September 22, 2021


News Network

Opening Remarks by Secretary Antony J. Blinken Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

16 min read

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

Washington, D.C.

106 Dirksen Senate Office Building

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.  Ranking Member Risch, thank you very much.  And to all members, I appreciate the opportunity to be with all of you today to discuss our policy on Afghanistan, including where we are, how we got here, and where we’re going in the weeks and months ahead.

For 20 years, Congress has conducted oversight and provided funding for the mission in Afghanistan.  And I know from my time as a staff member here in this room for then-Senator Biden just how invaluable a partner Congress is.  As I said when I was nominated, I believe strongly in Congress’s traditional role as a partner in foreign policy making.  I’m committed to working with you on the path forward in Afghanistan and to advance the interests of the American people.

On this 20th anniversary of 9/11, as we honor nearly 3,000 men, women, and children who lost their lives, we are reminded of why we went to Afghanistan in the first place: to bring justice to those who attacked us and to ensure it would never happen again.  We achieved those objectives a long time ago.  Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011.  Al-Qaida’s capabilities were degraded significantly, including its ability to plan and conduct external operations.  After 20 years, 2,461 American lives lost, 20,000 injuries, $2 trillion spent, it was time to end America’s longest war.

When President Biden took office in January, he inherited an agreement that his predecessor had reached with the Taliban to remove all remaining U.S. forces from Afghanistan by May 1st of this year.  As part of that agreement, the previous administration pressed the Afghan Government to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners, including some top war commanders.  Meanwhile, it reduced our own force presence to 2,500 troops.

In return, the Taliban agreed to stop attacking U.S. and partner forces and to refrain from threatening Afghanistan’s major cities.  But the Taliban continued its relentless march on remote outposts, checkpoints, villages, and districts, as well as some of the major roads connecting the cities.

By January of 2021, the Taliban was in its strongest military position since 9/11, and we had the smallest number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan since 2001.

As a result, upon taking office, President Biden immediately faced the choice between ending the war or escalating it.  Had he not followed through on his predecessor’s commitment, attacks on our forces and those of our allies would have resumed and the Taliban’s nationwide assault on Afghanistan’s major cities would have commenced.  That would have required sending substantially more U.S. forces into Afghanistan to defend ourselves and to prevent a Taliban takeover, taking casualties – and with at best the prospect of restoring a stalemate and remaining stuck in Afghanistan, under fire, indefinitely.

There’s no evidence that staying longer would have made the Afghan Security Forces or the Afghan Government any more resilient or self-sustaining.  If 20 years, hundreds of billions of dollars in support, equipment, training did not suffice, why would another year, another five, another ten?

Conversely, there is nothing that strategic competitors like China and Russia – or adversaries like Iran and North Korea – would have liked more than for the United States to reup a 20-year war and remain bogged down in Afghanistan for another decade.

In advance of the President’s decision, I was in constant contact with our allies and partners to hear their views and factor them into our thinking.  When the President announced the withdrawal, NATO immediately and unanimously embraced it.  We all set to work together on the drawdown.

Similarly, we were intensely focused on the safety of Americans in Afghanistan.  In March, we began urging them to leave the country.  In total, between March and August, we sent 19 specific messages with that warning, as well as offers of help, including financial assistance to pay for plane tickets.

Despite this effort, at the time the evacuation began, there were still thousands of Americans in Afghanistan, almost all of whom were evacuated by August 31st.  Many were dual citizens living in Afghanistan for years, decades, generations.  Deciding whether or not to leave the place that they know as home is a wrenching decision.

In April, we began drawing down our embassy, ordering non-essential personnel to depart.

We also used this time to significantly speed up the processing of Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans who worked for us.  When we took office, we inherited a program with a 14-step process based on a statutory framework enacted by Congress involving multiple agencies – and a backlog of more than 17,000 SIV applicants.  There had not been a single SIV applicant interview in Kabul in nine months, going back to March of 2020.  The program was basically in a stall.

Within two weeks of taking office, we restarted the SIV interview process in Kabul.  On February 4th, one of the first executive orders issued by President Biden directed us to immediately review the SIV program to identify causes of undue delay and find ways to process SIV applications more quickly.

This spring, I directed significant additional resources to the program, expanding the team of people in Washington processing applications from 10 to 50, doubling the number of SIV adjudicators in Kabul in our embassy there.  Even as many embassy personnel began to return under ordered departure, we sent more consular officers to Kabul to process SIV applications.

