ment helicopters funded through the Defense Emergency Response Fund in FY 2002.

Question. Given the contributions that these helicopters have thus far provided in the Global war on terrorism, why is there no request in the supplemental to replace the two helicopters, which are a total loss?

Answer. The Department funded two replacement helicopters in FY 2002 using $57 million of Defense Emergency Response Funds. These two helicopters will be delivered in FY 2005.

END-ITEM LOSSES

Question. In support of the Global War on Terrorism and in Operations in Iraq, the Services have sustained the loss of numerous equipment end items such as aircraft. in the Army alone, 39 aircraft have been either been lost of sustained heavy damage during the past year. Please describe the losses due to combat and mishaps of major end items in support of operations in Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism.

Answer. Due to ongoing, dynamic combat operations, the list of equipment losses due to combat and mishaps is continuously changing. A complete list of equipment losses will be provided at the completion of operations in Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism.

Question. Mr. Secretary, the Supplemental request appears to replace only certain end items lost in the Global War on Terrorism and in operations in Iraq. What is the criteria used to determine which items would be replaced?

Answer. Given the dynamic nature of the operations, we have structured the Supplemental request to maximize our flexibility to ensure that the most critical items are replaced. Some items may not be replaced, as inventory levels may be sufficient that are no longer in production. In this case, we may procure substitute items that provide a similar capabilty. The Department will evaluate end-item losses and notify the Congress on funds to be transferred to investment accounts to replace expenditures.

Question. Please describe the type and quantity of such items included in the Supplemental request.

Answer. Given the current status of military operations, it is too early to determine the Department's specific requirements for replacement equipment. The Supplemental request is structured with the flexibility needed to ensure requirements can be addressed as they arise despite the unknowns of ongoing combat operations. Question. In some cases, such as aircraft, there have been significant issues. Why did the Department choose not to initiate replacement of this equipment in the Supplemental request?

Answer. Given the current status of military operations, it is too early to determine the Department's specific requirements for replacement equipment. The Department was hesitant to predict losses of specific aircraft prior to the onset of hostilities. Once we have a better understanding of what specific aircraft are lost in Iraq, we can determine which ones are our highest priorities to replace.

PATRIOT MISSILES

Question. News reports indicate that Patriot missiles successfully intercepted several Iraqi missiles during the initial phase of operations in Iraq. These reports are unclear as to whether the intercepted missiles were Scuds or another type of missile such as the al Samoud. Reports also indicate that a Patriot missile inadvertently downed a coalition aircraft. What types of Patriot missiles are deployed in support of operations in Iraq PAC-2? PAC-3? Both?

Answer. Coalition forces deployed PAC-2, Guidance Enhanced Missiles (GEM), GEM+ and PAC-3 missiles in support of operations in Iraq.

Question. Backup materials for the fiscal year 2003 Supplemental budget request suggest that additional funding is included for additional Patriot missiles. How many and what types of Patriot missiles?

Answer. The Supplemental request is for 22 PAC-3 missiles.

Question. What is the production lead-time between funding and receipt of additional Patriot missiles?

Answer. For the FY03 PAC-3 missile production contract, lead time between contract award and first delivery is 17 months.

Question. Early media reports indicate that several Iraqi missiles were successfully intercepted in the early stages of operations. Do you yet know the type of missiles that were intercepted?

Answer. The specific types of Short Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBMs) successfully intercepted by PATRIOT units during the course of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) were either the al-Samoud or Ababil/Ăl Fatah SRBMs.

Question. How many attempted intercepts did U.S. or other forces initiate?

Answer. U.S. Army and Kuwaiti PATRIOT units initiated nine engagements against confirmed Iraqi Short Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBMs) during the course of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). All nine Iraqi SRBMs that threatened specific U.S. and Kuwaiti forces/assets were successfully destroyed by either U.S. or Kuwaiti PATRIOT batteries using either PAC-2 class or PAC-3 interceptors.

Question. Recent news reports indicate that a Patriot missile accidentally downed a coalition aircraft. Do you know if this incident represented a failure of the missile system? Command and control over the launch? Are there other reasons? Answer. The cause of the friendly fire incidents is still under investigation.

