is planned to be supported from FY 2003, IFF supplemental funds carried forward into FY 2004.

ASSISTANCE TO MILITARY FORCES IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, AND OTHER REGIONAL NATIONS

Question. The supplemental budget request includes language that would authorize the use of not to exceed $200 million to provide assistance to military forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other friendly nearby regional nations to enhance their capability to combat terrorism and to support U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why is this additional authority needed?

Answer. Currently, we have a slow and cumbersom process which relies on a patchwork of authorities that is inappropriate to meet today's train and equip requirements. Programs are designed around available resources and their inherent restrictions, rather than driven by actual requirements.

The Department of Defense needs a flexible source of funding to respond expeditiously to emerging, non-traditional threats, which are directly associated with the Global war on Terrorism.

To fight the kind of war that we face, we need maximum flexibility to benefit from contributions that foreign military forces, who share our goals, could make. In some cases, these forces are unable, or are limited in their ability, to provide effective assistance without equipment, training and funding.

The language that the DoD is requesting would eliminate these problems. DoD would be able to respond quickly to operational needs by providing needed training, equipment and other support to foreign forces to enhance their capability to combat terrorism, operate in conjunction with U.S. forces, and in many cases, assume missions currently being executed by U.S. forces.

The DoD cannot continue to reply on authorities that were not designed for train and equip purposes, and which will not allow the quick execution of train and equip missions. We need to mitigate the risks of failure as future unanticiipated threats materialize.

Question. Doesn't the President already have authority to provide such assistance through the Secretary of State under the Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Export Control Act? Why aren't existing authorities and mechanisms being used?

Answer. The State Department possesses several authorities under which train and equip missions can be funded, principally Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and Presidential Drawdown Authority. Both of these authorities, however, have a number of limitations.

FMF funds cannot be executed rapidly, and are designed for long-term security cooperation projects including defense reform, self-defense, peacekeeping, public works, and internal security. FMF funds are not designed to meet unanticipated emerging requirements. These funds are often obligated by the middle of a fiscal year, and are extremely difficult to reprogram. As a result, in practice unanticipated train and equip missions are only partially funded with FMF.

Presidential Drawdown is an authority, not a source of funging. Any goods, services, and supplies have to come from existing Department of Defense stocks. U.S. readiness can be affected when resources are taken from already defined and funded requirements to fund other programs. Additionally, with the exception of drawdown authority provided under the Afghan Freedom Support Act, drawdown does not provide new contracting authority, thus limiting what can be provided under drawdown to equipment “in stock”. Relying on equipment that is “in stock” greatly complicates mission planning and execution.

The DoD cannot continue to rely on these two authorities alone because they were not designed for train and equip purposes, and they do not allow the quick execution of train and equip missions.

Question. What is the division of funding responsibility between the Department of Defense and the Department of State for (a) training and equipping a new Afghan army; (b) training and equipping a new Iraqi army; (c) providing assistance for coalition partners in Iraq; (d) providing assistance for partners in the Global War on Terrorism.

Answer.

(a) The Department of State and Department of Defense have jointly funded the training and equipping of the Afghan National Army (ANA). Department of State Foreign Military Financing (FMF) funds and Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) funds have been used to pay salaries, train, and equip the ANA in 2002 and 2003. Department of Defense (DoD) appropriations have been used to train and equip the ANA through the presidential drawdown authority provided in the Afghan Freedom Sup

port Act. DoD Emergency and Extraordinary Expense (EEE) authority and CINC Initiative Fund appropriations have also been used in the past to fund the training and equipping of the ANA, albeit to a much lesser degree.

(b) Currently, the Department of Defense has the responsibility for training and equipping the New Iraqi Army, under the authorities assigned to the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority. Funding to train and equip the New Iraqi Army has come from DoD appropriations and Iraqi assets.