As a result of these and other steps, including working with Congress, especially this committee, Senator Shaheen and others, by May we had reduced the average processing time for Special Immigrant Visas by more than one year.  Even amid a COVID surge in Kabul, we continued to issue visas.  And we went from issuing about 100 Special Immigrant Visas per week in March to more than 1,000 per week in August – when our evacuation and relocation effort began.

That emergency evacuation was sparked by the collapse of the Afghan security forces and government.  Throughout the year, we were constantly assessing their staying power and considering multiple scenarios.  Even the most pessimistic assessments did not predict that the government forces in Kabul would collapse when U.S. – while U.S. forces remained.  They were focused on what would happen after the United States withdrew, from September onward.  As General Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said, “Nothing I or anyone else saw indicated a collapse of this army and this government in 11 days.”

Nonetheless, we planned and exercised a wide range of contingencies.  Because of that planning, we were able to draw down our embassy and move our remaining personnel to the airport within 48 hours.  And the military – placed on standby by President Biden – was able to secure the airport and start the evacuation within 72 hours.

And yes, that evacuation was an extraordinary effort – under the most difficult conditions imaginable – by our diplomats, by our military, by our intelligence professionals.  They worked around the clock to get American citizens, Afghans who helped us, citizens of our Allies and partners, and at-risk Afghans on planes, out of the country, off to the United States or to transit locations that our diplomats had arranged or negotiated in multiple countries.  Our consular team worked 24/7 to reach out to Americans who could still be in country, making 55,000 phone calls, sending 33,000 emails by August 31st – and they’re still at it.

In the midst of this heroic effort, an ISIS-K attack killed 13 service members working the gates at HKIA, wounded 20 others, killed and wounded scores of Afghans.  Our service members gave their lives so that others can continue to live theirs.

In the end, we completed one of the biggest airlifts in history, with 124,000 people evacuated to safety.

And on August 31st in Kabul, the military mission in Afghanistan officially ended and a new diplomatic mission began.

I want to acknowledge the more than two dozen countries that have helped with the relocation effort – some serving as transit hubs, some welcoming Afghan evacuees for longer periods of time.

And as the 9/11 report suggested, it is essential that we accelerate the appointment process for national security officials, since a catastrophic attack could occur with little or no notice.  Today, there are nearly 80 State Department nominees pending before the Senate.  Nearly two dozen have already been voted out of this committee on a strong bipartisan basis and simply await a vote in the Senate.  For our national security, I respectfully urge the Senate and this committee to move as swiftly as possible to consider and confirm all pending nominees and to address what is a significant disruption in our national security policymaking.

Now let me briefly outline what the State Department has done in the last couple of weeks and where we’re going in the weeks ahead.

First, as you know, we moved our diplomatic operations from Kabul to Doha, where our new Afghan affairs team is hard at work.  Many of our key partners have done the same thing.  They’ve joined us there in Doha.

Second, we’ve continued our relentless efforts to help any remaining Americans, as well as Afghans and citizens of Allied and partner nations, leave Afghanistan if they choose.

Last week, on Thursday, a Qatar Airways charter flight with U.S. citizens and others on board departed Kabul and landed in Doha.  On Friday, a second flight carrying U.S. citizens and others departed Afghanistan.  These flights were the result of coordinated efforts by the United States, Qatar, and Turkey to reopen the airport and intense diplomacy to start the flights.

In addition to those flights, half a dozen American citizens, a dozen permanent residents of the United States have also left Afghanistan via an overland routes with our assistance.

We’re in constant contact with American citizens still in Afghanistan who’ve told us they wish to leave.  Each has been assigned a case management team to offer specific guidance and instructions.  Some declined to be on the first flights on Thursday and Friday for reasons, including needing more time to make arrangements, wanting to remain with extended family for now, or medical issues that precluded traveling last week.

We will continue to help Americans – and Afghans to whom we have a special commitment – depart Afghanistan if they choose, just as we’ve done in other countries where we’ve evacuated our embassy and hundreds or even thousands of Americans remained behind – for example, in Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, Somalia.  There’s no deadline to this mission.

Third, we’re focused on counterterrorism.

The Taliban’s committed to prevent terrorist groups from using Afghanistan as a base for external operations that could threaten the United States or our allies, including al-Qaida and ISIS-K.  We’ll hold them accountable for that.  That does not mean that we will rely on them.  We will maintain a vigilant effort to monitor threats, robust counterterrorism capabilities in the region to neutralize those threats if necessary and as we do in places around the world where we do not have military forces on the ground.

