[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S ANTITERRORISM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 4, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-184
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.oversight.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-568 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York TOM DAVIS, Virginia
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania DAN BURTON, Indiana
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRIS CANNON, Utah
DIANE E. WATSON, California JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York DARRELL E. ISSA, California
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
Columbia VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
JIM COOPER, Tennessee BILL SALI, Idaho
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JIM JORDAN, Ohio
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETER WELCH, Vermont
------ ------
Phil Barnett, Staff Director
Earley Green, Chief Clerk
Lawrence Halloran, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts DAN BURTON, Indiana
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JIM COOPER, Tennessee KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
PETER WELCH, Vermont VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
------ ------
Dave Turk, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 4, 2008..................................... 1
Statement of:
Johnson, Charles M., Jr., Director, International Affairs and
Trade, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and Gina
Abercrombie-Winstanley, Deputy Coordinator, Programs,
Policy, Budget and Operations, Office of the Coordinator
for Counterterrorism, accompanied by Lynda Tibbetts, Acting
Director, Office of Antiterrorism Assistance, Bureau of
Diplomatic Security........................................ 7
Abercrombie-Winstanley, Gina............................. 35
Johnson, Charles M., Jr.................................. 7
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Abercrombie-Winstanley, Gina, Deputy Coordinator, Programs,
Policy, Budget and Operations, Office of the Coordinator
for Counterterrorism, prepared statement of................ 37
Johnson, Charles M., Jr., Director, International Affairs and
Trade, U.S. Government Accountability Office, prepared
statement of............................................... 9
Tierney, Hon. John F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts, prepared statement of.............. 3
OVERSIGHT OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S ANTITERRORISM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, June 4, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign
Affairs,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John F. Tierney
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Tierney, Welch, Shays, Platts,
Duncan, and Foxx.
Staff present: Dave Turk, staff director; Andrew Su,
professional staff member; Davis Hake, clerk; Dan Hamilton,
fellow; Rebecca Macke, graduate intern; A. Brooke Bennett,
minority counsel; Nick Palarino, minority senior investigator
and policy advisor; Todd Greenwood, minority professional staff
member; and Bridget Mahoney and Jeanne Neal, minority interns.
Mr. Tierney. Good morning.
A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on National
Security and Foreign Affairs hearing entitled, ``Oversight of
the State Department's Antiterrorism Assistance Program,'' will
come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that only the chairman and the
ranking member of the subcommittee be allowed to make opening
statements, and without objection, that is so ordered.
And I ask unanimous consent that the hearing record be kept
open for 5 business days so that all members of the
subcommittee will be allowed to submit a written statement for
the record. That is also ordered without objection.
Good morning everybody, and thank you for joining us here.
This hearing, obviously, is on the Antiterrorism Assistance
Program, so I want to start by thanking the ranking member,
Representative Shays, for actually requesting this hearing and
for asking for the Government Accountability Office's report,
asking them to take a look at that.
This program is not one I venture to guess that many
people, many American people or many Members of Congress for
that matter, probably know enough about. I think it's important
for a number of reasons, which is why we agreed to have this
hearing and followup on it.
The first reason of importance is that the Antiterrorism
Assistance Program is the State Department's largest
counterterrorism program. It received $171 million in fiscal
year 2007.
Second, its geographic reach is extensive, having trained
police from about 140 countries since the program's inception
in 1983.
And third, the program's focus, providing training to the
police from other countries, is one that has received scant
attention during this situation where we're dealing with terror
on a regular basis. While we continue to fund submarines at the
cost of $2 billion apiece and a new fleet of fighter planes
that will cost a quarter of a trillion dollars, efforts that
have proven to pay real dividends today too often have to fight
for a few extra dollars here and there.
During this subcommittee's most recent oversight trip to
Afghanistan and Pakistan in March of this year, we heard
repeatedly from U.S. military officials and diplomats, from
Afghan and Pakistani officials, from business leaders and from
others about the vital importance of improving the police
forces in those countries. These officials repeatedly stress
that having a fair and professional police force free from
corruption is an absolutely vital bulwark against law-and-order
voids that too often result in being filled by al Qaeda or
Taliban or like forces. Helping to train and professionalize
law enforcement in other countries, as well as providing modern
police technology and equipment, can have a powerful impact in
supporting our partner nations, many of which do not have the
means or the expertise to build effective forces on their own.
I want to thank our two State Department witnesses for your
service to our country and for being with us today to share
your experiences and your expertise in running the Department's
Antiterrorism Assistance Program.
I also thank our witness from the Government Accountability
Office. To judge whether this program or any other is as
efficient and cost effective as possible, we need more than
just anecdotal evidence or raw information on the number of
courses that are offered or police officers that are trained.
We greatly appreciate the work of the GAO's extensive audit and
investigatory functions here and look forward to your
testimony. Through your work, you can help ensure that we're
getting the best bang for our buck.
They found some room for improvement in the Antiterrorism
Assistance Program, and I'm really encouraged that the State
Department views this critique as constructive. I think that's
a great way to move forward.
Instituting best practices and ensuring proper oversight is
not only important to America and the taxpayers in this
country, but it's also to ensure that we're maximizing global
efforts to stop terrorist acts and therefore enhancing our own
national security.
My hope is that by the end of this hearing, we'll all know
a lot more about the State Department's Antiterrorism
Assistance Program than we knew coming in. And I also hope that
the discussion we're about to have will help inform the ongoing
broader debate about the most effective way to deal with a
terrorist threat currently facing our country and our world.
So, again, let me thank all of you for being here. I look
forward to your testimony.
And at this point, I would like to invite Mr. Shays to make
his opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Hon. John F. Tierney follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.002
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing on the Department of State's Antiterrorism Assistance
[ATA] Program. I appreciate your willingness to hold this
hearing, and I especially appreciate the efforts by your staff
director, David Turk, and the rest of your staff in working so
closely with minority staff to bring this hearing to fruition.
I might also add, I appreciate that all briefing materials for
this hearing have been prepared jointly, which is testament to
the bipartisan nature of this hearing.
While some might say the ATA Program is only several
hundred million dollars, it is an important program because it
is a critical part of the U.S. effort to combat terrorism. It
is also important because the program is focused on
coordinating closely with other countries to increase their
counterterrorism capacity. This appears to be exactly the type
of soft power discussion by Richard Armitage and Joseph Nye in
their recent report, something that we in Congress should be
discussing and promoting.
