Senator Reid and others have talked to you
about this, but if the Governors and the Mayors and all are
asking for this $8 billion, they are the ones that have to
answer the 911 calls. They are the ones that are going to get
called first. And I must say in my State, a lot of the fire
departments and what-not are seeing they have members getting
called up to the National Guard or the Reserves, so there are
even further costs.
Who is right? Are these Mayors and Governors, and police
chiefs--and you are a Governor--are they right? Or is the
Administration right in requesting a much smaller amount?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I think----
Senator Leahy. Because I get asked this question all of the
time at home, so----
Secretary Ridge. Sure. I appreciate the opportunity to
respond to it. I believe at the end of the day, we are a lot
closer to the dollar figure if we are prepared to take a look
at the sums that are available to the States and localities and
first responders as a result of the fiscal year 2002
supplemental, as a result of the fiscal year 2003
appropriation, as a result if Congress is willing to approve
the supplemental that we requested for the fiscal year 2003
budget, as well as the fiscal year 2004 budget. By my
calculation, Senator, there will be for terrorism preparedness,
first responders, bioterrorism and the like, roughly $8 billion
to $9 billion in this fiscal year, assuming we get the
supplemental as we have requested.
And I would like to look positively at the fiscal year 2004
budget where we have a request for $3.5 billion in there for
first responders. And if you aggregate all of these dollars
together and again look positively at the opportunity to get
those dollars out the door sometime this year from the fiscal
year 2004 budget, there is well in excess of $8 billion there,
Senator.
Senator Leahy. Half and----
Secretary Ridge. And that is the----
FIRST RESPONDER FUNDING AGGREGATE
Senator Leahy. Two and a half billion dollars and $3\1/2\
billion by--I was never a great math major, but----
Secretary Ridge. Well, we have----
Senator Leahy [continuing]. It does not add up to $8
billion or $9 billion.
Secretary Ridge. Well, if I recall correctly, Congress gave
to the States $1.1 billion in your fiscal year 2002
supplemental, most of it through Secretary Thompson and Health
and Human Services bioterrorism grants. Secretary Thompson
administered--distributed 20 percent of those dollars so they
could plan and prepare and come in with specific ideas as to
how they were going to expend the balance.
There is still about $870 million available for
bioterrorism preparedness under that supplemental. You add some
of the ODP dollars that are--that some of your colleagues have
brought to my attention, that some of the States have not
accessed yet, you are well over $1 billion between those two
sums.
You have the fiscal year 2003 budget where you have Office
for Domestic Preparedness money. You have the fire grant money.
And you have other dollars in there. That is well in excess of
$2 billion. So even on the conservative side, you are at $3
billion.
If you grant the request that we have asked for first
responders in the supplemental, it is $2 billion. You are at $5
billion. And then we have asked for $3.5 billion in fiscal year
2004. So I am roughly in excess of $8 billion for terrorism
preparedness and bioterrorism money. And that assumes a lot
of--that assumes the passage of the supplemental. That assumes
passage of the fiscal year 2004 budget, or the appropriation of
those dollars before the end of the fiscal year----
Senator Leahy. Well----
Secretary Ridge [continuing]. And one of the challenges, I
say, to all of us who want to make sure we send them the right
amount, and we all do.
Senator Leahy. Well, Mr. Secretary----
Secretary Ridge. It is not just inputs, but it is outcomes.
Senator Leahy. It assumes a lot, but I think we could also
assume the need is there right now.
Secretary Ridge. Well----
GRANT FORMULAS
Senator Leahy. I mean, the fact is the States and local
communities certainly in my State, your State, Pennsylvania,
and Mississippi and West Virginia, and everywhere else, they
are all being asked to do a great deal. And I just want to make
sure that we are doing this, if you agree--you know, we put
into the USA PATRIOT Act--a small State minimum. That says a
State, whether it is Mississippi, or just take a few,
Mississippi or Alaska and Hawaii or West Virginia or Vermont or
New Hampshire, might get the--might be guaranteed a minimum, a
small State minimum. I assume that that is not a problem with
the Administration.
Secretary Ridge. No, it is not, Senator. But I do think as
we take a look at the enormous sums that we are prepared to
distribute, it is worth having a discussion between the
executive branch, the new Department, and the Congress, and see
if we reach a conclusion that the historic formula that we use
under the Office for Domestic Preparedness is the best way to
distribute dollars.
Clearly, we can expend any amount of money we send to the
States and the cities. There are plenty of needs, some of them
terrorism-related, or not, but if we are going to expend
terrorism dollars----
Senator Leahy. I just want it for terrorism. I am worried
about terrorism.
Secretary Ridge. Yes. I am--I would like to engage both
chambers in a bipartisan way, and we have talked to some of
your leaders about it to see whether or not I can convince you,
as I have concluded, that the formula we have used in the past
should not be the formula we use in the future, because it does
not take into consideration some of the special needs that
certain communities have and certain States have that are
substantially greater than others.
Senator Leahy. So your answer----
Secretary Ridge. And we need to----
Senator Leahy [continuing]. Is no to----
Secretary Ridge [continuing]. Look at it.
SMALL STATE MINIMUMS
Senator Leahy. Then your answer is you do not support the
small State minimum?
Secretary Ridge. I am--I am sorry, Senator?
Senator Leahy. Then are you saying that you do not support
the small State minimum, that----
Secretary Ridge. Oh, no, I----
Senator Leahy [continuing]. You are looking for a different
formula?
Secretary Ridge. I think it is very important that States,
large and small, have dollars so they have their training
academies, that we want them to promote mutual aid agreements.
And they have to have certain kinds of equipment available for
them to protect their citizens to start with. So I think you
start with a notion that there ought to be a baseline for the
States----
Senator Leahy. Okay.
Secretary Ridge [continuing]. And then I think you have to
recognize that some States have a much larger population and a
much more complicated mission, international airports, more
densely populated urban areas, perhaps more ports, not only
airports but seaports, and perhaps more land borders. All of
these things need to be taken into consideration in addition to
perhaps threat information.
Now, Congress in fiscal year 2003 set aside $100 million
and said to us, work with the intelligence community and
distribute this $100 million to high-threat urban areas. And we
are working with the intelligence community. And the criteria
you gave us at that time, Senator, was helpful. You said that
the Office for Domestic Preparedness should take into account
credible threat, vulnerability, the presence of infrastructure
of national importance, population and identified needs of the
jurisdictions' public safety agencies when determining program
eligibility. So I think we have a baseline to work on in the
future, as we try to make sure that we expend these dollars in
a most effective way.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Cochran. Mr. Secretary, you have been very patient
with our schedule, and we know that you have a schedule
requirement too that is of long standing importance.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Tom Ridge
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. Of the $1.5 billion in supplemental funding proposed for
grants to state and local preparedness activities, how much is for the
equipment formula grant program to states, how much for discretionary
training grants, how much is for training exercise grants?
Answer. The $1.5 billion for state and local preparedness
activities would support training, exercises, equipment, and planning
and technical assistance. The allocation of funds among these purposes
would vary according to each state's plan rather than be a fixed
prescribed share that would tie the hands of states and localities.
Question. What is the demonstrated need for these additional funds?
For example, what percent of the funds appropriated for fiscal years
2002 and 2003 for these grants has been obligated to date?
Answer. The fiscal year 2003 funds have just recently become
available (due to the timing of the fiscal year 2003 appropriation) and
we are expecting applications for those funds in the immediate future.
We are expecting applications for these funds in mid-April and will
begin providing funds as soon as possible after that.
All of the funds from the fiscal year 2002 appropriation have been
distributed to the states. The amount the states have drawn down varies
from state to state.
Our consultations with governors and state emergency preparedness
officials, as well as our analysis of the threat conditions that we are
operating under in the current situation, persuade us that there is a
bona fide need for these funds and that the states are poised to
receive them and act expeditiously in distributing them to their
localities.
Question. Is the $450 million for grants to states to enhance
security at critical infrastructure facilities as part of Operation
Liberty Shield a new program? Under what authority will these funds be
provided, both to states and to local governments?
Answer. These funds would be authorized under Section 430(c) of the
Homeland Security Act, which provides authority for DHS to make grants
and would be used to respond to these unique circumstances.
Question. The budget request indicates that before releasing funds
at critical infrastructure facilities, the Department of Homeland
Security will ensure that appropriate security measures are in place
for critical infrastructure sites. How will this be done?
Answer. The Department has been working, and will continue to work,
closely with the governors and their homeland security officials in an
iterative process to identify critical sites and to design the security
packages appropriate for the perceived threat, vulnerability, and
criticality to the nation.
Question. With respect to the $50 million in additional funding
proposed for protection or preparedness of major metropolitan areas,
how will these funds be awarded? At the discretion of the Secretary?
Only to those urban areas qualifying for the $100 million follow-on
program to the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici program funded in the Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution for Fiscal Year 2003?