Fourth, we continue our intensive diplomacy with Allies and partners.

We initiated a statement joined by more than 100 countries and a United Nations Security Council resolution setting out the international community’s expectations of a Taliban-led government.  We expect the Taliban to ensure freedom of travel; to make good on its counterterrorism commitments; to uphold the basic rights of the Afghan people, including women, girls, minorities; to name a broadly representative permanent government; to forswear reprisals.  The legitimacy and support that it seeks from the international community will depend entirely on its conduct.

We’ve organized contact groups of key countries to ensure that the international community continues to speak and act together on Afghanistan and to leverage our combined influence.

Last week, I led a ministerial meeting of 22 countries, plus NATO, the EU, the United Nations, to align our efforts.

And fifth, we’ll continue to support humanitarian aid to the Afghan people.  Consistent with sanctions, this aid will not flow through the government, but rather through independent organizations like NGOs and UN agencies.

Yesterday, we announced that the United States has provided nearly 64 million in new humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan to meet critical health and nutrition needs; to address the protection concerns of women, children, and minorities; to help more children – including girls – go back to school.  This additional funding means the United States has provided nearly 330 million in assistance to the Afghan people this fiscal year.

In Doha and Ramstein, I toured the facilities where Afghans that we evacuated are being processed before moving on to their next destinations.  Here at home, I spent time at the Dulles Expo Center, where more than 45,000 Afghans have been processed after arriving in the United States.  It’s remarkable to see what our diplomats, our military, employees from many civilian agencies across the U.S. Government have been able to achieve in a very short time.

They’ve met an enormous human need.  They’ve coordinated food, water, sanitation for thousands of people.  They’re arranging medical care, including the delivery of babies.  They’re reuniting families that were separated, caring for unaccompanied minors.  It’s an extraordinary interagency effort – a powerful testament to the skill, the dedication, the humanity of our people.

And I think we can all be deeply proud of what they’re doing.  And as we’ve done throughout our history, Americans are now welcoming families from Afghanistan into our communities, helping them resettle as they start new lives.  And that’s something to be proud of as well.

With that, I thank the members of this committee and look forward to your questions.