Since September 11th, fighting international terrorism has
been a top priority for our Nation. The extraordinary efforts
of the men and women in our armed forces deployed around the
world, our Homeland Security personnel, and our first
responders right here at home are some of the most visible
examples of this effort. However, they are not the only ones in
the front lines of this fight.
The Department of State's ATA Program is another mechanism
for the United States to help our allies and enhance their own
counterterrorism capabilities by providing training and
equipment to deter terrorists. This includes in-country small-
scaled training programs that are tailored to the specific
needs of law enforcement officials in those countries. The
program offers courses on everything from crisis management and
cyber terrorism to dignitary detection, bomb detection and
hostage response. The ATA Program, with its local, tailored
hands-on training, is providing a specific benefit to our
allies and supporting large efforts against terrorism
worldwide.
The ATA Program has included providing resources for the
U.S. Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Initiative in North Africa
where we've seen the proliferation of al Qaeda groups; training
for anti-kidnapping and anti-extortion in Colombia, whereas, of
2005, ATA had trained 143 Colombia national police officers and
176 Colombia military personnel in crisis response techniques;
and training programs for law enforcement personnel in
Pakistan, Indonesia, Philippines, Kenya and other countries.
Although the ATA Program is functioning well, it could be
improved. The Government Accountability Office [GAO], recently
reported that although the Department of State has coordinated
antiterrorism efforts among other agencies as well,
establishing goals for the ATA Program had fallen short.
Building an individual Nation's capacity to fight terrorism and
train their law enforcement personnel has never been so
critical. A cookie cutter approach to program development is
not the answer. Streamlined national objectives and means to
measure success and sustainability are simply good management.
We look forward to hearing about how the Department of
State is addressing these concerns and improving upon the ATA
Program.
And, finally, Mr. Chairman, I welcome all our witnesses
here today, thank them for their important work, both in
implementing the ATA Program and in conducting critical reviews
to make sure it's operating at maximum effectiveness.
And I thank you again for holding this important hearing.
And I am a little awkward in saying that I am going to
leave for a very brief time because we have sheiks from Iraq
who are here, and I want to show them proper respect, but I'm
going to hustle right back. Thank you.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you Mr. Shays.
So now the subcommittee will receive testimony from the
witnesses that are before us, and I want to begin by
introducing them. Mr. Charles Johnson, Jr., is the Director of
the International Affairs and Trade Team at the U.S. Government
Accountability Office. Mr. Johnson has had an extremely
distinguished 27-year career with GAO, having won numerous
awards, including a special commendation award for outstanding
performance, leadership, management and high congressional
client satisfaction.
So the committee thanks you and everyone associated with
this project in particular for the extensive efforts that
you've made in this job.
We also have with us the two point people at the State
Department for the Antiterrorism Assistance Program.
Ms. Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, Deputy Coordinator of
Programs and Policy for the Office of the Coordinator for
Counterterrorism, you have an excellent selection of ties this
morning. It shows great character and taste.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley is a career member of the Senior
Foreign Service having joined the Department in 1985. I should
also note that she has previously served as a fellow in
Congress but in the other body, but that's OK.
Ms. Linda Tibbetts, Acting Director for the Bureau of
Diplomatic Security, Office of Antiterrorism Assistance. Ms.
Tibbetts has served among other posts as a diplomatic senior
special agent and a senior intelligence agent within the State
Department. It's the policy of this subcommittee to swear you
in before you testify, so I ask you to please stand and raise
your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Tierney. Will the record please reflect that all
parties answered in the affirmative.
I do note that your full written statement will be put in
the hearing record so that if you choose to just make comments
as opposed to reading from that statement, that's perfectly
acceptable and oftentimes welcome if it adds new information.
We ask you to keep your oral statements to 5 minutes if you
can. We'll give you a little bit of leeway on that, but we
would like to keep it in there so we get some good questions
and answers and probably cover as much ground as we possibly
can.
We'll start with Mr. Johnson, and then we'll move on from
his side, left to right as I face you.
So, Mr. Johnson, I would welcome your remarks.
STATEMENTS OF CHARLES M. JOHNSON, JR., DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL
AFFAIRS AND TRADE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND
GINA ABERCROMBIE-WINSTANLEY, DEPUTY COORDINATOR, PROGRAMS,
POLICY, BUDGET AND OPERATIONS, OFFICE OF THE COORDINATOR FOR
COUNTERTERRORISM, ACCOMPANIED BY LYNDA TIBBETTS, ACTING
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ANTITERRORISM ASSISTANCE, BUREAU OF
DIPLOMATIC SECURITY
STATEMENT OF CHARLES M. JOHNSON, JR.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the
Department of State's Antiterrorism Assistance Program.
First, I will address the adequacy of State's guidance for
determining foreign country recipients and types of assistance
to provide. Second, I will describe how State coordinates ATA
with our U.S. counterterrorism programs. And, finally, I will
address the extent to which State establishes clear ATA goals
and measures program outcomes.
My statement today is based on our February 2008 report
which focused on ATA's program efforts from fiscal year 2001 to
2007. Before I discuss findings, I would like to note that the
ATA Program is a key mechanism in State's efforts to assist
foreign countries in deterring and countering terrorism.
Funding for the ATA Program has gone from $38 million in fiscal
year 2001 to, as you've noted earlier, just over $170 million
in fiscal year 2007. Much of the program's assistance is for
training provided in foreign countries and for equipment to
enhance foreign government efforts to combat terrorism. Within
the State Department, the Office of the Coordinator for
Counterterrorism, which I will refer to as S/CT, and the Bureau
of Diplomatic Security, Office of Antiterrorism Assistance, DS/
T/ATA, oversee and manage the program.
With respect to the adequacy of guidance, our work revealed
that S/CT had provided minimal guidance to help DS/T/ATA
determine priorities and assure the assistance provided
supports broader U.S. policy goals. Although there have been
recent efforts to hold quarterly meetings between the two
units, the guidance S/CT provided to DS/T/ATA was primarily a
tiered list of priority countries. However, this list at the
time of our review did not provide guidance on country-specific
program goals, objectives or counterterrorism-related training
priorities that could be used to help ensure consistency with
the U.S. policy objectives.