Answer. The $50 million proposed for protection of high threat
urban areas would be awarded by the Secretary based upon an analysis of
the threat, vulnerability and potential impact upon the nation.
counterterrorism fund
Question. Some might regard the proposed supplemental request for
the Department of Homeland Security Counterterrorism Fund as a ``slush
fund'' for the Secretary to use to enhance funding for any Department
activity without any proper oversight by this Committee and the
Congress. What is the justification for this request and the basis of
the $1.5 billion requested?
Answer. The Department welcomes the oversight of the Congress and
expects the Congress to have full visibility of the expenditure of
these funds. We also expect to be held accountable for how the funds
are used.
We propose that there be a statutory requirement for us to notify
the Congress 15 days in advance of any obligation of these funds in
order to facilitate such oversight and visibility.
Of the $1.5 billion we are requesting, about $580 million would be
allocated to the U.S. Coast Guard, whose requirements are largely
dictated by the Department of Defense in support of specific
operations. Thus there is a considerable degree of precision in the
estimates of costs, both in the theater of operations and in CONUS in
support of military loadout.
We also believe, however, that many of the circumstances that we
must be able to respond to in this country with other elements of DHS
are extremely fluid. Flexibility in the appropriation of the funds is
necessary to enable us to surge various assets in various locations and
at various strengths and configurations in response to the security
threats as they evolve. The threat we face is elusive, clandestine, and
opportunistic. It is not arrayed like an army on a battlefield in a
discernible order of battle. It is volatile, unpredictable, and deadly.
Our response needs to be matched in flexibility and agility.
Question. What are the current estimated additional costs of
Operation Liberty Shield to each of the Department's organizations? For
additional screening of visitors crossing the borders? For more
secondary inspections of immigrants and visitors at the ports-of-entry?
For increased inspection of high-risk cargo and goods at ports-of-
entry? For additional flight hours for airspace security, protection of
federal assets? Increased security between ports-of-entry? For
mobilization of federal emergency response assets? Etc. Why can't
account-level estimates of these additional requirements be provided to
us at this time?
Answer. Simply put, because we don't know what the enemy is going
to do. For that reason, as discussed above, flexibility to rapidly
deploy our assets and to adjust the OPTEMPO of those assets would
facilitate our ability to respond to emerging threats as they are
detected. In some conceivable circumstances we might need to increase
flight hours dramatically, but not necessarily screening of visitors at
the same rate. Conversely, a particular threat might require a dramatic
increase in the screening of visitors and cargo at ports-of-entry but
not more flight hours.
Listed below are the activities of various DHS components to be
funded from the request:
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.--Overtime, air and
marine interdiction, detention and removals, investigations, Federal
Protective Service, O&M support for air assets.
Bureau of Customs and Border Patrol.--Overtime, operations costs,
impact on user fees, logistics.
TSA.--Overtime for passenger screeners, operations costs,
logistics, contracts, training.
FLETC.--Secret Service Security barriers, overtime, new protective
details, upgrades for protectees, equipment.
Emergency Preparedness & Response.
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.
Coast Guard.
Question. Is there an estimated cost of the Coast Guard for
increased protection of military outload in U.S. ports, and protection
of economically-critical U.S. port as part of Operation Liberty Shield.
What is the estimated additional funding required by the Coast Guard
for these purposes? What is the estimated additional funding required
by the Coast Guard for the activation of over 6,000 reservists and
forces already deployed or being deployed to the operational theatre?
Answer. The estimated cost of the Coast Guard's enhanced security
operations to protect military outloads is $220 million. Among the
approximately 1,000 USCG personnel involved in theater, there are
currently four Port Security Units activated and employed. The cost of
operating these reserve units is $1.3 million per month/per unit. There
is an additional one-time deployment cost of $3.5 million per unit.
Additional costs of other personnel and operational units are discussed
below in further discussion of Coast Guard. Total Coast Guard cost
estimates for its role in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Liberty
Shield are $580 million.
general questions
Question. Sustained periods of high terrorism alert are driving the
need to accelerate state and local counterterrorism preparedness and
training efforts. How fast can this be done realistically?
Answer. Circumstances vary dramatically from state to state, and
within each state. Some localities and states are farther along than
others. Some have a highly evolved homeland security apparatus, others
are not so advanced. Our hope is that each state will act expeditiously
in this regard. Fortunately, our governors and mayors have given us
clear indication that they are eager to make progress on this and are
anxious for our support and assistance in increasing their level of
readiness and preparedness.
Question. What are the additional costs to states and local
governments when the threat level is raised from yellow to orange? What
are the additional costs to the federal government? To each of the
Department of Homeland Security organizations?
Answer. Our ability to estimate these costs is still in
development. In fact, one of our major priorities is to design the
necessary systems to capture these costs and to model costs. Generally,
agencies reprioritize their operations in order to support such costs
and to the extent possible absorb them within existing resources. In
fact, this supplemental request does not include any cost specifically
for operations at condition orange, other than for the Coast Guard.
Rather, these costs are estimates of the resources required for efforts
under Liberty Shield, and those estimates are shown in a previous
response.
Question. Are there any additional unmet Department of Homeland
Security supplemental funding needs not related to the heightened
threat of terrorism as a result of the Iraq war which are not addressed
by this supplemental request? For example, disaster relief, especially
in light of the additional cost of the Columbia recovery efforts?
Answer. These estimates cover Liberty Shield efforts in response to
the increased threat as a result of the Iraq war. We are working with
the DHS components to evaluate and solve other issues not related to
the Iraq war.
secret service
Question. What are the costs of the Secret Service's Operation
Liberty Shield activities?
Answer. The request is intended to cover the types of activities
and efforts noted above. It is important to note that the funds
required would depend on the threat and duration. For this reason the
President has requested a total of $1.5 billion for the
Counterterrorism Fund with flexibility in the allocation of those
funds.
Question. Does the Secret Service have any other supplemental
funding needs at this time?
Answer. Funding provide through the Counter Terrorism fund will be
used to support costs associated with Operation Liberty Shield. Should
other requirements emerge, the Department would work closely with the
Secret Service to determine the most appropriate manner in which to
address those requirements.
federal law enforcement training center
Question. Does the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center have
additional supplemental funding needs associated with training and
security requirements?
Answer. As noted above FLETC is expected to receive additional
funds under the supplemental request for enhanced training
requirements.
united states coast guard
Question. What is the total fiscal year 2003 supplemental funding
request for the Coast Guard? Is this amount adequate to support all of
the homeland security needs of the Coast Guard at home during this time
of heightened alert and abroad to the Department of Defense with the
War in Iraq?
Answer. The Coast Guard has requested $580 million to cover the
estimated incremental costs of (1) supporting Coast Guard deployed
forces to the IRAQI FREEDOM Operational theater in response to the
Joint Commanders (EUCOM & CENTCOM) mission requirements, (2) providing
an enhanced security posture for strategic ports of embarkation during
the combatants' initial sea-lift and throughout the remainder of the
campaign, and (3) providing an enhanced security posture within several
of our major economic ports in response to the Department of Homeland
Security's direction to increase the Coast Guard's security posture to
Threat Condition ORANGE. The $580 million amount is estimated to be
sufficient, given current operational planning requirements and threat
assessments, to cover all necessary fiscal year 2003 costs above the
Coast Guard's fiscal year 2003 appropriated amount through the end of
the fiscal year.
Question. The Coast Guard's only official comment to the Committee
regarding the supplemental request has been to say that if it receives
the full supplemental amount being discussed by the Department of
Homeland Security, then it will have enough money to pay its bills.
What does that mean? Which bills, and for how long? Does this include
personnel costs, equipment costs, infrastructure and technology
upgrades?
Answer. Based on current threat assessments and operational
planning requirements for both IRAQI FREEDOM and LIBERTY SHIELD the
Coast Guard has estimated there will be $580 million of fiscal year
2003 expenses above the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2003 Appropriation
for the direct and support costs of its maritime operations. The
Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Management and Budget
have agreed to support this funding level for the Coast Guard's fiscal
year 2003 incremental operational costs. These costs do include special
pay, reserve pay, personnel support costs and entitlements and the
incremental mission and operations costs.
Question. Are there increased costs for personnel and equipment
associated with the increased threat level, such as when we move from
yellow/elevated to orange/high and then to red/severe? Are more
resources required to accomplish the security goals associated with
each threat level?
Answer. The Coast Guard's annual Operating Expenses Appropriation
is sufficient to provide for Threat Condition YELLOW for each fiscal
year. More resources are required to increase the surge capability of
Coast Guard forces in order to satisfy the operational requirements for
Threat Condition ORANGE. Under certain circumstances those resources
can be made available through internal reprioritization. At other
times, as with the specific operational requirements of Operation
Liberty Shield, combined with the Coast Guard's support of Operational
Iraqi Freedom, additional funds are needed.
Threat Condition ORANGE can be enacted regionally or within single
ports.
Currently there are no significant costs attached to increasing the
Coast Guard's Threat Condition from ORANGE to RED, because at Threat
Condition RED only a few additional resources are mobilized for what is
expected to be a short period of time.
Question. How many reservists have been called back to active duty
to assist with the Coast Guard's homeland security initiatives at home
and abroad? What is the monthly cost associated with each reserve unit?