More from: Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

News Network

  • Defense Logistics: Preliminary Observations on Equipment Reset Challenges and Issues for the Army and Marine Corps
    In U.S GAO News
    The United States is engaged in an unconventional war, not a war against military forces of one country, but an irregular war against terrorist cells with global networks. Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom are sustained military operations, which are taking a toll on the condition and readiness of military equipment that, in some cases, is more than 20 years old. The Army and Marine Corps will likely incur large expenditures in the future to reset (repair or replace) a significant amount of equipment when hostilities cease. The Army has requested about $13 billion in its fiscal year 2006 supplemental budget request for equipment reset. Today's testimony addresses (1) the environment, pace of operations, and operational requirements in Southwest Asia, and their affects on the Army's and Marine Corps's equipping and maintenance strategies; (2) equipment maintenance consequences created by these equipping and maintenance strategies; and (3) challenges affecting the timing and cost of Army and Marine Corps equipment reset. GAO's observations are based on equipment-related GAO reports issued in fiscal years 2004 through 2006, as well as ongoing related work.In response to the harsh operating environments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the unanticipated and prolonged length and pace of sustained operations, the Army and Marine Corps have developed and implemented several initiatives to equip its forces and maintain the extensive amounts of equipment in theater. Environmental factors such as heat, sand, and dust have taken their toll on sensitive components. In addition, operating equipment at a pace well in excess of peacetime operations is generating a large operational maintenance and replacement requirement that must be addressed when units return to their home stations. To meet ongoing operational requirements, the Army and Marine Corps have developed pools of equipment in theater to expedite the replacement of equipment damaged during operations and directed that equipment necessary for OIF and OEF operations remain in theater. In response, the Army and Marine Corps have developed several initiatives to increase the maintenance capacity in theater to be able to provide near-depot level repair capabilities. Although the Army and Marine Corps are reporting high rates of equipment readiness and have developed and implemented plans to increase the maintenance capabilities in theater, these actions have a wide range of consequences. Many of the equipment items used in Southwest Asia are not receiving depot-level repair because equipment items are being retained in theater or at home units and the Army has scaled back on the scope of work performed at the depots. As a result, the condition of equipment items in theater will likely continue to worsen and the equipment items will likely require more extensive repair or replacement when they eventually return to home stations. The Army and Marine Corps will face a number of ongoing and long-term challenges that will affect the timing and cost of equipment reset, such as Army and Marine Corps transformation initiatives, reset of prepositioned equipment, efforts to replace equipment left overseas from the active, National Guard, and Reserve units, as well as the potential transfer of U.S. military equipment and the potential for continuing logistical support to Iraqi Security Forces. Also, both the Marine Corps and Army will have to better align their funding requests with the related program strategies to sustain, modernize, or replace existing legacy equipment systems. Finally, both services will have to make difficult choices and trade-offs when it comes to their many competing equipment programs. While the services are working to refine overall requirements, the total requirements and costs are unclear and raise a number of questions as to how the services will afford them. Until the services are able to firm up these requirements and cost estimates, neither the Secretary of Defense nor the Congress will be in a sound position to weigh the trade offs and risks.
    [Read More…]
  • Law Firms Representing Purdue Pharma Agree to Relinquish $1 Million in Settlement with U.S. Trustee Program
    In Crime News
    The Department of Justice’s U.S. Trustee Program (USTP) has entered into a settlement with three law firms representing Purdue Pharma (Purdue) in its ongoing bankruptcy cases. The firms are Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP; and Dechert LLP (the Firms). 
    [Read More…]
  • Houston man sent to prison for coercion and enticement via Kik
    In Justice News
    A 63-year-old Houston [Read More…]
  • Thirteen Charged in Federal Court Following Riot at the United States Capitol
    In Crime News
    Thirteen individuals have been charged so far in federal court in the District of Columbia related to crimes committed at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C, on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021. In addition to those who have been charged, additional complaints have been submitted and investigations are ongoing.
    [Read More…]
  • Two Men Charged in Multi-million Dollar Darknet Drug Distribution Conspiracy
    In Crime News
    Two Texas men were charged in a complaint unsealed today for their alleged participation in a drug distribution conspiracy perpetrated over the Darknet.
    [Read More…]
  • Operation Legend Expanded to Indianapolis
    In Crime News
    Today, the expansion of Operation Legend was announced in Indianapolis.  Operation Legend is a sustained, systematic and coordinated law enforcement initiative in which federal law enforcement agencies work in conjunction with state and local law enforcement officials to fight violent crime.  The Operation was first launched on July 8 in Kansas City, MO., and expanded on July 22, 2020, to Chicago and Albuquerque, to Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee on July 29, 2020, and to St. Louis and Memphis on August 6, 2020.
    [Read More…]
  • Houston man charged in Memorial Drive thefts
    In Justice News
    A 26-year old Houston [Read More…]
  • Cryptocurrency Fraudster Pleads Guilty to Securities Fraud and Money Laundering Charges in Multi-Million Dollar Investment Scheme
    In Crime News
    A citizen of Sweden pleaded guilty to securities fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering charges that defrauded more than 3,500 victims of more than $16 million.
    [Read More…]
  • Covid-19: Data Quality and Considerations for Modeling and Analysis
    In U.S GAO News