In addition, we found that other factors may influence
which countries receive program assistance, such as an increase
in the U.S. Government's diplomatic or political interests in
the country. For example, in fiscal year 2007, we found that 10
countries on the ATA tier list did not receive ATA assistance,
while 13 countries not on the tier list received $3.2 million
in assistance. According to State guidance, assessments ought
to guide ATA resource decisions and form the basis of country-
specific assistance plans. However we found that S/CT and DS/T/
ATA did not consistently or systematically use country-specific
needs assessments and program reviews to plan the types of
assistance to provide partner nations.
Concerning coordination, S/CT had established mechanisms to
coordinate ATA with other U.S. international counterterrorism
efforts. S/CT helped bi-weekly interagency meetings with the
Departments of Defense, Justice, Treasury and other agencies,
as well as Ambassador-level regional strategic meetings to help
coordinate international counterterrorism assistance and to
avoid duplication of efforts. In four countries we visited
during our review, we did not find any significant duplication
or overlap among the various U.S. international
counterterrorism efforts.
Concerning efforts to assess outcomes, State had made
progress in establishing goals in intended outcomes for ATA but
did not systematically affect the outcomes of program
assistance. State planning documents state that enabling
partner nations to achieve advanced and sustainable
counterterrorism capabilities is a key program outcome.
However, S/CT and DS/T/ATA had not set clear measures of
sustainability and had not integrated sustainability into
program planning. As a result, State cannot assess the extent
to which the ATA Program is meeting its longer-term objectives.
Another area of concern related to the accuracy of State's
annual ATA reports that were provided to Congress. We found
that the reports contained inaccuracies and lacked
comprehensive information in program results that would be
useful in evaluating effectiveness. For example, the most
recent ATA annual report submitted to Congress contained
inaccurate data on the number of students trained and courses
offered. There's more extensive information in the statement
that's included in the record.
In conclusion, as I noted earlier, ATA plays a central role
in U.S. efforts to assist foreign partners in deterring and
countering terrorism abroad. However, minimal guidance for
determining recipients and type of assistance to provide;
inconsistent use of country-specific needs assessments and
program reviews; and the lack of systematic assessments and
reporting outcomes have made it more difficult to determine the
extent to which ATA is focused on addressing partnering
nations' greatest counterterrorism needs and broader U.S.
counterterrorism policies.
To address these findings, we recommended in our February
2008 report that the Secretary of State revisit and revise its
internal guidance to ensure clear roles and responsibilities
for DS/T/ATA and S/CT and that there is clear guidance for
determining which countries should receive ATA assistance. We
also recommended that the Secretary of State review how needs
assessments are used to determine country-specific assistance
plans and establish clear measures of sustainability and
program outcomes.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this
concludes my prepared statement. I'll be happy to answer any
questions at this time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.028
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. We appreciate that.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley.
STATEMENT OF GINA ABERCROMBIE-WINSTANLEY
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Thank you. First of all, I
return the compliment on the tie.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Chairman Tierney, distinguished
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today about the Antiterrorism Assistance Program. My
colleague, Ms. Linda Tibbetts, from the Bureau of Diplomatic
Security will help me with answering questions, but I will
deliver the statement for the record.
I would like to begin by saying that we in the Department
of State are proud of what we have achieved with the ATA
Program over the past several years. Our assistance program
with its concrete successes is one of the U.S. Government's
strongest tools on the war on terror. It's a living program and
therefore a work in progress, but we have many good news
stories to tell.
For example, in Colombia ATA has conducted several years of
antiterrorism instruction at a cutting-edge training facility
in Sibate. This has helped Colombia's anti-kidnapping units,
known as the GAULAs, reduce kidnappings by 83 percent since
2002. Not one of the ATA-trained GAULAs has lost a single
hostage during rescue operations since the beginning of the
program. Furthermore, Colombia is taking over the entire
management of the program. The transition is expected to be
completed next year with Colombia funding the entire tactical
portion of the training.
In 2007, Colombia signed an agreement with Paraguay to
provide anti-kidnapping assistance. Colombia has also provided
mentoring to Argentina, Chile and Ecuador. In addition, Mexico
has had discussions with Colombia about the increased
kidnapping threat in that country. The government of Colombia
uses the ATA-developed training facilities to train anti-
kidnapping units in other Latin American countries. We in S/CT
are confident of the sustainability of this program.
In Afghanistan, ATA programs work to organize, train, equip
and mentor protective detail in supporting tactical elements of
the now regionally renowned Presidential Protective Service.
The PPS is responsible for the safety of President Karzai.
Thanks to its high degree of professionalism, the PPS began
escorting President Karzai on overseas state visits without
American mentor support.
In Indonesia, as some of you have witnessed firsthand,
after the first Bali bombing in 2002, the State Department
designed, developed and implemented an ATA Program for the
Indonesian National Police. The program is predicated on
delivering contemporary training courses, equipment,
development and the institutionalization of tactical response
units. Our commitment to training trainers to ensure
sustainability is clear. ATA trainees have been instrumental in
the apprehension or elimination of more than 425 terrorists in
Sulawesi and Java, including top Jemaah Islamiya leaders.
In Pakistan, the most notable successes of the ATA Program
are the development and support of a Pakistan Federal law
enforcement counterterrorism unit, the Special Investigative
Group [SIG]. The SIG operates under the Ministry of Interior's
Federal Investigative Agency. It has been instrumental in
providing crucial evidence that has led to the successful
prosecution of Pakistani and other foreign terror suspects in
U.S. courts.
But every successful operation can be improved. The State
Department reviews the recommendations made in the GAO report
as an opportunity to further strengthen the ATA Program. In
particular, we do agree that there is room for improvement in
the areas of oversight and sustainability.
In terms of oversight, we strongly believe that the
increasing regionalization of the ATA Program will address many
of the GAO's concerns. The Regional Strategic Initiative will
further prioritize which countries and regions receive ATA's
funding. During meetings with our Ambassadors and interagency
representatives in each of the eight RSI groupings, S/CT
receives requests for delivery of antiterrorism assistance as
part of the effort to pool resources, devise collaborative
strategies and policy recommendations. This will help us
address a particular terrorism threat in each region. S/CT and
DS/T/ATA participate in the subsequent Technical Assistance
Sub-Group meetings to ensure proper follow-through.
S/CT recently redesigned the tier list used to prioritize
countries. By using our Regional Security Office's responses to
15 questions, we covered three specific categories: in-country
threat; U.S. interests; and foreign partner capability--
capacity.
While a priority list is necessary, flexibility is crucial
to responding to actual needs and opportunities on the ground.