Answer. As of 30 March, 2003 approximately 4,000 Coast Guard
Reservists have been recalled to active duty to perform homeland
security initiatives at home and abroad. Most reserves do not serve in
reserve units as is the case with the other military services. However,
our Port Security Units are reserve units and four have been deployed
and are serving in the IRAQI FREEDOM operations theater. The estimated
monthly cost for each Port Security Unit is approximately $1,300,000.
There is an additional estimated one time cost of approximately
$3,500,000 for each Port Security Unit for sea-lift, pre-deployment
training and outfit, and post-deployment recapitalization and repair.
Question. Of the total fiscal year 2003 supplemental request for
the Coast Guard, how much funding supports Department of Defense
activities associated with the War in Iraq?
Answer. Contained in the Coast Guard's request for $580 million is
approximately $400 million to provide for the incremental costs for
Department of Defense operations associated with IRAQI FREEDOM. The
$400 million includes approximately $220 million for domestic port
security in military outload ports and approximately $180 million for
deployment of Coast Guard forces in support of the EUCOM and CENTCOM
Combatant Commanders.
Question. What are the monthly operating costs for each of the four
port security units that have already been deployed overseas?
Answer. The estimated monthly operating cost for each of the four
port security units that have already been deployed overseas is
$1,300,000 per month or $5,200,000 per month for all four deployed port
security units. Additionally each unit has an estimated $3,500,000 of
one-time costs in sea lift (in and out of theater) and recapitalization
and repair for a total of $14,000,000 of one-time costs for all four
units.
Question. What are the monthly operating costs for each of the
eight 110 foot patrol boats that have already been deployed overseas?
Answer. The estimated monthly operating cost for each of the eight
110 foot patrol boats already been deployed overseas is $120,000 per
month or $960,000 per month for all eight deployed patrol boats.
Additionally, each unit has an estimated $4,600,000 of one-time costs
for sea lift (in and out of theater), pre-deployment outfit and
reconstitution and repair for a total of $36,800,000 of one-time costs
for all four units.
It is also important to note that two Mobile Support Units also
deployed, one with each four boat, patrol boat squadron. As patrol
boats have extreme limitations for onboard spares, the Mobile Support
Unit provides necessary in-theater logistics and intermediate
maintenance support. The estimated monthly costs for each Mobile
Support Unit is $600,000 per month and each Mobile Support Unit has a
one-time cost of $3,500,000 for sea-lift, pre-deployment outfit and
post deployment reconstitution.
Question. What are the monthly operating costs for each of the two
378 high endurance Coast Guard cutters that have already been deployed
overseas?
Answer. The estimated monthly operating cost for each of the two
378 foot, high endurance Coast Guard cutters that have already been
deployed overseas is $380,000 per month. Additionally, each unit has an
estimated $3,700,000 of one-time costs for pre-deployment equipment and
post-deployment reconstitution and repair.
Question. It is my understanding that one of the Coast Guard's
newest and most technologically advanced Buoy Tenders, which has the
capability to skim oil and lift heavy equipment, is currently operating
overseas. What is the monthly cost associated with this Buoy Tender?
Answer. The estimated monthly operating cost for the Coast Guard
225 foot, ocean-going Buoy Tender, that has already been deployed
overseas is approximately $300,000 per month. Additionally, this cutter
has an estimated $2,100,000 of one-time costs for pre-deployment
equipment and post-deployment reconstitution and repair.
Question. Does the supplemental request include funding for any
post-war related costs, such as bringing Coast Guard personnel and
assets back home, and the general maintenance and repair to restore
equipment to its pre-war capacity?
Answer. Included in the Coast Guard's $580 million supplemental
request is approximately $52 million for both transportation of Coast
Guard forces to and from theater, and recapitalization and
reconstitution of equipment to restore to pre-war capacity and
capability. Recapitalization and reconstitution includes the
restoration of inventories for deployed support commands, as well as
hull inspection, repair, and general maintenance overhaul for deployed
cutters.
Question. Does the Coast Guard plan to leave any assets overseas as
part of the President's plan to assist the Iraqi people in rebuilding
their country and developing a democracy? If so, which assets and what
would be the responsibility of the Coast Guard regarding those assets
and the cost incurred by the Coast Guard in support of those assets?
Answer. The Coast Guard has not received any request from any
agency thus far, regarding the use of Coast Guard assets in the post-
hostilities period.
Question. How much of the supplemental funding would be for the
protections of military outload in U.S. ports?
Answer. Included in the Coast Guard's $580 million supplemental
request is approximately $220 million for the protection of military
outload in U.S. ports. The establishment of this MARSEC II condition in
these critical ports began in January and will continue as long as
forces deploy from U.S. ports in support of the Combatant Commanders
time-phased force deployment plan.
Question. Of the total fiscal year 2003 supplemental request for
the Coast Guard, how much funding supports domestic homeland security
efforts? Please provide a breakdown of the costs associated with each
initiative.
Answer. The Coast Guard is providing critical increased homeland
security efforts through two specific initiatives, military outload
port security as part of IRAQI FREEDOM, and enhanced strategic economic
port maritime security as a component of LIBERTY SHIELD. Contained in
the Coast Guard's supplemental request is approximately $220 million
for military outload security and $180 million for LIBERTY SHIELD. The
supplemental request contains funding to meet current LIBERTY SHIELD
estimates and will be refined as the Secretary and the Commandant
reassess port security threats.
Question. Does the supplemental funding request include money for
any non-homeland security initiatives of the Coast Guard? If so, how
much funding is for each initiative?
Answer. The supplemental funding request for the Coast Guard
includes only those incremental costs associated with the Coast Guard
support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Liberty Shield.
transportation security administration
Question. The President's supplemental spending bill assumes $120
million in additional monies for the Transportation Security
Administration in part to hire additional screeners and to provide
additional funding for overtime pay for federal screeners.
With the statutory cap in place to limit the hiring of screeners
already exceeded, how do you anticipate hiring additional screeners?
Answer. TSA has not exceeded the statutory cap. The cap is on full-
time permanent employees only, not all employees. TSA has about 40,000
full-time permanent employees at this time, and is therefore under the
statutory cap of 45,000. There is no cap on total screeners. DHS' goal
is to reduce the number of TSA screeners to 51,000 by the end of the
fiscal year.
Question. Do you intend on obligating the carryover of funds from
previous years for the purchase of more Explosive Detection Systems or
will the Transportation Security Administration be able to buy
additional devices with the money provided in the President's
supplemental spending bill?
Answer. DHS is reviewing TSA's overall fiscal year 2003 spending
plan, including funds for all EDS purposes. As soon as a definite plan
is approved, DHS will share it with the Congress.
emergency preparedness and response
Question. What is the total fiscal year 2003 supplemental funding
request for the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate? Of
this total, how much funding is for operating expenses, personnel
costs, equipment and technology upgrades, etc.?
Answer. The estimate for EP&R is approximately $15 million. These
funds would be used for such activities as standing up 6 US&R teams in
a readiness mode for immediate response to terrorist incident
throughout the country; maintaining national medical response teams on
alert status; placing disaster medical response teams on alert status;
placing EP&R EST and regional operations centers on ``watch'' status;
supporting COOP activities, if needed; and providing some secure
communications capabilities.
Question. Is this amount sufficient to meet the needs of Emergency
Preparedness and Response?
Answer. This estimate supports Liberty Shield-related efforts for a
limited duration. Should additional efforts be required, the
President's request provides for the resources and flexibility to
permit funds to support extended efforts in this area as well as
others.
Question. Does the supplemental funding request include money for
any non-homeland security initiatives? If so, how much funding is for
each initiative?
Answer. All of the funds being requested in the Counterterrorism
Fund are for homeland security initiatives. The request of $580 million
for Coast Guard would provide approximately $400 million for OCONUS and
in CONUS operational support of DOD efforts in support of Operation
Iraqi Freedom. An additional $180 million would support requirements in
CONUS and are in support of Liberty Shield.
Question. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was put in
charge of the shuttle Columbia recovery effort, and has spent
approximately $178 million to date. However, as the mission to recover
debris continues, so does the spending. Does the supplemental funding
request include money to reimburse FEMA for any portion of the expenses
incurred as a result of this extraordinary event? If not, why not?
Answer. This supplemental request is limited to war-related
requirements and thus contains funding for Liberty Shield only. The
Administration is actively engaged in the process of assessing the
resource requirements and determining appropriate funding mechanisms
related to the shuttle disaster.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Question. As you know, our ports have worked to ramp up security
measures. Many of the ports in my home state of Texas are in the
petrochemical and hazardous material shipping business, which could be
a terrorist target. How do the funds requested address the need for
increased security investments in America's Ports?
Answer. The supplemental funds requested include money required for
increased Coast Guard security activities in and around critical ports
like those along the Coast of Texas for the duration of Operation
Liberty Shield. The $450 million included in the request to assist
states and municipalities in protecting critical infrastructure is
available for port facilities. Funds for Port Security Assessments and
enhanced protection of critical infrastructure, like port facilities,
are included in the President's fiscal year 2004 Budget request.