(c) The United States is providing some financial assistance to enable coalition partners to provide military forces for stability operations in Iraq. Department of Defense appropriations are being used to reimburse some coalition partners for transportation, logistical support, and life sustainment expenses in theater. Department of State Peacekeeping Operation Funds appropriations have been used to provide essential military equipment to coalition partners in Iraq, including battle dress uniforms, and communications equipment.

(d) The Department of Defense does not provide foreign aid/assistance to coalition partners in the global war on terrorism; The Department of State has responsibility for providing foreign aid and other assistance. The Department of Defense, however, has the legal authority to reimburse nations for any expenses that may incur supporting U.S. military operations in connection with the global war on terrorism. În this regard, the United States has reimbursed Pakistan, Jordan, Uzbekistan, Djibouti and other countries for the costs that they have incurred supporting U.S. military operations in connection with the global war on terrorism.

Question. What nations do you anticipate would receive assistance under this request?

Answer. Some train and equip missions which might be undertaken with this new authority include the following:

• Train and Equip an Azeri peacekeeping brigade which Azerbaijan plans to send to Iraq.

• Enhance DoD's ongoing train and equip mission in Georgia.

• Sustain and expand DoD's ongoing and highly successful Counterterrorism training in Yemen.

STATUS OF IRAQ FREEDOM FUND

Question. In the fiscal year 2003 Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, Congress created the Iraq Freedom Fund and appropriated $15.7 billion to that account. In this supplemental request, you are seeking almost $2 billion for this account.

What is the status of the funds appropriated in the fiscal year 2003 supplemental? Answer. As of September 30th, the balance in the Iraq Freedom Fund (IFF) was $5,319.3 billion. With the passage of the FY 2004 Appropriations Act (P.L. 108–87), the balance was reduced to $1,822.7 billion because of the congressional rescission of funds ($3,490.0 billion).

Known planned transfers include the four actions noted below; when these transfers are approved and processed, the balance in the IFF will be $937.9 million. The remaining funds are earmarked for battlefield clearing ($150.0 million), Coalition Support funding ($638.3 million), counter-terrorism training activities ($25.0 million), and procurement of the Joint Air to Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM).

Question. Why are you seeking additional funds through the IFF, rather than through traditional appropriations accounts?

Answer. The Iraq Freedom Fund, as a transfer account, provides the financial flexibility to quickly respond to new requirements in the war against terrorism. In the FY 2004 Supplemental Appropriations Request, we are seeking $1,988,600,000 to fund urgent wartime requirements such as support for coalition forces, additional U.S. forces if necessary, over-ocean transportation, airlift and linguists. Since the

exact cost and nature of the requirements are uncertain, funding is sought in the transfer account so that funds may be moved to the correct appropriation as the requirement is defined.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES

Question. What is the status of the Defense Cooperation Account, or other funds used by the Department to collect contributions from other countries for activities in Iraq? (a) How much is in the fund? (b) What are your projections for receipts to the fund? (c) Who are the expected donor countries?

Answer. The $13,215,000 balance in the Defense Cooperation Account was transferred to the Natural Resources Risk Remediation Fund on May 22, 2003, to fund emergency fire fighting and repair of damage to oil facilities in accordance with Public Law 108-11, Apr. 16, 2003.

(a) The current balance of the Defense Cooperation Account is $1,314.63.

(b) There are no projections for receipts to the Defense Cooperation Account. Donor countries are, however, being actively solicited to provide to Iraqi reconstruction and humanitarian assistance. Funds in the Defense Cooperation Account are restricted to use as stated in the Annual Authorization of Appropriations in accordance with Title 10, United States Code, section 114.

(c) There are no projections of expected donor countries to the Defense Cooperation Account. However, many countries are contributing funds to Iraq via the MultiDonor Trust Fund or directly to the Coalition Provisional Authority. (Note: Attached is a Congressional Research Service Report that includes a list of the country contributions to reconstruction and stabilization in Postwar Iraq.)

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. Donations to the Defense Cooperation Account are not accepted by the Department if they are given with any restrictions. The use of the funds in the Defense Cooperation Account is within the sole discretion of the Congress in accordance with Title 10, United States Code Section 2608(c)(2) which states that: "Funds in the Defense Cooperation Account shall not be made available for obligation or expenditure except to the extent and in the manner provided in subsequent appropriations Acts."