We'll ensure that we can redirect funding for antiterrorism
assistance to respond to national security and congressional
concerns. To help us match priorities with opportunities, we're
in the process of filling a new position in S/CT for a
strategic planner, one of whose responsibilities will be to
participate in the assessment teams.
During the past year, the Office of Antiterrorism
Assistance appointed a coordinator for professional capacity
development. This officer is developing a methodology to
quantify levels of achievement by foreign governments in the
area of fighting terrorism. These can be applied
internationally and against varying capacities of each country.
In order to strengthen the relationship between the initial
needs assessment that serves as a basis for starting assistance
and the metrics being developed to assess results and
sustainability, the Office of Antiterrorism Assistance recently
realigned this position, and it is now located in the
Assessment, Review and Evaluation Unit.
This coordinator will track the progress of individual
countries according to the 25 established critical capabilities
of the needs assessment process. You will find examples of
these capabilities in the statement provided for the record.
Chairman Tierney and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, I thank you for this opportunity to talk to you
today about antiterrorism assistance. We welcome your questions
and comments.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1568.032
Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much.
And I understand Ms. Tibbetts is not going to make an
opening statement but will be available for questioning, and I
appreciate that.
First of all, I want to thank everybody for the tone of
this hearing as well. I do see this as a constructive exercise
that certain issues have been raised, and from what I hear, a
number of them may have been received either previously or in
the interim here. So I would like to sort of approach this as a
discussion if that's acceptable. I don't see this as banging
back and forth on that at all.
But in the GAO report, you start off with the first report
about the finding that the S/CT provides minimal guidance to
help prioritize program recipients. Does that still pertain, or
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley, do you think that your Department
has addressed that concern?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I believe we have addressed it
in large measure. We have increased the number of meetings that
we have with ATA. I've certainly been in weekly meetings since
I have started this job a few weeks ago, so I know that we have
a very close collaborative working relationship. We've also
fallen under our new F process, which is our foreign assistance
overall, which leads to a series of roundtables to ensure that
there is sufficient oversight from S/CT and that the programs
are married with foreign assistance writ large from the
Department of State.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Johnson, was that what you had in mind,
your people when they wrote this report, that type of a
solution to this, or was there something broader that you
thought might be helpful?
Mr. Johnson. Well, we were hoping for more clear direction
and guidance from the S/CT to the DS/T/ATA, as their own policy
memo lays out. In essence, the S/CT is to provide more than
just a tier list but also to identify country needs--or help
DS/T/ATA identify country needs in terms of making those trips
or leading those trips to do some assessments in-country. So
just beyond providing a list, we were hoping to see a lot more
done from that standpoint.
Mr. Tierney. So more than just meetings and having a list,
you really wanted them to get out there in the field to do some
investigatory work or something?
Mr. Johnson. Or at least to work collaboratively with DS/T/
ATA in doing that.
There was mention of the F process. There were concerns
during our review that the F process actually impacted the
ability of the ATA Program to carry out some of its objectives.
Mr. Tierney. And how is that?
Mr. Johnson. I guess the F process and the State Department
can explain more how that works. We have an ongoing review
looking at that at GAO, but the F process in essence may not be
consistent in terms of what the tier list of priorities call
for for the specific ATA countries or for countries that are on
that list. I pointed out earlier there are some countries that
were not on the list that actually received ATA assistance.
Mr. Tierney. Thirteen of them. That struck me when you were
talking; 13 were not on the list that got a significant amount
of assistance, and 10 that were on the list that got ignored.
So Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley, how would that happen, and
what was the reason behind that?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I cannot speak specifically to
all of the 13 countries, and Ms. Tibbetts may be able to answer
that specifically. But obviously, flexibility is one of the
things that we do have to reserve the right----
Mr. Tierney. Could I--you don't mind if I interject with
you about that. So you have 13 countries that are not on the
list. That's a lot of flexibility. That's not just a little
flexibility. I mean, that's really I think a pretty bold move.
And then 10 people that are on the list prioritized fall right
off.
Ms. Tibbetts, can you help us out why those decisions were
made?
Ms. Tibbetts. Sir, if I may, I have been told that, not all
13, but at least 5 or 6 of those 13 were due to an ILEA,
International Law Enforcement Academy, course, which ILEA
courses--there's ILEA training academies in Budapest, Bangkok,
and there's for 4 or 5 of them worldwide. Those countries were
invited to those training courses. Those are multi-national
training courses that because they're regionally located
involve a number of different countries. And some of those
that--ATA provides training at these academies. And some of
those countries that were present at these ILEA courses were
not on the tier list.
Mr. Tierney. So that triggered a finding that they got some
assistance from there, but it wasn't an ongoing program; it was
a one-off sort of situation?
Ms. Tibbetts. Right, exactly.
Like I say, that doesn't account for all 13, but I know at
least I think half of them were attributed to the ILEA program.
That was visa and passport type of training that was given at
the academy that the Regional Security Officers believed these
different countries would benefit from the training.
Mr. Tierney. What about the 10 that didn't get it that were
on the list of priority? I mean, did somebody make a conscious
decision that we just ran out of resources or we can't come up
with enough for them?
Ms. Tibbetts. I believe that was resource dominated. It was
the lack of funding.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Johnson, did you take any look at how much
money was spent on the 13 who weren't on the list versus what
the needs of the 10 that fell off without anything? How does
that line up?
Mr. Johnson. As I noted earlier, the amount of resources
provided to--for the ATA Program has increased over the years,
pretty much going up three times or more than it has been.
Again, we're not sure how the F process has actually
impacted the program. But we did learn during the year that the
F process may have actually slowed down actual implementation
of the ATA Program itself in terms of there were concerns about
funding even being available to continue with the program at
some point in time during the year during the time of our
review.
Mr. Tierney. Is that accurate, what happened, Ms.
Abercrombie-Winstanley?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Certainly the need to follow
the process, because it's recently been implemented, it has
taken a while for all of us in the Department of State to make
sure that we follow through with everything that needs to be
done under it. And it has slowed the dispensation----
Mr. Tierney. Tell me what the process is and why we would
allow some bureaucratic sort of process to slow down an entire
program that generally was doing a good job in a lot of areas?
Why we sort of backtracked on that? What is this F process, and
what's the importance?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. The F process--and you should
probably have someone from F to come up and speak very
specifically to it. I, as someone who has to follow it, don't
have the overall explanation for how all of it works, just how
it impacts us. But the F process is supposed to rationalize our
assistance overall so that we don't have duplication, so that
we know what other bureaus within the Department are doing. And
as you know, in addition to S/CT, there are bureaus like INL
that do assistance to do police training for instance. This is
helping us to ensure that what we're doing marries up properly.