Question. Perhaps the most visible change in homeland security
since 9/11 has taken place in our airports. In the fiscal year 2003
Omnibus Appropriations bill, we designated $265 million for the
installation of Explosive Detection Systems (EDS) to screen every
checked bag. Our largest airports have not yet installed EDS, and they
have only until the end of the year to do so, yet TSA has refused to
sign any letters of intent with airports to release any part of the EDS
funding.
Is there funding in this Supplemental to install EDS systems and
when will TSA start using the funds we have already appropriated?
Answer. While the Supplemental does not include additional funds
for EDS, DHS is working to develop a process that will expedite the
application of funds already appropriated to support EDS installations.
Question. How much funding will TSA need to complete the job of
installing EDS at all of the commercial airports in the country?
Answer. Funding provided in previous appropriations acts will
ensure that EDS will be installed in all airports. It is estimated that
$3 billion to $4 billion will be necessary to support the purchase and
installation of EDS/ETD. In those airports where an in-line EDS
installation is desired additional resources may be needed on the part
of both the airport and the federal government.
Question. Is there sufficient funding in this Supplemental, coupled
with funds already appropriated for this purpose, to cover the expenses
mandated by Congress for EDS systems?
Answer. While the Supplemental does not include additional funds
for EDS, DHS is working to develop a process that will expedite the
application of funds already appropriated to support EDS installation.
Question. When will TSA begin signing Letters of Intent with our
airports that will permit them to finance their part of EDS expenses?
Answer. DHS is working to determine the use of LOI authority in
fiscal year 2003. No decisions have been made at this time.
Question. We have a clear priority to protect our food supply and
vital agricultural economies. One protective measure is to develop
methods for rapid detection and identification of plant and animal
disease, so we could quarantine an incident before a devastating
outbreak occurs. Does the funding requested address agricultural
bioterrorism? If so, will that funding help strengthen America's
research and development capacity with institutes of higher education
that have a demonstrated expertise in animal and plant disease
research?
Answer. The President's Request contains funds to enhance security
at land, air, and sea ports of entry against all introduced threats.
This includes supplemental operational funds for the Bureau of Customs
and Border Protection where all Agricultural Quality Inspectors now
serve. There is an additional $365 million included in the President's
fiscal year 2004 DHS Budget for research on countering biological
threats, including high volume contamination of food supplies.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
vulnerabilities
Question. As this committee tries to determine how best to meet
this threat, it would be very useful to have your assessment of the ten
vulnerabilities that you are most concerned about. If you could provide
us a conceptual response today and a classified response in writing
before mark up next week, it would be most helpful.
Answer. While there is not a list of ten vulnerabilities of ``most
concern'' there is some planning guidance that has helped DHS to focus
priorities for protective measures in the first few weeks of
operations. The guidance is not all-inclusive and will certainly change
as the threat environment, business processes and technologies, and
public health and safety issues change.
1. Terrorist use of infrastructures to propagate an attack:
--Food processing centers and distribution systems
--Water supplies that are vulnerable to contamination
--Piping systems delivering petroleum products
--Confined spaces such as rail and air transportation systems that
could be used to spread contamination or illness.
2. Infrastructures that would magnify the effect of a terrorist
attack by causing significant loss of life:
--Chemical facilities in close proximity to large populations
--Nuclear Power Plants and nuclear fuel storage facilities
--Large dams
--Liquid Natural Gas storage facilities.
3. Infrastructures that could magnify the effect of a terrorist
attack by causing catastrophic economic damage:
--Electric and telecommunications systems
--Transportation Systems
--Data storage and processing facilities and major financial centers
--Major petroleum handling facilities such as pipelines, ports,
refineries and terminals.
While the categories listed above are general in nature they
provide the basis for further analysis that takes into account
consequences of attack, the threat and the ability to recover from an
attack. The resultant risk analysis provides the specific facilities or
sectors of concern at any given time and it is the risk analysis that
will be used to prioritize specific protective recommendations and
measures. The risk analysis will change depending on the threat.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
Question. I am very concerned that the supplemental request is
insufficient in homeland defense.
I am concerned that the Department is not integrating our need to
fight terrorism and to have that capability, where possible,
effectively available for natural disasters as well. It took a long
time. But, FEMA became a very effective organization over the past 10
years. We need to maintain those capabilities.
On 9/11, terrorists took aircraft and used them as bombs. What else
might they use as bombs such as chemical plants? What else might they
do that kills Americans and damages our economy--brittle points like
major rail bridges and key electricity nodes?
The Department has, I understand, called upon the states to protect
about 250 very critical asset protection points in our nation but I am
told that the funding for that protection is not adequate. Iowa alone
has identified about a 1,000 highly rated key assets in our state with
2 being on that national list.
First: Have enough nationally designated very critical asset
protection points that our governors have been asked to protect been
designated? To what extent is the number of sites set based on the cost
to the Federal Government? Frankly, I am surprised that so few points
have been designated.
Answer. In preparation for hostilities against Iraq, the Department
of Homeland Security made contact with state and territorial governors
and homeland security advisors and asked them to assess critical
infrastructures and key assets within their jurisdictions that met the
following criteria:
--Public water systems serving large population centers
--Chemical facilities in close proximity to large population centers
--Major power generation facilities that exceed 20,000 MW and if
successfully attacked could disrupt the regional electric grid
--Hydroelectric facilities and dams that produce power in excess of
2,000 MW or could result in catastrophic loss of life if
breached
--Nuclear power plants
--Electric substations 500 KV or larger, and substations of 345 KV or
larger that are part of a critical system supporting
populations in excess of one million people
--Rail and highway bridges over major waterways that, if destroyed,
would cause catastrophic economic loss
--Major highway tunnels under waterways that, if attacked, would
cause catastrophic loss of life or catastrophic economic loss
--Major natural gas transmission pipelines in excess of 3,000 bcf
throughput
--Natural gas and liquid natural gas storage facilities
--Major petroleum handling facilities such as ports, refineries and
terminals
--Major transit subway systems and their supporting ventilation
systems
--Primary data storage and processing facilities, major stock
exchanges and major banking centers.
Governors/state homeland security advisors were provided with
examples of facilities/systems within each of their states that met
these criteria from a federal perspective. These references were
intended as examples only, and were not meant to represent a
comprehensive or exhaustive ``list'' of potentially critical targets
within their jurisdictions. This discussion is consistent with the
Department's responsibility to coordinate with states and localities,
and does not imply that the entire cost of site protection can or
should be federalized. Many of these sites, such as nuclear plants, are
already incorporated into existing preparedness and protection plans.
Homeland security advisors were asked to assess the requirement for
enhanced protection for facilities/systems meeting the above criteria
within their jurisdictions during the period of armed hostilities with
Iraq. The Supplemental request included $450 million in state grants
for this purpose, of which localities would receive at least one-third.
Specific security plans and protective measures will be left to the
discretion of governors/state homeland security advisors. DHS will
ensure that these plans are adequate before awarding supplemental
funds.
Question. Second, are we developing solid plans in conjunction with
local authorities to best protect broader categories of sites such as
the 1,000 high asset points Iowa has identified and what should the
responsibility of the federal government be to bear the costs involved
in protecting the broader category of sites?
Answer. The federal government is assisting states and localities
in protecting sites because of the unique requirements of Liberty
Shield. Out of necessity, Federal assistance must be prioritized to
secure those facilities that best fit the criteria above. Our
simultaneous efforts to enhance state and local terrorism preparedness
programs represent a longer term commitment. The equipment, training,
and planning resources provided by the Office for Domestic Preparedness
will be tied to state and local plans for protecting both people and
property from terrorism.
Question. Third, what is the full cost for the protection of the
approximately 250 very critical asset protection points that governors
have been asked to protect.
Answer. The Administration requests $450 million to assist with the
protection of critical infrastructure assets. We are working together
with the governors to identify the sites that would be funded. A
variety of risk analysis criteria would be used in selecting such sites
and would include such factors as terrorist use of infrastructures to
propagate an attack, infrastructures that would magnify the effect of a
terrorist attack by causing significant loss of life, infrastructures
that could magnify the effect of a terrorist attack by causing
catastrophic economic damage. It is important to note that these
criteria are not all-inclusive and that the analysis would change
depending upon the threat. Given these uncertainties, the total cost is
unknown at this point, but the Supplemental amount will provide a
significant boost to the state and local resources currently available.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
inadequacy of $1.5 billion request for dhs counterterrorism fund--
congressional earmarks for other purposes
Question. Secretary Ridge, your supplemental request includes $1.5
billion that you want appropriated in a lump sum for the enhanced
operating costs of agencies like the Transportation Security
Administration, the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol, the Customs Service
and several other agencies. With all respect, I believe that you have
asked for this money in a lump sum to hide the fact that the combined
supplemental needs of these agencies greatly exceed $1.5 billion.
I have heard rumors indicating that you have not requested adequate
supplemental funds for the Transportation Security Administration
because you plan instead to ignore Congressional directives and divert
funds away from security initiatives that the Congress funded without
any request from the Administration. These initiatives include funds to
better secure our ports, funds to reimburse airlines for security
costs, and funds to modify airports. My suspicions are heightened
because you have not yet spent hundreds of millions of dollars in these
areas that were granted to you in 2002.