AMMUNITION FUNDING

Question. The Supplemental request provides for $3.7 billion for ammunition both to replace what has been used in combat and in anticipation of continued operations. OSD justification materials indicate that $500 million of the $3.7 billion is related to ammunition consumed to date, and $3.2 billion anticipated future ammunition requirements. This requirement is very broadly defined, and includes everything from small arms ammunition up to cruise missile and Patriot missiles. Mr. Secretary, when you developed the ammunition component of the Supplemental appropriations request, what assumptions were used as to the type and duration of operations?

Answer. The munitions component was developed with input from the military departments based on various duration scenarios. The final request is based on a short duration, high intensity conflict, using a variety of weapons from precision guided standoff weapons to conventional ground ammunition.

Question. Does this request replace ammunition used in combat? Does it anticipate ammunition requirements for future operations?

Answer. The supplemental request will replace munitions used in combat, though not necessarily on a one-for-one basis. Munitions expended that are in production will be replaced to the extent possible, but it may be necessary to replace some munitions with more recent versions, depending on when the items were produced. The supplemental will also be used, to the extent possible, to anticipate munitions requirements for future operations based on careful examinations of inventories after the conflict.

Question. Please provide a breakout of known expended munitions.

[CLERK'S NOTE.-The Department was unable to provide a response in time to be printed in this hearing volume.]

Question. How has the term "ammunition" been defined in this request? Does it include items generally purchased through the Services' ammunition procurement accounts? Does it include other items such as replacement missiles?

Answer. The term "ammunition" includes both conventional ammunition purchased through the ammunition accounts, as well as precision guided munitions and missiles. The precision guided munitions are purchased through both the ammunition and missile/weapons accounts, depending on the exact weapon.

Question. Please provide a list by type of ammunition of those items you have included in the Supplemental request.

Answer. The supplemental request for munitions was developed before the start of the conflict, and is intended to be a fund to replenish munitions based on their expenditure during the conflict, as well as the state of the Services' inventory of munitions. Conventional ammunition may include items such as bomb bodies, small and medium caliber, tank ammunition, mortars, artillery, rockets, grenades, fuzes, anti-tank mines, signals, demolition munitions, flares, cartridges, and others as necessary. Precision guided munitions may include items such as Tactical Tomahawk, Laser Guided Bombs, Joint Standoff Weapon, Javelin, Laser and Longbow Hellfire, Army Tactical Missile System, Multiple Launch Rocket System, Patriot, Stinger, and others as necessary.

Question. Will current production capabilities be able to meet the request for additional replacement munitions given fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 production requests?

Answer. The Department will ensure that production capabilities are present in replenishing munitions through the supplemental request, as well as the baseline budget request for munitions. With respect to producing additional munitions with the supplemental request, the Department will only include high priority items

where production capability is present, and the additional workload does not create undue delay in the overall production schedule of that item.

Question. What is the timeline for replacing these munitions?

Answer. In replacing munitions through supplemental funding, the majority of replacements will take place during the Fiscal Year 2003 funded delivery period. However, there may be some instances where some production will be added to the Fiscal Year 2004 funded delivery period, if this is necessary to achieve a more balanced production schedule between those two periods.

Question. Are there differences between the requests submitted by the Services for ammunition and the level of funding included in the request? Please explain.

Answer. The munitions requirements were developed with input from the Services, based on many different conflict duration scenarios. The final request, developed before the conflict, represents the Department's best estimate for a short term, high intensity conflict, based on usage of both precision guided standoff weapons, as well as conventional ammunition.

Question. How is the $3.7 billion requested for ammunition divided between the various services?

Answer. Due to the uncertainty of the exact nature and duration of the conflict, as well as the number of joint weapons to be used, the supplemental request for munitions is not precisely split among the Services. The request was developed before the conflict, and represents the Department's best estimate of a fund required to replenish and restock inventories of a wide variety of munitions after examination of the actual combat usage.

SERVICES CASH RUN-OUT DATES

Question. Mr. Secretary, we understand that given the pace of ongoing operations, the Army and Marine Corps, especially, have the potential of running out of money in mid-April or early May. When do you estimate the Services will run out of obligation authority?

Answer. Approval of the FY 2003 Supplemental prevented this from happening. Question. How long would "Feed and Forage" action extend the run-out date? Answer. Approval of FY 2003 Supplemental prevented this from happening.