But that does mean that additional information has to be given,
additional coordination, and that may delay some of the time.
Mr. Tierney. Well, Mr. Johnson's crew found out that you
didn't see an awful lot of overlap, you thought that part was
fairly well run, right?
Mr. Johnson. That's correct, we didn't see much overlap.
Mr. Tierney. So now we're putting in a program to solve a
problem that may not have existed, and it slowed everything
down.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. But it's not about S/CT alone.
Again, the F process is for the entire Department.
Mr. Tierney. So the entire Department has messed you up
basically?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I wouldn't say that.
Mr. Tierney. I'll say it. I mean, somebody put in a level
of bureaucracy which apparently has just turned things upside
down on your operation, which was running along fairly smoothly
without any overlap, and may have caused you to lose some focus
on prioritizing countries in need versus countries not
necessarily on that list; is that accurate?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I cannot say that's accurate. I
have been in place for about 3 weeks. If you ask me 6 months
from now, I may have additional information----
Mr. Tierney. Ms. Tibbetts, you've been there longer. What
do you think?
Ms. Tibbetts. I believe that--I spoke with a representative
of the F Bureau at the last Regional Strategic Initiative
Conference which Ambassador Daley hosted in Addis Ababa a
couple of weeks ago. I was very happy to have the chance to
speak with him one on one. I think they're starting to
understand how, from an operational perspective, ATA requires
the constant supply of our funding. And F has had issues with
giving us all of our money within the last 6 weeks of the
fiscal year, and then we have to postpone training. And it has
been very disruptive to our schedule. I think we received our
money in earlier portions this year, so I think it's finally
started to get through to them that in order for us to continue
our training uninterrupted, we require the resources to do so.
Mr. Tierney. Why were they holding it up? Were they waiting
for you to reach certain benchmarks or write certain reports?
What was the delay?
Ms. Tibbetts. Once again, I'm with Gina. I can't tell you
the complete rationale.
Mr. Tierney. Well, you can feel the effect, you can tell me
the effect. You asked for money, and you wouldn't get it. What
reasoning would they give you that you couldn't get it?
Ms. Tibbetts. We really felt the effects. I believe they
didn't want to start picking and choosing offices that were
getting it at certain parts of the calendar year. They wanted
to do all of their foreign assistance funding at one time. We
tried to explain our pain, and we ended up postponing some of
our courses because of it. That's why, if you look at our
spending in our budget and our number of training courses that
we conducted in 2006, it went up and then it went down in 2007
because of having postponements that we were having caused by
the F process.
Mr. Tierney. What are we going to do about this
prioritization issue? It seems to me we ought to know what
countries have more particular needs or whatever. I think it's
a legitimate point raised by GAO. So what are we going to do,
irrespective of the F program, which may interrupt it a little
bit here to make sure we're targeting those countries,
assessing them properly, identifying their needs and then
putting our money where we're going to get the best return on
it?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I think the process, certainly
for assessments, we've made changes in the last year, as I said
in my remarks. I'm having a strategic planner who will be a
part of the assessment team so S/CT will have someone hands-on.
From time to time, on the larger programs, I may indeed be part
of an assessment team myself to see what it is on the ground.
What we do maintain at the Department of State is the
flexibility and, when something is truly urgent, the ability to
put money and to put a program in place. Again, from my prior
experience as director for Lebanon desk, I know that we were
able to move money to that country in an expeditious fashion.
So I know that, when there are emergencies, when there are real
priorities, we can move a little bit faster with the F process
in place.
I believe in the last year the F process has done some
improvements. Linda mentioned that money is coming out of it
faster. As we get used to the changes and are able to pivot and
meet what is required, I think things will move in a smoother
fashion. But this is something that we're obviously going to be
speaking with our colleagues about and pressing that we need
money to flow for these programs because of the importance that
we attach to them.
Ms. Tibbetts. Sir, if I may add one more thing, as long as
we're talking about F. For instance, we received $15 million to
assist the country of Jordan, and it was 2007-2008, essentially
2-year money, but received it at the end of the fiscal year
2007, so essentially it's 1-year money. And we're hoping that
we have the mechanisms in place to be able to spend all of it.
We may have to come back and ask for an extension on it just
because we can't get it appropriated through the system;
because really, even though they said it was 2-year money, we
didn't get it until it was 1. So it's issues like that cause us
to operationally and logistically have difficulties sometimes
implementing our program.
Mr. Tierney. Let me get Mr. Johnson's view on that as well,
but I've had my 10 minutes. Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. I pass.
Mr. Tierney. All right. Mr. Duncan, you're recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I noticed over the years that there's competition within
government, just like there's competition within business. But
I have to tell you that I've never, I don't think I've seen any
other department or agency or program in the entire Federal
Government get the kind of increase that this program has. We
have a memo saying that there's been a 600 percent increase in
funding since 2000 up to fiscal year 2007. And inflation since
that time has been about 30 percent, so it's pretty amazing.
Just a few weeks after 9/11, the Wall Street Journal had an
editorial, and they noticed that year that the word
``security'' had been attached to the Farm Bill. They changed
the name to the Farm Security Act. And they noticed that every
department and agency was submitting increased requests using
the words ``security'' and ``terrorism.'' And they said in that
editorial that they would suggest that, from now on, any bill
that has the words ``security'' or ``terrorism'' in it should
get twice the weight and four times the scrutiny or four times
the weight and twice the scrutiny, I don't remember which, lest
all sorts of bad legislation be enacted in the name of fighting
terrorism.
And just 2 weeks ago in the Hill newspaper, a professor
from the University of Pennsylvania had an editorial saying
that the words ``security'' and ``terrorism'' have become
funding bonanzas for all sorts of departments and agencies. I'm
wondering, the appropriation for fiscal year 2007, it says in
our memo, was $175 million.
What is the request, Mr. Johnson, for this year, this
fiscal year? Are they requesting another increase?
Mr. Johnson. Well, I think the request that we have on
record for fiscal year 2008 is $128 million.
Mr. Duncan. Well, then our memo is incorrect when it says
there was an appropriation for $175 million?
Mr. Johnson. For fiscal year 2009, I believe the request is
about $141 million.
Mr. Duncan. All right.
So instead of a 600 percent increase, then, you're talking
about a 500 percent increase, I guess.