For example, in the area of container security, the TSA received
$28 million for Operation Safe Commerce in 2002 and another $30 million
in 2003. To date, you have not spent a penny of this money. This is an
initiative I authored to enable the TSA to ensure the security of the
six million containers that enter our ports each year by monitoring
their movement from the time they are loaded to the time they are
unloaded.
Can you assure me that you intend to spend the entire $58 million
that has been appropriated to date for Operation Safe Commerce and you
do not intend to divert this funding to other uses?
Answer. DHS is reviewing its overall fiscal year 2003 spending
plan, including funds for Operation Safe Commerce. As soon as a
definite plan is approved, DHS will share it with the Congress. We will
also provide a schedule for awarding any grants.
Question. The TSA promised me that the 2002 funds for Operation
Safe Commerce would finally be spent by the end of February. Now, they
are telling me that we will be lucky if this money is spent by June.
There are only three port areas eligible to receive these funds.
What explains this delay in getting these funds out the door?
Answer. Due to the fact that Transportation Security Administration
was operating under a continuing resolution from October to February
and was severely constrained in the amount of funding it could commit
to new projects while executing aviation mandates, the Request for
Application for Operation Safe Commerce Cooperative Agreement Program
was delayed by several months.
Question. What is your new target date for making grants for the
funds you have received in 2002?
The additional $30 million that was appropriated for fiscal year
2003 for Operation Safe Commerce is required to be distributed subject
to the same terms and conditions as the funds provided for 2002. Given
that fact, how much longer will it take you to expend the funding
provided for fiscal year 2003? What is your target date to make grants
for the 2003 funds?
Answer. The application closing date for Operation Safe Commerce
was March 20, 2003. Representatives from the Border and Transportation
Security Directorate including TSA, as well as the U.S. Coast Guard,
and the Departments of Transportation and Commerce are evaluating the
applications. Evaluation and selection estimated to be completed by
early May with award announcement following contract negotiations and
congressional notification estimated for early July.
Question. How do you respond to the assertion that has been made by
some observers that you plan to ignore Congressional mandates included
in the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental and fiscal year 2003 Omnibus
Appropriations Bills and not actually spend funds that were provided
specifically for port security grants, airport modifications and other
Congressional priorities?
Answer. We are continuing to work to finalize the budget execution
plans for use of available fiscal year 2003 appropriated funds. The
Department's plan will ensure that funds are expended in accordance
with language contained in the appropriations bills.
details of the $1.5 billion request for the counterterrorism fund
Question. In your verbal testimony, you stated that your request
for the Coast Guard totals $580 million. You also stated that your
request for the Transportation Security Administration totals $100
million. While recognizing that you have requested flexibility to move
funding between such activities, please provide a detailed accounting
for the full $1.5 billion requested for the Counterterrorism Fund.
Please provide this detailed accounting utilizing the accounts and sub-
accounts under which these activities are customarily appropriated.
Please also provide a detailed explanation of the purposes that you
envision for each of these requests.
Answer. Listed below are the various DHS components and activities
to be funded from the request:
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.--Overtime, air and
marine interdiction, detention and removals, investigations, Federal
Protective Service, O&M support for air assets.
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.--Overtime, operations
costs, impact on user fees, logistics.
TSA.--Overtime for passenger screeners, operations costs,
logistics, contracts, training.
FLETC
Secret Service.--Security barriers, overtime, new protective
details, upgrades for protectees, equipment.
Emergency Preparedness & Response.
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.
Coast Guard.
24-hour manifest rule--lack of action by canada or mexico
Question. Secretary Ridge, I want to raise another Port Security
issue. There seems to be a policy emerging in the Administration that
not only grants the terrorists a huge loophole to disrupt our commerce,
but also threatens to take jobs away from American workers and send
them to Canada and Mexico. Your Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
has begun implementing a rule requiring shippers at foreign ports to
report their cargo manifest 24-hours before they leave for the United
States.
While this requirement is important in your effort to get more
information about what is coming into the United States, the Canadian
and Mexican governments have not implemented a similar rule.
As a consequence, pennywise shippers have begun to use Canadian
ports to evade the rule by shipping goods to Canada, and then using
rail to bring them into the United States. Meanwhile, the Customs
Service is not subjecting those containers that come over from Canada
with any additional scrutiny.
I have spoken with Robert Bonner about this important issue.
Is the Bush Administration doing anything to try to close this
security loophole and keep these port jobs in the United States?
At a minimum, if the Canadian and Mexican governments don't pass a
similar 24-hour rule, shouldn't the Customs service begin inspecting
these containers coming over the border more rigorously since so little
is known about their contents?
Have you heard anything to the effect that the Canadians are now
prepared to implement a rule similar to the 24-hour rule we have in the
United States? If so, when do you expect them to implement it?
Answer. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection continues to
discuss with the CCRA their potential adoption of a similar 24-Hour
Cargo rule. We believe that it is quite likely that they will adopt
such a rule in the near future. In addition, BCBP is monitoring the
volume of sea containers moving into ports such as Seattle and Tacoma,
and is targeting containers in-transit to the United States through
Vancouver, Montreal, and Halifax. Through these measures, BCBP can
ensure that any containers that are routed to avoid the 24 hour rule
receive appropriate scrutiny.
BCBP has not had any discussion with Mexican Customs about
implementing the 24-hour cargo rule, but BCBP will begin monitoring
volumes of sea containers arriving in Los Angeles/Long beach, as well
as those crossing the Mexican border to determine if there is any
diversion of cargo.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
coast guard fuel shortages
Question. Mr. Secretary, in the President's submission, the
Department of Defense is asking for $400 million to cover increased
fuel costs for the military. However, there is no corresponding request
for your department. This is an oversight that has happened under both
administrations in my view. Given the operations tempo of the Coast
Guard and Customs Service at this time, do they not also have a
considerable challenge in meeting increased fuel costs. Can you give us
an estimate of what they might be?
Answer. The supplemental includes funds for additional gas and oil
costs with respect to the Air and Marine Interdiction. In addition,
money is requested for increased vehicle maintenance and fuel costs for
the Border Patrol. The additional operating funds requested for the
Coast Guard include the cost of additional fuel expenditures.
first responder funding
Question. Mr. Secretary, the President's submission includes an
additional $2 billion for ODP grants. Can you tell me how many requests
you have from states for these monies? How many requests the ODP
received last year, and any anticipated shortfalls from 2003 funding?
Answer. With respect to the requested $2 billion supplemental, no
formal requests have been received although requests from all eligible
states and territories are expected once these funds become available.
All 56 eligible states and territories submitted requests for available
fiscal year 2002 grants. The $2 billion supplemental and the $566.3
million made available through the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus
appropriations together will address state and local first responder
requirements. The application period for these funds was opened on 7
march and will close in mid-April.
district of columbia
Question. Mr. Secretary, given that the D.C. Metropolitan
government is solely responsible for security of mass transit, and a
number of other vital infrastructures here in Washington, why is it
that the President's submission includes nothing to cover what most
analysts have identified as the number 1 target city in the country?
Answer. Recent appropriations have already provided substantial
support for various aspects of security within the Washington
metropolitan area:
--The District of Columbia is expected to apply for and receive
funding from the enacted fiscal year 2003 ODP appropriation.
--The fiscal year 2002 Emergency Response Supplemental Appropriation
provided $200 million for the District of Columbia, including:
--$86 million for Security of District-area mass transit and vital
infrastructures:
--L$26 million for increased security at District buildings and
public schools
--$21 million for improvements in emergency traffic management
--$39 million for increased security measures within the
Washington Metropolitan Transit Area Authority subway and
bus system
--$114 million for first responder and regional coordination needs:
--L$64 million for first responder equipment and training
--$45 million for first responder land-line and wireless
communication system
--$5 million for regional emergency planning and coordination.
--In addition, the Administration released $6 million to reimburse
the city for immediate response activities and $10 million to
WMATA to support increased security for the Washington public
transportation system from the fiscal year 2002 emergency
supplemental.
--The District of Columbia fiscal year 2002 Annual Appropriation
included $13 million to develop and implement an emergency
response plan, as well as support emergency response spending.
--The Administration proposed, and Congress appropriated, $15 million
for the public safety fund in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus
appropriation.
--If the supplemental request is enacted the Office for Domestic
Preparedness will be providing additional funds in fiscal year
2003, some of which would also be available for D.C.
counter terrorism fund
Question. Mr. Secretary, the President has requested the creation
of two contingency funds for counter terrorism in this bill. One for
the Department of Justice, one for the Department of Homeland Security.
The descriptions of both funds are extremely vague. Can you describe
any meaningful distinction between what your fund might be used for,
versus what the Attorney General needs a contingency fund for?
Secondly, if you are able to estimate how much you need for
contingencies, why is this amount not included in the President's
ordinary budget submission?
Answer. We work closely with the Department of Justice who
continues to be a close partner in our efforts to make America safer.
