Contact: Josh Holly; 202.226.3988
Hunter Statement on Building Partnership Capacity and the Development of the Interagency Process
Washington D.C. – House Armed Services Committee Ranking Republican Duncan Hunter (R-CA) released the following opening statement for the committee’s hearing on building partnership and the development of the interagency process:
"Today, our committee will receive testimony about both how our nation is building the capacity of foreign nations and how we could structure our national security architecture to achieve our nation’s security objectives. I’d like to join our Chairman in welcoming our witnesses, Secretary Gates and Secretary Rice, as well as Admiral Mullen who has offered to help answer Members’ questions, and I note that your testimony today will inform the national security policy and budgetary decisions that will occur within the House of Representatives over the coming year. Thank you for being here.
"It seems to me that, at first glance, today’s topics—building partners’ capacity and reforming the interagency system—are unrelated. However, I believe that the need for the Defense Department (DoD) to train and equip foreign forces and to provide funding for stabilization programs is emblematic of the need for interagency reform.
"In recent years, the defense authorization laws have grown the ability of the Department of Defense to build the capacity of foreign forces or to otherwise stabilize foreign nations through numerous programs. I am sure that today, our witnesses will describe these initiatives, including:
"The 3-year ‘section 1206’ pilot program that allows DoD to train and equip partner militaries for counterterrorism or stability operations;
"The 3-year ‘section 1207’ transfer authority that allows State Department to re-direct DoD funds to governance, train-and-equip, or other stabilization programs worldwide; and
"The longer-term ‘section 1208’ program employed by our Special Operations Forces.
"As you can see, Congress has recognized the need for the Defense Department to play in this foreign assistance arena.
"However, I note that Congress enacted many of these programs on a temporary basis and clearly outlined our legislative intent that they serve as ‘stop gap’ measures. As mentioned during an April 2006 full committee hearing on building partner capacity, we wanted to give the Administration time to address the larger problem of how our ability to train and equip foreign forces and to provide stabilization aid is arranged under the State Department’s traditional foreign assistance programs. We wanted to avoid increasing reliance on our nation’s military personnel, who have a "can do" ethos and are willing to help in this area—but who are actively engaged in combat operations and who need every single penny of operation and maintenance funding that we are providing to them.
"For example, I note with some concern that $10 million of DoD funding was recently used for governance and infrastructure in Nepal—to hedge against the risk of communist domination. I am curious as to which DoD programs received $10 million less funding so that this stabilization project could occur.
"More broadly, I would like to hear about the U.S. foreign assistance strategy and the steps you have taken in the two years since this committee’s initial foreign assistance hearing to address shortfalls and challenges in the broader foreign assistance program. It seems to me that the need to train and equip foreign forces and to provide stabilization programs will remain necessary as we continue to fight the global war on terror. That said, the long-term answer must reflect an integrated approach to foreign assistance and not simply a shift in those types of missions to U.S. military forces—and therefore an additional draw on funding from DoD’s coffers.
"And I believe that a long-term, integrated approach should emerge from an updated national security architecture that has adapted to the full range of 21st Century challenges. Members of Congress have been actively discussing possible reforms of our national security architecture to make interagency process and structures as efficient and effective as possible. In fact, this committee has played an integral role in exploring this issue through both a legislatively-required study and the work of our Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee. Today, we’re discussing foreign assistance, but reforming the interagency would also have a beneficial impact on a range of other important issues—for example, staffing provincial reconstruction teams, deploying civilian personnel abroad, and involving other departments, such as Justice and Homeland Security, in overseas endeavors.
"This Committee wants to be as supportive as possible in achieving the range of our nation’s national security missions. To develop the various elements within the foreign assistance tool-box without damaging the ability of our military to accomplish their assigned missions, we must take a careful look at the roles, missions, and relationship among our national security-related departments and agencies. This hearing today will help Members of this committee to have this conversation."
– House Armed Services Committee Ranking Republican Duncan Hunter (R-CA) released the following opening statement for the committee’s hearing on building partnership and the development of the interagency process:
###