How much of that is done through private contractors?
Mr. Johnson. Well, the bulk of the delivery of the services
are done in the foreign countries through the use of
contractors.
Mr. Duncan. Can you tell me who are the top five private
contractors? Who have the largest--what contractors receive the
largest contracts?
Mr. Johnson. I defer to the State Department on that.
Ms. Tibbetts. As far as personnel, sir, we use two separate
contracting services to staff our personnel. Caseman and
Alutiiq small business corporation provide our personnel to
provide the services.
Mr. Duncan. Those are two contracting services?
Ms. Tibbetts. Two contracting companies which employ our
personnel, correct.
Mr. Duncan. So you've given contracts to those companies to
hire--with the job of hiring other contractors?
Ms. Tibbetts. Our contract employees go through OPM, and
they use scheduled government GSA approved contractors who
provide these services through OPM.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Platts, you're recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Tibbetts, a followup on Mr. Duncan's question. If I
understand correctly, the request funding for this year is
about $128 million, I think was the number stated, a drop of
about $50 million. Can you explain the rationale, the basis of
that decrease?
Ms. Tibbetts. In 2007, sir, our base budget I believe was
about $122 million. Subsequent to that, we received $50 million
in supplemental funding, which was targeted for specific
countries: Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Liberia.
And that made up the bulk of the extra $50 million.
Mr. Platts. So you're anticipating not having the need to
continue the programs that were funded through the
supplemental, or is there an expectation that we're going to
have another supplemental in order to fill what will now be a
significant gap?
Ms. Tibbetts. That's a good question. And as far as the
budgetary aspects of my program, I defer to my colleagues in S/
CT. However, the programs are ongoing. And I know that, for
instance, Afghanistan, Liberia, some of our larger programs, we
do end up with supplemental funding, which I don't want to say
we plan on it, but it certainly helps us continue our
operations.
Mr. Platts. Because I would assume that those programs that
are going on, Jordan, Liberia, there's not a belief that that 1
year bump is going to----
Ms. Tibbetts. Absolutely not sir. And that's kind of what I
was alluding to before. For instance, for our Jordan, which is
one of our largest what we call in-country programs, where we
have staff on the ground trying to build the capacity of the
Jordanian security services, and we have $15 million, for
instance, and the priority of the Jordanians is to build this
huge command and control center so that they can coordinate all
the efforts of their security services. We have the $15
million. We got it late, and now we're trying to appropriate it
in time before the money kind of runs out. So that's one of our
operational challenges that we face on that. We assume we're
getting, I'm not sure of the numbers for more funding for
Jordan for 2009, but obviously it doesn't run out.
Gina, probably maybe you know.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. We have a supplemental request
for 2008 of $5 million, so it's smaller than the $50 million
for the previous year. Specifically for Jordan--yeah, some of
it is for Jordan.
Mr. Platts. Let me turn to a different issue, and it kind
of relates to what you're doing in Jordan, but it's the broader
issue of coordination.
And, Mr. Johnson, if you want to comment on the oversight
that was done by GAO, as well as our other panelists, on the
issue of coordination. And I apologize if this was asked
earlier in coming in late. As far as coordination between
State, Treasury, the various departments and agencies that are
involved in counterterrorism, and specifically on the issue of
counterterrorism efforts relating to the funding, to the
movement of funds. I know, in Jordan, they're standing up now
the unit to try to prevent money being laundered through
Jordanian banks or the Jordanian Central Bank as in other
countries. What kind of coordination is going on specifically
between State and how you're targeting the funds you have; and
Treasury, that has taken the lead on trying to stop the flow of
money which allows terrorism to be underwritten?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. For counterterrorism financing,
we have a working group, the CTFWG, the Counter-Terrorist
Financing Working Group. And it meets every other week, along
with the State Department, S/CT and INL co-chair it, so I'm one
of the chairs. And about 15 to 20 different agencies
participate in this meeting every other week.
Mr. Platts. Could you speak more into the mic? I'm having
trouble hearing, I'm sorry.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Sorry. This is a meeting that I
chair every other week on counterterrorism financing. And about
15 to 20 different agencies attend this meeting every other
week.
I have to say, in my 23 years of government service, it's
one of the best meetings I've ever attended or chaired. Insofar
as, between Treasury and FBI and DHS, State Department, the
ability and the willingness to exchange information and
coordinate what we're doing, what training efforts we've got
under way, is extraordinary. This is a wonderful coordination
mechanism and it works very well.
Mr. Platts. As a result of that coordination, and that's
certainly I think the assessment I've come to believe that we
have kind of learned our lessons of the stovepipe mentality and
are now doing better coordinating, as a result of that
coordination, does it translate back to State say in how to
allocate the Antiterrorism Assistance Programs in setting the
priorities for where the money goes, so that if through that
coordination, you identify, hey, this is really a priority in
the counterterrorism financing, does that then translate to
State in how in a specific country, hey, they're standing up
their counterterrorism finance unit, so this would be a good
recipient to get the funds, the ATA funds?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I believe it does. I believe it
does. Again, I've chaired two of the meetings thus far. And
discussion of what training programs are out there, who needs
money. We've talked to them about our F process to help talk
them through the need for getting requests for funding that may
come from the State Department early. And I believe it does,
yeah.
Mr. Platts. I'm not sure if Congressman Lynch was here
earlier, but he's been great as one of the co-chairs on the
counterterrorism financing efforts, and that coordination,
because, as we know, if we can stop the flow of the funds,
we're going to have great success in stopping the activity.
So thank each of you for your work, your service to our
citizens.
And Mr. Chairman thank you.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you Mr. Platts.
Mr. Shays, you're recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for conducting this
hearing.
I thank GAO for writing its report.
And I want to acknowledge to Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley, I
note that you received a recognition for acts of courage during
an attack on the U.S. Consulate General, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia,
and I thank you for whatever your efforts were in that regard.
I'm going to ask you to bring the mic closer to you. You
have a rather soft voice, and I'm a little sleepy.
I think you have a great job. I mean a great opportunity.
And I think both of you do.
And but I am fascinated--fascinated is a strong word--I am
curious as to why the GAO is telling us that the ATA Program is
required to submit to Congress each year a report on the
antiterrorism efforts of the entire Federal Government but have
not done so since 1996. That goes back to another
administration. And it hasn't been done since.