We would however defer to the Department of Justice for explanation of
the planned uses for the DOJ contingency fund. However, with respect to
the Department of Homeland Security, the request for funding in one
account to reimburse our DHS components, as needed, provides the
Department with the best tool to meet these changing situations.
For the DHS components other than the Coast Guard, we have
estimated potential costs associated with Liberty Shield and the war in
Iraq. As our estimates are being constantly refined and we will keep
the Committee updated. The Coast Guard estimates are more directly tied
to support of the Defense requirements and therefore are more precise
in the funding need.
This funding is intended to cover costs associated with Operation
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Liberty Shield which were initiated after
the fiscal year 2004 Budget was developed. It would respond to
immediate requirements associated with those operations.
unfunded requirements list
Question. Mr. Secretary, the Department of Defense, at the request
of this committee, and the authorizing committees has developed
something called an unfunded requirements list. This is a document that
identifies items which are recognized ``requirements'' of the DOD, but
for one reason or another, were not funded in the President's budget.
Is the Department of Homeland Security creating such a list, and if
not, will you, Mr. Secretary work with this committee to establish such
a practice?
Answer. The Department does not have an unfunded requirements list.
We have no plans to formulate such a list, but, in coordination with
the Administration, will explore with the Committee issues in this
area.
______
Questions Submitted to Hon. Donald H. Rumsfeld
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Question. I am proud of our servicemen and women who are serving
with distinction in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and want to ensure the
Department of Defense has what it needs to swiftly win this war. As the
Chairman of the Subcommittee for Military Construction appropriation, I
have a special interest in the $200 million request for military
construction funds, and ask the Department of Defense to provide an
overall plan for military construction projects in the Middle East.
Answer. We are requesting $5 billion for military construction in
the fiscal year 2004 request and $18 million for Baharain in SWA. Since
9/11 we have requested $128.6 million in military construction in the
CENTCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR) and $63.1 million Defense
Emergency Response Funds (DERF) for military construction in the
CENTCOM AOR. We will brief the House and Senate on the CENTCOM AOR when
you want the brief.
Question. Do the funds requested to cover personnel pay--and more
specifically imminent danger pay--consider a percentage increase in the
imminent danger pay for our men and women serving abroad?
Answer. No. The funds requested in the supplemental are based on
current authorities governing Hostile Fire Pay (HFP)/Imminent Danger
Pay (IDP). Current law allows $150 per month for personnel serving in a
qualifying region for HFP/IDP, who would not have otherwise been in
that region. The estimated incremental cost for HFP/IDP at current pay
rates for potential military operations to disarm Iraq is $370 million.
Question. Is the Defense Department continuing its transformation
during Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, and if so, how
does this budget request support transformation?
Answer. Yes, the Department is continuing with undiminished vigor
its transformation of the U.S. military and defense establishment. This
transformation will greatly enhance our ability to carry out operations
such as these in the future. The Department's transformation efforts
are not undermined by military operations in Iraq and the global war on
terrorism. Our leadership can accomplish multiple missions at once.
Moreover, many of the DOD professionals most heavily involved in
transformation do not have a direct or extensive role in these two
operations.
This fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriations request supports
transformation because it finances the incremental costs of these
operations. Without full and prompt approval of the supplemental, some
funding from transformation investments might need to be diverted to
pay those costs.
Question. Mr. Secretary, you have requested $25 million in Air
Force military construction funds to build a parallel taxiway at a
classified location. I'm told that project is already under
construction using Operations and Maintenance funds.
Is this project already under construction, and if so, how was it
paid for?
Answer. The Air Force is using O&M funds and it is 5 percent
complete. The Air Force made an error and will de-obligate the O&M
funds and obligate the military construction funds.
Question. If it is already under construction, why are you seeking
appropriations for it in this supplemental?
Answer. We have told the Air Force they erred and must de-obligate
the O&M funds. When the Air Force de-obligates the O&M funds, we
require the military construction funds to execute the project.
Question. We're also told that there is no longer a requirement for
the C-130 aircraft parking apron at a classified location, for which
you have requested $11 million. Can you clarify whether that
requirement is still valid?
Answer. While the facility does not meet the definition of a
military construction project, i.e. we do not have a basing agreement
with that country and therefore, do not have operational control of the
base. However, we will use the facility indefinitely. Since we will use
the facility indefinitely, the project is categorized as a military
construction project.
With regard to the requirement, the existing C-130 aircraft parking
apron is close to the perimeter of the airfield. As such, the C-130
aircraft is subject to terrorism. By moving the C-130 aircraft parking
apron away from the perimeter, we can protect the planes. Therefore, I
believe we need this facility.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
iraqi national congress (inc)
Question. Although authorized by Congress, the State Department has
yet to fully find the Iraqi National Congress (INC) to turn on TV
Liberty. This means that a critical direct communication link from
opposition Iraqis to the Iraqi people, is not operational even now that
we are at war. The delay has been going on over several years--always
blamed on technicalities.
The INC now has a military liaison with them in Northern Iraq. It
is my understanding that his liaison is recommending that the
Department of Defense provide mobile communication units to enable the
Iraqi opposition to link their information into CENTCOM as well as talk
with the Iraqi people inside Baghdad. This seems like a very logical
approach. Will you support this request and are you exploring other
means to support the INC?
Answer. We are working with the INC and other elements of the Iraqi
Opposition to help achieve our shared goals in Iraq. We are evaluating
several options for using U.S. equipment to leverage the Opposition's
communications and public outreach capabilities. We are also exploring
other means to maximize the Opposition's effectiveness against the
Iraqi regime.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. Under a proposed general provision, subsection (2), up to
$150,000,000 would be made available for assistance to indigenous
forces assisting U.S. military operations or activities relating to the
global war on terrorism. These funds are proposed to be disbursed at
the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, with concurrence of the
Secretary of State.
Please define the term, indigenous forces.
Answer. ``Indigenous forces'' are irregular forces or resistance
movements that act in concert with U.S. military forces during military
operations and are indigenous to a particular region. These forces
might conduct military and para-military operations in enemy held or
hostile territory, as well as low-visibility operations that support
the efforts of the U.S. military.
Question. What groups, today, would be eligible for assistance
under the proposed definition?
Answer. The provision would apply to indigenous forces that assist
U.S. forces in carrying out operations or activities, including those
in furtherance of the war on terrorism.
We faced some unexpected challenges when working with the Northern
Alliance in Afghanistan. This type of flexible authority would have
been particularly helpful in supporting military operations with
emerging and unanticipated requirements for the war on terrorism.
The provision would allow the DOD to sustain friendly indigenous
forces through timely and flexible military assistance.
Question. What is the justification for quarterly reporting on the
use of these funds, which are available until September 30, 2003?
Answer. The provision would allow the Department to provide support
to foreign indigenous forces rapidly in order to address any emerging
and unanticipated emergency requirements that the current security
environment may generate.
To provide this temporary and emergency authority in a manner
consistent with other U.S. assistance programs, quarterly reporting
would be most efficient.
Question. Would notification within fifteen days of obligation be
acceptable to the Department? If no, why?
Answer. The intent is to provide a flexible and immediate mechanism
for the Department of Defense, in consult with the Department of State,
to facilitate and support immediate U.S. military operations. The
desire is not to create an overly burdensome reporting requirement for
those in theater that might need to exercise this authority.
To ensure proper accounting and use of this authority, quarterly
reporting should be sufficient. This distinct authority is designated
to support foreign indigenous forces in response to emerging and
unanticipated requirements that arise with increased frequency in the
current wartime security environment.
Question. The President has requested $1,400,000,000 in ``no year''
fiscal year 2003 supplemental funding for Operations & Maintenance,
Defense Wide to be used, irrespective of any law, for payments to
cooperating nations. Under the proposal, there is no obligation to
consult with or notify the Congress of how or when the funds are
disbursed. The receipts of these funds would be decided, under the
proposal, at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
What is the justification for requesting ``no year'' funds, when
the Secretary testified that cooperating nations have been waiting
months for reimbursement?
Answer. There are two primary reasons for requesting ``no year''
funds.
(1) While a portion ($530 million) of the $1.4 billion has been
used to reimburse countries for services already provided, the
remainder of the requested funds are for services we expect key
cooperating countries to provide in the coming months.
(2) We review each reimbursement request using a careful set of
processes developed by the Administration. This review process
typically requires three-to-four weeks to complete.
We anticipate situations in which cooperating nations present
requests for reimbursement to the U.S. government late in the fiscal
year or even after the end of the year, and we will not have sufficient
time to validate those bills before the end of the fiscal year prior to
reimbursement.
No later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter, the
Secretary of Defense will submit a quarterly report to the Defense
Oversight Committees of the details of any payments to cooperating
nations.
Question. How was the $1.4 billion figure determined?
Answer. The $1.4 billion was determined based on known and
anticipated support from key cooperating nations (e.g., Pakistan,
Jordan) providing logistical and military support to U.S. military
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in connection with the global war on
terrorism. This request includes $1.3 billion for payments to coalition
countries participating in or providing military, logistical, or other
support for military operations in Afghanistan and $0.1 billion for
military operations in Iraq.