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

Answer. The pledging and provision of in-kind contributions has been significant and come from many countries. To date, contributions have largely focused on the humanitarian arena. Examples include:

• Italy's provision of staff with banking and audit talents, as well as power plant and traffic control expertise.

• Japan deployed several C-130s to provide transportation services for UN agencies.

Austria's treatment of severely sick Iraq children in Austria.

Numerous countries are participating in the adopt-a-hospital program, and provided food and medical supplies.

Bosnia's provision of teams to perform the removal of landmines

Croatia's provision of blankets, tents, sleeping bags, flour, sugar and water disinfectants.

Many countries sent workers to rehabilitate water production units, train security forces and construct public health centers.

Question. This supplemental request includes $600 million for additional fuel costs. Why not ask allies in the region to provide the fuel?

Answer. The allies in the region have, and continue to, provide fuel for military and humanitarian operations. The $600 million requested in the supplemental is over and above what has been provided both as assistance in kind to U.S. Forces and for humanitarian relief of the Iraqi people. The main products required are Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), used for cooking; kerosene, used for heating in the winter months; benzene, for auto fuel, and diesel, to fuel larger equipment and power generation.

PAYMENTS TO PAKISTAN, JORDAN AND OTHER NATIONS

Question. The supplemental request includes $1.14 billion for payments to Pakistan, Jordan, and other key cooperating nations, for logistical, military and other support provided, or to be provided, to United States military operations.

Of the $1.4 billion provided for similar purposes in the fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriations act, how much remains unobligated?

Answer. Of the total $1.4 billion, the Department has expended or is in process of expending (i.e., the Secretary has provided the Congress with a 15-day notification of his intent to make a reimbursement) approximately $481 million. CENTCOM is in process of finalizing an additional reimbursement request for Pakistan totaling approximately $130 million, and the Secretary has set-aside $530 million to fund the Multi-National Division in Iraq (for which reimbursement requests have not yet been received). This leaves an unobligated balance of approximately $259 million to cover future reimbursement requests from Pakistan, Jordan and other key cooperating nations.

Question. What nations have received funding for such support, and what nations do you expect will receive assistance in the future?

Answer. The following countries have received reimbursement for support provided to U.S. military operations:

Czech Republic

Djibouti

Pakistan

Jordan
Oman

Uzbekistan

The Department currently is processing a reimbursement request for the Government of Thailand, will make additional reimbursements to Pakistan and Jordan for their continuing support, and will reimburse Poland for costs incurred with MultiNational Division in Iraq. Other nations that provide support to U.S. military operations may be reimbursed provided their requests satisfy the criteria for reimbursement.

Question. How does the Department of Defense ascertain which costs should be reimbursed?

Answer. The Department follows a rigorous review process in determining which costs should be reimbursed. The following steps outline the process used:

The U.S. Embassy submits the reimbursement OUSD(Comptroller) and the Combatant Commander.

request to the

• The Combatant Commander validates the level and type of support provided.

• The OUSD(Comptroller) analyst reviews documentation and determines if the amount requested for reimbursement is reasonable.

• OUSD(Comptroller) prepares a reimbursement package for review by the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, and internal OSD Legal Review.

• Upon receipt of State Department and OMB concurrence, and of all internal OSD coordinations, a reimbursement package is prepared for Secretary of Defense approval.

• When the reimbursement package is approved by the SECDEF, notification letters are sent to the Congress providing 15-day notice of SECDEF's intent to make a reimbursement.

15 days after delivery of the notification letters, funds are transferred to the country.

Question. What roles do the Secretary of State and the Director of OMB play in this process, since the request includes language that provides that they must concur in such payments?

Answer. All reimbursement requests are coordinated with the State Department and the Office of Management and Budget prior to submitting the reimbursement request package to the Secretary of Defense. Both the State Department and OMB must concur with the reimbursement request before the SECDEF will authorize payment.