CONSTRUCTON PROJECTS USING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDS Question. Please discuss the construction of temporary and durable or semi-permanent buildings and support facilities, such a fuel tank farms, in the Gulf region. Answer. Section 2801 defines a military construction project as a facility under the control of a Secretary of a Military Department. The Department used O&M funds to construct temporary facilities if there was not a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) in place and if the facility was temporary, i.e. if it was to be used after the operation. If the facility was in a country that had a SOFA or was under the control of a Secretary of a Military Department, or if the facility could be used after the operation, then it was considered military construction.

Question. What is the total Operation and Maintenance appropriations that have been used to construct such facilities?

Answer. The Department used approximately $758 million of O&M, $128.6 million of Military Construction, $21.2 million of DERF O&M, $63.1 million of DERF Military Construction, and $3.9 million of Exercise Related Construction (ERC).

Question. On what authority does the Department base its decision to use O&M appropriations instead of MILCON appropriations for this construction?

Answer. Section 2801 of 10 U.S.C. That section defines a Military Construction project as a facility under the control of a Secretary of a Military Department and if the facility is temporary.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES

Question. What is the status of the Defense Cooperation account, or other fund used by the Department to collect contributions from other countries for this war with Iraq?

Answer. The Defense Cooperation account has a balance of $13,141,644.
Question. How much is in the fund?

Answer. The Defense Cooperation account has investments totaling $13,140,838 and cash of $806.

Question. What are your projections for receipts to the funds?

Answer. The Defense Cooperation account has, since October 1, 2001, had an average total monthly contribution rate of $645,663. The total average rate is made up of individual contributions of $366,467 per month and foreign contributions of

$279,196 per month. The contribution amounts, however, vary greatly by month. The average individual contributions was influenced by a one-time contribution in January 2002 of $6,353,462, and the average foreign contributions was influenced by a one-time contribution in June 2002 of $5,000,000..

Question. Who are the expected donor countries?

Answer. The Department of Defense is seeking donors throughout the world to aid in fighting the global war on terrorism and the relief and reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq. Contribution efforts have concentrated on support to coalition partners and relief and reconstruction, and have not, however, especially involved the Defense Cooperation account, which is used by the Department for its expenses, as appropriated by the Congress.

Question. Are there restrictions on any of the contributions, such as it can only go to help with humanitarian work or for non-lethal purposes?

Answer. There are no restrictions on any of the contributions to the Defense Cooperation account. The money in the Defense Cooperation account can be spent as appropriated by the Congress.

Question. What sort of things have been or are expected to be received as "Inkind" contributions?

Answer. Categories of In-kind contributions include (1) airlift, (2) base operations support, (3) biological and chemical detection and decontamination, (4) engineering services, (5) fuel and underway replenishment services, (6) intelligence/interdiction/ surveillance/escort, (7) logistics support, (8) mine hunting and clearing, (9) hospital and medical support, (10) equipment and vehicles, and (11) force protection and security forces.

Question. This supplemental request includes $340 million for additional fuel cost. Why not ask allies in the region to provide the fuel?

Answer. Saudi Arabia has been providing free fuel related to Operation Southern Watch for some years. When Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) began, the Kingdom continued that level of support. In addition, Saudi Arabia also provided concessionary pricing on some of the additional fuel procured by the US for use during OIF. Japan has been providing free fuel from its oiler fleet for U.S. Navy ship consumption since shortly after September 11, 2001. Kuwait is providing significant free fuel for use in OIF. Kuwait also constructed fuel pipelines northward without charge to aid the war effort.

The requested funding is net of the free and discounted fuel we are receiving. At the same time, we are continuing to solicit allied support.

Other than the free fuel mentioned above, allies are providing fuel we need that we must buy. Aircraft operations are originating in many geographic locations that are not providing free fuel. For OIF, these locations include Diego Garcia, Egypt, Germany, England, Italy, and some countries around the Persian Gulf. Some BSaudi Arabia has been providing free fuel related to Operation Southern Watch for some years. When Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) began, the Kingdom continued that level of support. In addition, Saudi Arabia also provided concessionary pricing on some of the additional fuel procured by the US for use during OIF. Japan has been providing free fuel from its oiler fleet for U.S. Navy ship consumption since shortly after September 11, 2001. Kuwait is providing significant free fuel for use in OIF. Kuwait also constructed fuel pipelines northward without charge to aid the war effort.

The requested funding is net of the free and discounted fuel we are receiving. At the same time, we are continuing to solicit allied support.