So I want to know why that's the case? Was it something you
didn't realize you needed to do, or is it something you just
decided, they didn't do it, so we won't do it?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. It might have been a
combination of the two of those things. Obviously, I've been
asking about that since I came on board.
Mr. Shays. And when did you come on board?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I think a month ago today, a
month ago today. But having come from NEA, I've dealt with many
of the issues personally and professionally that we cover in S/
CT, so this is a job that is very personal to me.
On the report, I believe we did not realize we needed to do
it and/or people thought we hadn't done it and weren't going to
do it. It is in the clearance process now, so we will be
submitting it very shortly.
Mr. Shays. Is it a doable effort?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. It is a challenging effort, but
I believe we've got a new tool to help. And again, since I've
been in place, I've been in contact with NCTC. And one of the
things that they are doing is a budget call, I think is the
phrase that they use.
But what they're asking is, from every U.S. Government
agency, the budget for all of their counterterrorism programs.
And by getting the budget, which is good to know what people
are spending on it, we will also have available to us what
everyone is doing across the board. I believe this is the first
time it has been done. NCTC is doing it. And we will be able to
submit a better, clearer report based on that information.
Mr. Shays. Well, you don't mean a better report. There's
been no report.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I beg your pardon?
Mr. Shays. You say ``a better report?''
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. A better, yes. What we are
going to submit this year will certainly be as comprehensive as
we've been able to find out.
Mr. Shays. Basically what you all have been doing is
reporting on what ATA has done?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Exactly.
Mr. Shays. But this is--I don't want to--I want to pursue
this a little bit better because you have the advantage
fortunately of being able to start fresh and not to have to
make any excuses for the past.
But I, one, need to know if this is an important effort;
two, if you have the capability to do it, because clearly
you're going to have to assign a number of people to it.
Otherwise it's going to be a meaningless report. So, one, is it
your recommendation that you should be required to do this;
and, two, do you have the resources to do it? And will it be
done, not better than before, because it wasn't done--I don't
want to link the ATA report with this. This is a separate
report.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Fair enough, fair enough, yes.
Mr. Shays. So tell me how you respond to my questions.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. A twofold response.
I believe in our written response, we supported you giving
consideration to GAO's recommendation that we not have to do
the report. So that's our written response, and obviously, I
stand by it.
That said, since it hasn't been done yet----
Mr. Shays. You mean, since it's still on the books, you had
to do it?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes, since it's still on the
books, we are required to do it. We have pulled together as
best we can among other agencies what it is they're doing, and
we will be submitting a report.
That said, I believe with the information that NCTC
believes they will have in hand in the fall, which is, as I
said, the budget call from everybody what they're doing, we may
be able to provide a report that has some use. At least you'll
be able to look and see what, across the board, everyone is
doing.
Mr. Shays. Let me get to GAO.
Help me out here. Why did you make the recommendation they
shouldn't do it? Is someone else doing it.
Mr. Johnson. I want to clarify for the record we did not
recommend that it not be done. We actually recommended that the
State Department comply with the congressional mandate to
report to Congress. We did pose a matter for congressional
consideration for Congress----
Mr. Shays. You did what?
Mr. Johnson. We posed the matter for Congress to revisit,
meaning revisit whether or not they want the State Department
to comply with these.
Mr. Shays. So you're kind of neutral on it?
Mr. Johnson. Well, it's not our position given that there
is a law. There's a mandate that requires the State Department
to comply.
Mr. Shays. So let me put it in my words and tell me. You
are reporting that they haven't done it?
Mr. Johnson. Correct.
Mr. Shays. You are not passing judgment whether they should
do it or not do it?
Mr. Johnson. Correct.
Mr. Shays. But I don't understand why that wouldn't be part
of what you can do. You make recommendations.
Mr. Johnson. Well, our recommendation as it stands is that
the State Department comply with the congressional mandate but
also that the Congress revisit this to make a determination as
to what----
Mr. Shays. Then why do you want Congress to revisit it?
Mr. Johnson. Because in the past 10 years, when we did our
review, there has been not any compliance with respect to that
mandate.
Mr. Shays. So that's an indication to you that either ATA
doesn't have the capability or Congress doesn't have the
interest to have it done?
Mr. Johnson. Correct.
Mr. Shays. OK, that's interesting.
Is GAO aware of any report like this done by another
government agency.
Mr. Johnson. Not with respect to the U.S. efforts to combat
terrorism broader----
Mr. Shays. When you think about it, wouldn't it have been
good in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 that we did this to
be able to have some sense of where we were?
Mr. Johnson. Well, also let me note that, prior to 1996, I
believe the State Department was submitting annual reports to
the Congress on the U.S. efforts to combat terrorism, meaning
bringing all the information from all the agencies together
prior to when it was not done in 1996.
Mr. Shays. Is there any question that our committee should
have asked you, Ms. Tibbetts, or to you as the coordinator, or
to you as the GAO, any question that like stares us in the face
that we should have asked?
My staff is giving me one, but let me test you all. Is
there? Is there a question that we should be addressing that we
haven't brought up?
Mr. Johnson. Well, I think you've covered most of what we
have in our report.
Mr. Shays. OK. There's nothing that you would be asking if
you were up here?
Mr. Johnson. Well, what I would ask is, what has----
Mr. Shays. It's kind of hard to get an answer----
Mr. Johnson. What is the status of the State Department's
compliance or followup on GAO's recommendations that were made.
Mr. Shays. OK.
That's a great question, so I ask that question. What's the
answer?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. The answer is we have begun to
followup on the recommendations, again by adding positions
within S/CT and DS, and I'll let Linda speak to that, Ms.
Tibbetts, to get involved in the needs assessments, to relook
at how we put them together in Washington and working with DS
to make sure that the understanding of what is success is
understood in the field as well as in Washington. And again,
I'll let Linda talk about the details.
Mr. Shays. If we had a hearing 4 months from now, would we
have the answers to this, would you be there, or what kind of
time line are you working on?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Four months from now, I believe
we would have answers, clear answers, but we may indeed have
them now. I'll let Ms. Tibbetts speak.
Ms. Tibbetts. Sir, as a result of the GAO audit, there are
a couple operational followups that ATA has performed. And I
think we've made great progress, and I think Mr. Johnson would
be pleased.
He focused basically on our sustainment efforts and our
efforts to institutionalize our training. And we've devoted a
lot more resources and reorganized as a result of that. So if I
may just briefly bring you up to speed as far as the
establishment of some metrics that ATA has done to be able to
measure our results with our partner nations.