Specifically, the $1.4 billion is comprised of:
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reimbursements to Pakistan................................. 1.16
Reimbursements to other nations............................ 0.14
Funds to transport and sustain other nations............... 0.10
------------
Total................................................ 1.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department paid $530.154 million to the Government of Pakistan
from the Department's fiscal year 2003 O&M accounts. These payments
covered reimbursable costs through December 2002. (The payment was made
in early March using the Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement
between the United States and Pakistan.) The anticipated Pakistani
reimbursable costs for the balance of fiscal year 2003 total $630
million (i.e., 9 months (January through September); average monthly
cost is approximately $70 million).
We anticipate aggregate payments totaling $140 million to Jordan,
Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, Djibouti, Turkey, and Uzbekistan for services and
support from those countries.
The Supplemental request also includes $100 million to finance the
movement and sustainment of coalition partners who are assisting U.S.
military forces by providing Nuclear, Biological and Chemical/
Consequence Management assets. These U.S. resources will be used for
coalition partners that have volunteered support to the Armed Forces of
the United States in connection with military action in Iraq, but need
U.S. funding for their transportation and sustainment once in the
theater.
Question. If the request is granted, will the Department notify the
Committees of the funds obligation? If so, in what timeframe and what
level of detail?
Answer. No later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter,
the Secretary of Defense will submit a quarterly report to the Defense
Oversight Committees of the details of any transfer of funds from the
Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF) to the DOD's normal
appropriation accounts for execution. The report will include execution
data by appropriation and cost category.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
military assistance from allies
Question. Mr. Secretary, the President's submission calls for $1.4
million assistance to our allies, largely for operations in
Afghanistan. Can you help contrast the sort of on-the-ground support
that we are receiving from our allies in Afghanistan with the support
received in Iraq? Are there countries that would have ground troops in
Iraq, but for the fact that they are stretched to provide assistance in
Afghanistan and Bosnia? Are you working to find more support in these
operations to relieve U.S. troops for operations in Iraq?
Answer. When discussing our coalitions for Operation Enduring
Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Department of Defense has been
guided by three principles: (1) We let all countries describe their
participation as they see fit; (2) We do not identify a particular
country's contributions; that is for the contributor itself to do; and
(3) We do not grade our coalition partner's contributions.
With those three principles in mind, the United States has received
strong, across the board, political and military support from its
coalition partners for each operation. Seventy countries are a part of
the Operation Enduring Freedom coalition. Today nearly 50 countries
make up the Operation Iraqi Freedom coalition and that number grows
every day. In each instance the contributions cut across all elements
of military forces--naval, ground, air, special operations,
intelligence-sharing, etc.
The United States is now beginning to work intensively with allies
to determine troop contributions to Phase IV stabilization operations
in Iraq. We are unaware of any countries with troops deployed in
Afghanistan or Bosnia that have raised the demands of these deployments
as a reason that they could not provide ground troops in Iraq. We are
not seeking Coalition support in Afghanistan in order to relieve U.S.
troops for operations in Iraq. Coalition support for our operations in
both countries remains an important goal. We remain committed to
maintaining an adequate U.S. military force to accomplish our missions
in Afghanistan and in other contingencies in the war on terrorism,
including Iraq. The one is compatible with the other. Success in
Afghanistan will assist our efforts in Iraq. We expect Coalition
partners will be particularly valuable as we expand our Provincial
Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan.
With regard to U.S. participation in the NATO-led Stabilization
Force (SFOR) in Bosnia, the National Guard now has the mission, thereby
freeing up active component troops for other purposes. To date, CENTCOM
and EUCOM have not identified an Iraq-related requirement that would
necessitate use of any of our reserve component troops in Bosnia.
colombia
Question. Mr. Secretary, the President's request seeks another $68
million--$34 million for the Department of Defense--to increase the
quote ``operational tempo'' of our activities in Colombia. (1) Can you
explain why we would willingly seek to increase our activity in
Colombia with our commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines,
and looming crises in Iran and North Korea? (2) How many Special Forces
Units do we have deployed to Southern Command as a result of Plan
Colombia? (3) What are the expected results from additional operational
tempo in this area?
Answer. (1) We must increase assistance to Colombia in order to
support Bogota's efforts against narcoterrorists and as part of the
Global War on Terrorism. We seek to provide a surge of training and
equipment to Colombian military and police forces. The United States
will remain in a supporting role.
Colombia is waging its own war, by destroying or weakening the
narco-terrorist organizations, illegal armed groups, and narcotics
trafficking organizations' ability to undermine Colombia's democracy
and national security. The Government of Colombia urgently needs U.S.
support to improve its counternarcoterrorism capabilities. With the
momentum provided by the election of President Uribe, there may be a
short window of opportunity to significantly impact narcoterrorist
organizations operating in Colombia.
Currently, the greatest threat comes from the Revolutionary Armed
Forces of Colombia (FARC), which has become more aggressive in
targeting both Colombian and U.S. interests. Within the last year, the
FARC attempted a mortar barrage during the presidential inauguration,
bombed a club in Bogota, and killed a U.S. contractor. The FARC still
holds captive three other U.S. contractors.
(2) There are Special Forces personnel deployed to Southern Command
in support of Plan Colombia. While the exact numbers and locations are
classified, the deployed Special Forces personnel represent elements of
the following units: 7th Special Forces Group, 1st Psychological
Operations Battalion, 350th Civil Affairs Command, and Navy Special
Warfare Unit Four.
(3) By providing more training and equipment, we are assisting
Colombia with the essential ingredients necessary to improve Colombia's
capabilities to regain control and assert legitimate authority over its
territory, establish the rule of law throughout the country, and defeat
narco-terrorist organizations, other illegal armed groups, and
narcotics trafficking organizations. Success here is necessary for
Colombia to reduce the flow of illegal drugs to the United States.
We cannot stand by while one of the oldest democracies in Latin
America--only three hours flying time from Miami--succumbs to an
insurgency fueled by illegal drug profits. Therefore, we are committed
to helping Colombia in its fight against narcoterrorism by providing
robust assistance, as outlined in National Security Presidential
Directive/NSPD-18. Even with this assistance, it remains Colombia's
fight and the Colombians themselves must maintain the lead in the
struggle.
oil fire fighting
Question. Mr. Secretary, you have requested nearly a half of
billion to fight fires and repair damaged oil facilities in Iraq. Given
a relative few numbers of wells are actually burning, where does this
cost estimate come from? Can you contrast this figure with what was
spent to contain fires in Kuwait during the first Gulf War? Why does
this require an immediate appropriation? Why will fire fighting not
come from oil once Iraq is liberated?
Answer. There are about 1,500 oil wells in Iraq, spread among
approximately 22 oil fields. There is no way to predict accurately the
level of damage to Iraq's oil infrastructure, nor the impact of any
such damage on the average Iraqi household. We hope that this conflict
does not result in the large number of oil well fires that Saddam's
forces set during the 1990-91 Gulf War.
The Administration's request is comprised of two parts: (1) a
precise amount for prepositioning firefighting equipment in the theater
($39.3 million), and (2) an additional $450 million to be available for
either fighting fires and repairing damaged fuel distribution
infrastructure, or ensuring that the Iraqi people have adequate
supplies of fuel for cooking, heating, and other household
requirements.
Iraq's oil belongs to the Iraqi people. The international
community, working with the people of Iraq, will determine the best use
of oil revenues and the appropriate time to apply those resources to
specific sectors.
buy american
Question. Mr. Secretary, there is $48 million for MILCON at
Guantanamo Bay, and $129 million for runway work at Diego Garcia in
this request. I am concerned by reports that I have heard that while
contracting from construction like that at Guantanamo Bay is given to
U.S. companies, the actual manufacturing work is done abroad. What
assurances can you give this committee that future work will not only
be American contracted, but will contain American content?
Answer. We intend to follow the Buy American Act to the maximum
extent practicable. In Guantanamo Bay, the following requirement will
be in the final construction task orders: ``Materials and workmanship
shall conform to applicable U.S. codes and standards. You are required
to use U.S. materials to the maximum extent possible. Any exceptions
must be approved by the Contracting Officer.''
Similar provisions exist in Diego Garcia, where the work is
required to be performed by joint ventures between United States and
British companies. However, of the $129.4 million requested for Air
Force military construction, there is only $3.2 million for an
explosive ordinance pad at Diego Garcia. The remainder of the $129.4
million is for Air Force projects at other locations. Classified
details on the other projects have been provided to the congressional
staff. All contracts will follow the Buy American Act to the maximum
extent possible.
guard and reserve procurement
Question. Mr. Secretary, the President's request includes $1.1
billion for procurement and RDT&E with virtually no detail or
indication of what we might be buying. Can you clarify your intentions
for these dollars. How much of this one billion will be slated to
support the procurement and transformational needs of the Guard and
Reserve?