Other than the free fuel mentioned above, allies are providing fuel we need that we must buy. Aircraft operations are originating in many geographic locations that are not providing free fuel. For OIF, these locations include Diego Garcia, Egypt, Germany, England, Italy, and some countries around the Persian Gulf. Some B-2 flights originate in the state of Missouri.

Costs of fuel are up world-wide. The funds are requested to cover that increased cost.

NATURAL RESOURCES RISK REMEDIATION FUND

Question. The Supplemental request includes a separate appropriation almost $500 million for the Natural Resources Remediation Fund. The Committee understands that this request is to pay for the emergency fire fighting and repair of oil wells that have been set on fire in Iraq. How were the costs estimated?

Answer. The DoD Supplemental request included $489.3 million in the Natural Resources Risk Remediation Fund to address emergency fire fighting, repair of damages to oil facilities in Iraq, and temporary operation of the fields. The $489.3 million is the estimate of the cost of: anticipated fire fighting operations and fire fight

ing equipment, specialized vehicles, well testers, oil pipeline, parts, fittings, oil field equipment and pump parts to replace damaged or destroyed items, contracts for mission support by specialized contractors, Army Corps of Engineers personnel travel and per diem and related expenses, training requirements, damage assessment teams, and other expenses. The Corp of Engineers worked with CENTCOM to refine the contingency plans and cost estimates developed by private contractors, and determined the contracting strategy for support services.

Question. How does the work get done, that is, who does the actual work? Private sector contractors or the Corps of Engineers?

Answer. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the Army's Executive agent for this area. The USACE has issued a contract to Kellog/Brown and Root, which is responsible for day to day operations. The USACE oversees KBR's activities to ensure they comply with the specifications of the contract.

Question. Do you anticipate this fund will be used for anything besides fighting the fires and repairing the wells?

Answer. Yes. The Natural Resources Risk Remediation provision would provide funds not only for emergency fire fighting, and repair to damaged oil facilities, but also to preserve and rebuild the fuel distribution system.

Question. What amounts, if any, have thus far been expended?

Answer. As of March 25, 2003, $94 million was expended out of the Natural Resources Risk Remediation Fund.

Question. Can this fund accept contributions of cash or in-kind goods and services from individuals or from other countries? If so, how do you anticipate managing this fund?

Answer. The Secretary of Defense can accept contributions of money for Natural Resources Risk Remediation Fund (NRRRF) purposes and credit the money directly to the NRRRF. Funds received from private individuals or foreign countries would be realigned through the Department of Treasury to the NRRRF. Upon receipt of these funds, the Department of Treasury would apportion the additional funds to DoD via the Office of Management and Budget. The Office of the Secretary of Defense would subsequently issue the NRRRF funds to the Department of the Army for execution.

COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAM

Question. Currently, the CTR program is designed to help the nations of the former Soviet Union to reduce and eliminate weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The supplemental request includes language that would expand this program worldwide. Why is this fundamental change in the nature of the program being requested in an emergency supplemental appropriations bill?

Answer. Given the new threats confronting the United States, the Department of Defense (DoD) believed it important to promptly seek legislative language that would expand the geographic scope and flexibility of the CTR Program to address dangerous WMD proliferation threats, thereby providing the President another useful option in his WMD response tool-kit. If the proposed language is approved, DoD plans to leverage its special expertise and unique access to deal with WMD, related materials and infrastructure in countries where it currently has a large footprint, such as Afghanistan and Iraq. In the long term, DoD wants to be able to address WMD threats in other countries where strong military-to-military relationships could be leveraged.

Question. Would the language affect only the CTR programs of the Department of Defense, or those funded through the Department of State and Department of Energy as well?

Answer. The proposed language would affect only the Department of Defense CTR Program.

Question. Is the Administration proposing similar legislative language to the authorizing committee?

Answer. Yes. The Administration proposed to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees that similar language be included in the FY 2004 National Defense Authorization Act.

Question. What kind of programs would be funded if Congress accepted this modification, and where would such programs occur?

Answer. DoD would fund proliferation threat reduction projects and activities outside the states of the former Soviet Union (FSU) designed either to help resolve critical emerging proliferation threats that jeopardize United States national security interests, or to take advantage of unexpected opportunities to achieve long-standing United States nonproliferation goals. We anticipate employing this authority where DoD has a sizable presence, in close coordination with other departments to maxi