Basically, we've written a standard of operating
procedures. We've established a new position, the professional
capacity development coordinator, and that's his whole job. We
may actually, if we get the funding, have a couple more hired
to conduct this, because as was pointed out to us, we're really
not doing the full benefits to our program unless we can
institutionalize this capacity for these countries to absorb it
and to start training on their own. So as a result of these
recommendations, an example of training capacity includes the
numbers of antiterrorism courses offered by our partner
nations.
We will go back now, and on a program review, we will see
how they have absorbed the training and how they've set up and
institutionalized the training. And we're also looking at
comprehensiveness of their curriculum, their level of expertise
of their instructors, the extent and depth of their in-service
training. And we've piloted this program in one of our larger
in-country programs in Colombia, as Gina referred to, that
we're turning over to the Colombians at the end of the fiscal
year. They're going to run the program, the training itself,
and they're going to budget for it. So we are working toward
that goal.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Well, I do have a followup if you don't mind.
Just in terms of sustainability, when you hear that answer,
what, Mr. Johnson, would you be asking?
Mr. Johnson. Well, I think that's a step in the right
direction. Sustainability was a key issue that we discovered
was sort of a deficiency when we went out and visited some of
the countries we were including in our review. Let me give you
an example.
In Kenya, in particular, we were made aware that was going
to become sort of a regional training hub. However, when we
spoke to the Kenyan government officials and the official
program manager for ATA in that particular country,
sustainability wasn't even on their radar. They felt as if they
didn't have all the antiterrorism assistance that they needed
before you wanted to make that leap and make them sort of a
regional hub.
So that's why we highlighted that along with the other
information we collected on the other countries, the need for
focusing on and including sustainability as a part of your
efforts when you are providing the millions of dollars in
assistance. As a part of that, you need to include a focus on
sustainability and building capacity. So to hear Ms. Tibbetts
note that, it's a step in the right direction.
Mr. Shays. Well, then I just conclude by saying we need to
have some sustainability on this committee in terms of
following up. So I will make it part of my effort to have staff
check in to see how you all are doing.
And the beauty of being there only a month and a half is
you don't have to apologize for the past; you got a clean
slate. And you obviously have an extraordinary record in an
area that is very important to our country.
So I thank both of you.
And I thank GAO.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
So the way I wrap this up here and look at it, we just
discussed the idea of looking at outcomes, the effectiveness,
the sustainability, and that's in gear. You're moving in that
direction, and we're going to check.
The priorities end of it, you think you've got something in
place on that, and you're going to start working in the field a
little bit more and getting involved yourself in trying to
identify where these priorities are and making sure the money
gets to where it ought to go.
And we're going to get a fuller explanation. I hope you
might be able to submit to us in writing about how the 13 got
on the list and the 10 got off. If we can get more specifics on
that, I would greatly appreciate that. I'm very curious as to
how that happens if we really do have a system of
prioritization in place on that.
The other issue I think that there was a question about
whether or not we were looking at the countries, particular
countries we were trying to help, their goals, their
objectives, their training priorities and then using a needs
assessment on that program to effectively plan our own efforts
on that.
Do you feel you're doing that now Ms. Abercrombie-
Winstanley?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I do.
Mr. Tierney. You do.
Ms. Tibbetts. I certainly believe we are.
Mr. Tierney. So if you reported back to Mr. Johnson, you
would say, we took that advice and here is what we have done in
response to that?
Ms. Tibbetts. Absolutely.
Mr. Tierney. Is it something that you've done in response
to the GAO report, or do you think you've been doing it all
along and he just missed it?
Ms. Tibbetts. Actually, and this is--Mr. Johnson and I, I
think, had a conversation about this. We had been doing this in
spotty areas in certain countries. Obviously, Mr. Johnson
looked at the in-country programs where it's not as prevalent.
But since that time though--and it was good that he pointed
that out, because we have gone back to our program managers to
make sure that we're doing it in all of our countries.
Mr. Tierney. I think the wording that Mr. Johnson used was,
``it wasn't consistently done.'' So I think he did----
Mr. Johnson. Correct.
Mr. Tierney. So you're going to make sure that happens all
the way across on that, and that would do it.
Ms. Tibbetts. Absolutely.
Mr. Tierney. I hope this has been helpful for the
Department. I want to thank GAO and all the people associated
with the report. Again, this is the type of effort that we
think can be constructive if everybody works on it.
It's a program, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, that
I think is critical, when, particularly in Afghanistan and
Pakistan, as I mentioned, we're going to make sure it doesn't
overlap with other programs. And there have been some problems
with a number of our departments that are stepping all over
each other on efforts like that.
But there's no way we can get to the bottom of the
corruption in those countries and get to the other larger
issues if they don't think they have reliability in their
police forces, in their judges, in their prosecutors and things
of that nature, and it's just a mess. They have a capacity
issue, which is first and foremost. They don't have the judges.
They don't have the prosecutors. They don't have the system to
train them.
Ms. Tibbetts. Sir, in that respect, too, we have been
reaching out to other agencies. The Department of Justice, we
take them along on our needs assessments now, too, so they can
work on the judicial reform type aspects as well, too. So
interagency that Gina pointed out, we're really reaching out to
other law enforcement agencies to try to get their take on--
security for the airports, TSA comes with us. The Coast Guard
does our program in Kenya for the coastal security. So we have
recognized that we need other law enforcement areas of
expertise on this.
Mr. Tierney. It's a huge issue, and it's so mind-boggling
on that. But I think it's do-able. I think some of this advice
was good. It sort of helps you frame it and then tying into
what you're going to do and knock them off in little pieces so
you don't feel overwhelmed by it. And I hope you found it
helpful in that regard.
I also note, Mr. Turk, our staff director, indicated that
you have some issues or some success stories that are probably
classified. I think it would be good for this committee to hear
them or see them. So if you make a decision, whether you would
like to put them in writing to us or have a briefing with our
staff from both sides or whatever, whichever way is easier for
you to communicate that conversation, if you want to loop it
into Mr. Johnson's group, we'll be happy to do that. And we
want to get that information because we want the full picture,
and we appreciate it.
Mr. Shays, if you have no other comments, I want to thank
all of you. It has been a brief hearing but one of the more
effective ones in terms of getting a program in the right
direction.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley, good luck in the future months
on that.
Ms. Tibbetts, thank you for continuing to do a good job.
Mr. Johnson, again, thank you and your team for doing a
terrific job all the time for us.
Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]