Answer. All of the $1.1 billion of procurement and research and
development funding included in the supplemental request will go to the
direct support of the increased operational tempo of military
operations in Iraq. None of the funding is slated for the procurement
and transformational needs of either the Guard and Reserve nor the
Active Component. The President's fiscal year 2004 budget request now
before the Congress includes $1.9 billion specifically earmarked for
Guard and Reserve modernization.
A more detailed listing of the $1.1 billion in the supplemental
request is as follows:
Procurement
In addition to the munitions request of $3,700.0 million, the
supplemental request includes $992.6 million for the procurement items
listed below.
Combat Losses--$57.0 million
Additional funds are required to replace 10 lost Predators and
support equipment that must be available for future military
operations.
Classified Programs--$27.0 million
Additional funds are required for classified programs. Classified
details can be provided separately.
Special Access Programs--$17.1 million
Satcom Terminals--$6.6 million
This effort funds a classified CENTCOM requirement. It includes the
procurement of such things as modems, converters, support, and
accelerated delivery.
Centrix-Griffin Eqpt.--$2.0 million
This effort funds the procurement of computer network equipment.
SIPR & NIPRNET--$1.3 million
This effort funds the procurement of equipment to allow deployed
teams to transmit data, video, and photos from the field to other
CENTCOM facilities.
Combat Support Equipment--$26.1 million
Additional funds are required to procure and field mission
essential equipment for combat forces including laser pointer systems
for weapons, advanced gun sights, and mobility and lethality equipment.
Spare and Repair Parts--$148.8 million
Additional funds are required to accommodate a greater demand for
spares and repair parts resulting from increased operations.
Command and Control Requirements--$11.7 million
Additional funds are required for command and control equipment to
conduct Phase IV planning (occupation phase) or for a conflict. Funding
is also required to support the Commander, Third Fleet setting up
station ashore when his command ship is deployed to support global war
on terrorism operations.
Weapons Systems Enhancements--$94.6 million
Funds are required to procure: permanent interior and external
Night Vision Imaging Systems (NVIS); laser targeting devices for
Special Operations Forces; and weapons and ammunition for Special
Operations Forces (SOF).
Communications and Sensor Equipment--$62.5 million
Additional funds are required to procure Advanced Remote Ground
Unattended Sensors (ARGUS) and the associated ground station, to
support around-the-clock combat operations for the Distributed Common
Ground System (DCGS) rather than peacetime operating tempo; to install
a new trunk-based repeater system at Incirlik Air Force Base that
allows more land-mobile radios to function on the network; to provide
improved Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) capability at
the alternative air operations center in theater; to procure equipment
and crypto devices necessary to provide increased bandwidth to Global
Broadcast System (GBS) receive suites; to upgrade the satellite
communication facility at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar; to procure one
backup mobile satellite reception and broadcasting system; and to
provide forces searching for weapons of mass destruction with critical
real-time ``reach-back'' voice/data/imagery transmission capabilities.
Further, funds are also required to procure deployable Tactical Local
Area Network (TACLAN) suites to satisfy the requirement for reliable,
accessible, and secure Command, Control, Communications, and Computers
(C\4\I) in an austere environment; and to procure equipment for the
Information Decision Management (IDM) Replication of Information
Management Center (IMC).
Logistics Support--$135.6 million
Additional funds are required for Base Expeditionary Airfield
Resources to support beddown of deployed forces where infrastructure is
inadequate (Harvest Falcon and Harvest Eagle), including collapsible
fuel bladders, cargo pallets, and nets. Further, funds are also
required for movement of newly procured items to first point of
storage/usage.
Phrase Translators--$1.0 million
Additional funds are to procure devices to automatically translate
key phrases in multiple foreign languages. These devices could be used
to support Special Operations forces in Iraq.
Critical Psychological Operation (PSYOP) Requirements--
$14.9 million
Additional funds are required to procure Command, Control,
Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (C\4\ISR) equipment that will be fielded to provide
joint PSYOP Task Force Commanders access to denied areas. The PSYOP
provides the vehicle to send the coalition messages to the people of
Iraq and Iraqi military forces, to encourage their cooperation, and to
dissuade Iraq military personnel from armed resistance to coalition
forces. This includes dropping leaflets, radio broadcasts, and other
contacts with sympathetic groups within Iraq to present the coalition
message.
Joint Operational Stocks (JOS)--$17.3 million
Additional funds are required to cover attrition rates for Special
Operation Forces weapon, night vision and optic, and communications
systems.
Biological Agent Detection--$5.7 million
Increased funding will procure seven biological detectors to
provide the capability to cover one additional forward based
installation with a biological detection capability.
Collective Protection--$5.9 million
This funding would be used to procure collective protection
shelters for deployed forces.
Decontamination--$49.6 million
Additional funding is required to procure equipment essential for
decontamination efforts. Funds include procurement of commercial off-
the-shelf decontamination apparatus for fixed site and large area
terrain decontamination, and a commercial decontaminant foam to address
inventory shortfalls.
Skin Exposure Reduction Paste--$5.3 million
Additional funds are required to procure units of the skin exposure
reduction paste against chemical warfare agents.
Individual Protection--$213.0 million
Additional funding is required to increase the personal protection
of U.S forces from chemical and biological threats by procuring
protective suits.
Chemical Agent Detection--$2.1 million
Increased resources will be used to procure additional Mobile
Chemical Agent Detectors for use by forces performing the mission of
determining whether weapons of mass destruction are present.
Surface Sampler Probe--$1.4 million
Additional funding is required to procure equipment that will
enable forces to determine the presence of hazardous materials,
chemical, or biological agents.
White House Communications--$105.7 million
The Department will use the funds to accelerate deployment of
converged fixed and deployable networks, and implementation of next-
generation communications systems to modernize the current
deteriorating equipment before operational failure. The funding will
purchase the following capabilities:
Fixed Transport--i.e., Wide Area Network (WAN) ($3 million) and
fixed converged network ($12 million).
Fixed Voice Services--i.e., Royal Crown Secure Voice Modernization
($33 million), Secure Digital Switch Modernization ($3 million), and
Washington Area Systems (WAS) ($14.85 million).
Fixed Operations--i.e., Technical Control Facility ($5 million).
Mobile Communications Systems--i.e., Mobile Command and Control
(C\2\) Package ($10.85 million) and Limousine Communications Package
($4 million).
Mobile Information Services--i.e., Secure Mobile Phone ($4
million), Independent Cellular System ($4 million), and Trip Site
Convergence Network ($3 million).
VC-25 Presidential Data Systems--($9 million)--i.e., provides a
record management system, an automatic switching capability, and
provides a capability to monitor the audio system for the President.
Homeland Air Security--$7.4 million
Additional funding is required for procurement of command, control,
and communications equipment for use in the United States to improve
the DOD response time to an emergency situation. This funding will
upgrade existing equipment to enable quicker response time to alerts
issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Hardware to be
procured includes communications terminals, dedicated computer systems,
and radar operator stations.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
This supplemental request includes $57.6 million for various
research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) requirements, such
as improving targeting capabilities, testing chemical biological
efforts, and supporting classified programs.
Classified Programs--$30.2 million
Additional funds are required for classified programs.
Hairy Buffalo--Enhanced targeting effort--$0.6 million
Defense Satellite Reconnaissance Program--$5.8 million
Oil Analysis--$0.3 million
Special Access Programs--$23.5 million
Personnel Support Teams--$2.4 million
Funds are required to allow Personnel Support Teams (PST) to
provide analysis, interrogations, and technical assistance to local
host military personnel. Each of the eight PST will provide technical
and administrative assistance within a regional geographic
jurisdiction, and serve as the principal link between U.S. military
forces and local regional government officials. In addition, the PST
will facilitate the exchange of information in the region with regards
to military and political developments. The funds will finance the
development of software tools to facilitate this mission, and
employment of local hires and contractor personnel who are fluent in
Farsi.
Force Protection Condition Delta--$0.4 million
Additional funds are required to maintain a higher Force Protection
Condition (FPCON) at Navy RDT&E facilities worldwide.
Global Broadcast System--$0.3 million
Additional funds are required to increase bandwidth capacity on the
global broadcast system.
Decontamination--$5.0 million
This funding supports the rapid operational testing of non-
developmental commercial off-the-shelf decontamination apparatus for
fixed site and large area terrain decontamination.
Chemical Agent Detection--$4.8 million
Increased resources will be used to quickly modify and test
modifications to the currently fielded chemical agent detection
equipment to identify Fourth Generation Agents.
Radio Frequency Identification Technology (RFID)--$3.9
million
The funds will be used to develop RFID as a means to identify,
categorize, and locate logistical material (e.g., sustainment and
deploying force cargo) automatically.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Release Assess System--$10.6
million
Additional funds are required for the modification of unmanned
aerial vehicles to assist in the detection and identification of
weapons of mass destruction.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Senator Cochran. So, with no other Senators here, if it is
satisfactory with the committee, we will stand in recess. And
we appreciate your cooperation with the Appropriations
Committee. We continue to wish you good luck in carrying out
your duties and your important responsibilities.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Senator. Senators, thank you
very much.
Senator Cochran. We stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., Thursday, March 27, the hearing
was concluded, and the committee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
-