Question. The bill language that has been submitted as part of this request expands upon previous language that limited payments to nations that provided only logistical and military support, as opposed to other support. In addition, such payments were limited to nations that provided support in connection with military action in Iraq and the global war on terrorism; the new request contains no such limitation. Why is the Department seeking broader authority?

Answer. The Administration requested the additional authority to provide flexibility in responding to requests for support from coalition partners to cover unknown eventualities not otherwise covered by military or logistics support.

PROCUREMENT OF ITEMS

Question. The supplemental request includes almost $5.3 billion for procurement of a variety of weapons and good needed to maintain our operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in support of Operation Noble Eagle.

Are these funds only being requested to replace items lost during combat operations, or will new items be purchased to enhance our military readiness?

Answer. Funds requested will replace items lost during operations and will also provide new equipment and capabilities for units deploying to Iraq. Additionally, for funds requested to replace items lost during combat operations, if an upgraded item exists (i.e. a newer model vehicle or computer processor) it will be purchased rather than the older version that was destroyed/expended. Significant new items being procured are up-armored HMMWVS (UAH) and equipment to support deploying Enhanced Separate Brigades.

Question. Will the supplemental funding allow for the replacement of all items lost during combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan? If not, what items will not be replaced, and why not?

Answer. Only items that have been deemed critical and whose inventory levels dictate that replacement items must be purchased will be replaced. If every item destroyed or expended were to be replaced, the cost would rapidly become prohibitive.

Question. Will the supplemental funding allow for the purchase of equipment to enhance force protection in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Answer. Yes, the supplemental allows for purchase of force protection items, in fact, certain things in the supplemental are for the express purpose of enhancing force protection for deploying units-for example, up-armored HMMWVs and counter-sniper, or counter-mortar radars (procured under the Rapid Equip the Force initiative). Other procurement items include mission essential equipment that will enhance the dismounted soldier's capability advantage against the enemy.

Question. Will supplemental funding provide for improved housing morale related items for U.S. forces? If so, will such funding provide only for U.S. forces or for other coalition forces as well?

Answer. Yes, the FY 04 supplemental funding will cover the cost for improved habitability for U.S. forces such as power generators, latrine units, mess facilities, laundry, and relocatable quarters. These deployed troops will be moved out of substandard, vacant buildings and tents. They will be provided with secure, non-permanent billeting in temporary base camps. Furthermore, the supplemental request will also provide Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) support for deployed personnel, such as the Rest and Recreation Leave program for active duty military members and civilians serving in combat locations. Other MWR support for the troops and their families includes recreation/entertainment activities, commissary support, family support, and exchange support.

For coalition forces, the supplemental funding will provide basic sustainment (food, shelter, laundry, supplies) support for those countries that cannot cover those costs themselves. This support will be funded separately from any MWR funding for

U.S. forces.

DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

Question. Included in the supplemental request, is $73 million for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities. These funds are requested for such activities related to Afghanistan.

What activities, specifically, will be supported with this $73 million request? Answer. The United States Government is still working with the international community to develop specific programs, which address the drug production problem in Afghanistan. DoD envisions providing support for infrastructure for land ports of entry; an intelligence fusion center; maintenance facilities, hangars, trucks, etc.; establishing communications networks; individual non-lethal equipment such as night vision goggles and global positioning systems; ground sensors between ports of entry; research and development; and other regional support.

Question. In material accompanying the request, is an explanation that these funds will be used for Afghanistan's, unified campaign against narcotics trafficking and terrorist activities. Does the language, as submitted to Congress, allow for these funds to be used in support of counter-terrorism activities?

Answer. The Department's counterdrug activities include those measures taken to detect, interdict, disrupt, or curtail any activity that is reasonably related to narcotics trafficking. This includes, but is not limited to, measures taken to detect, interdict, disrupt, or curtail activities related to substances, material, weapons, or resources used to finance, support, secure, cultivate, process, or transport illegal