    The rapid spread and magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic have underscored the importance of having quality data, analyses, and models describing the potential trajectory of COVID-19 to help understand the effects of the disease in the U.S. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is using multiple surveillance systems to collect data on COVID-19 in the U.S. in collaboration with state, local, and academic and other partners. The data from these surveillance systems can be useful for understanding the disease, but decision makers and analysts must understand their limitations in order to interpret them properly. For example, surveillance data on the number of reported COVID-19 cases are incomplete for a number of reasons, and they are an undercount the true number of cases, according to CDC and others. There are multiple approaches to analyzing COVID-19 data that yield different insights. For example, some approaches can help compare the effects of the disease across population groups. Additional analytical approaches can help to address incomplete and inconsistent reporting of COVID-19 deaths as well. For example, analysts can examine the number of deaths beyond what would normally be expected in the absence of the pandemic. Examining higher-than-expected deaths from all causes helps to address limitations in the reporting of COVID-19 deaths because the number of total deaths is likely more accurate than the numbers of deaths from specific causes. The figure below shows actual deaths from the weeks ending January 1 through June 27, 2020, based on data from CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, compared with the expected deaths based on prior years’ data. Deaths that exceeded this threshold starting in late March are considered excess deaths that may be related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Higher-Than-Expected Weekly Mortality for 2020, as of July 14, 2020 Analysts have used several forecasting models to predict the spread of COVID-19, and understanding these models requires understanding their purpose and limitations. For example, some models attempt to predict the effects of various interventions, whereas other models attempt to forecast the number of cases based on current data. At the beginning of an outbreak, such predictions are less likely to be accurate, but accuracy can improve as the disease becomes better understood. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant loss of life and profoundly disrupted the U.S. economy and society, and the Congress has taken action to support a multifaceted federal response on an unprecedented scale. It is important for decision makers to understand the limitations of COVID-19 data, and the uses and limitations of various methods of analyzing and interpreting those data. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) includes a provision for GAO to, in general, conduct monitoring and oversight of the authorities and funding provided to address the COVID-19 pandemic and the effect of the pandemic on the health, economy, and public and private institutions of the U.S. This technology assessment examines (1) collection methods and limitations of COVID-19 surveillance data reported by CDC, (2) approaches for analyzing COVID-19 data, and (3) uses and limitations of forecast modeling for understanding of COVID-19. In conducting this assessment, GAO obtained publicly available information from CDC and state health departments, among other sources, and reviewed relevant peer reviewed and preprint (non-peer-reviewed) literature, as well as published technical data on specific models. For more information, contact Timothy M. Persons, PhD at (202) 512-6888 or, SaraAnn Moessbauer at (202) 512-4943, or, or Mary Denigan-Macauley, PhD at (202) 512-7114 or
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Michael R. Pompeo and Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena at a Press Availability
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Joint Statement between the United States and Uzbekistan on the Successful Conclusion of 2020 Annual Bilateral Consultations and Commencement of a Strategic Partnership Dialogue
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Georgia Man Pleads Guilty as a Result of Multi-State Dog Fighting, Drug Trafficking Investigation
    In Crime News
    A well-known dog-fighting trainer and breeder has pleaded guilty to a federal animal fighting charge as the result of an ongoing investigation into a significant multi-state dog fighting and drug trafficking ring.
    [Read More…]
  • Afghanistan: Actions Needed to Improve Accountability of U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan Government
    In U.S GAO News
    The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of Defense (DOD) award direct assistance to Afghanistan, using bilateral agreements and multilateral trust funds that provide funds through the Afghan national budget. GAO assessed (1) the extent to which the United States, through USAID and DOD, has increased direct assistance, (2) USAID and DOD steps to ensure accountability for bilateral direct assistance, and (3) USAID and DOD steps to ensure accountability for direct assistance via multilateral trust funds for Afghanistan. GAO reviewed USAID, DOD, and multilateral documents and met with U.S. officials and staffs of multilateral trust funds in Washington, D.C., and Afghanistan.The United States more than tripled its awards of direct assistance to Afghanistan in fiscal year 2010 compared with fiscal year 2009. USAID awards of direct assistance grew from over $470 million in fiscal year 2009 to over $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2010. USAID awarded $1.3 billion to the World Bank-administered Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF) in fiscal year 2010, of which the bank has received $265 million as of July 2011. DOD direct assistance to two ministries grew from about $195 million in fiscal year 2009 to about $576 million in fiscal year 2010, including contributions to fund police salaries through the United Nations Development Program-administered (UNDP) Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan (LOTFA). USAID and DOD have taken steps to help ensure the accountability of their bilateral direct assistance to Afghan ministries, but USAID has not required risk assessments in all cases before awarding these funds. For example, USAID did not complete preaward risk assessments in two of the eight cases GAO identified. Although current USAID policy does not require preaward risk assessments in all cases, these two awards were made after the USAID Administrator's July 2010 commitment to Congress that USAID would not proceed with direct assistance to an Afghan public institution before assessing its capabilities. In these two cases, USAID awarded $46 million to institutions whose financial management capacity were later assessed as "high risk." USAID has established various financial and other controls in its bilateral direct assistance agreements, such as requiring separate bank accounts and audits of the funds. USAID has generally complied with these controls, but GAO identified instances in which it did not. For example, in only 3 of 19 cases did USAID document that it had approved one ministry's prefinancing contract documents. DOD personnel in Afghanistan assess the risk of providing funds to two security ministries through quarterly reviews of each ministry's capacity. DOD officials also review records of ministry expenditures to assess whether ministries have used funds as intended. DOD established formal risk assessment procedures in June 2011, following GAO discussions with DOD about initial findings. USAID and DOD generally rely on the World Bank and UNDP to ensure accountability over U.S. direct assistance provided multilaterally through ARTF and LOTFA, but USAID has not consistently complied with its risk assessment policies in awarding funds to ARTF. During GAO's review, DOD established procedures in June 2011 requiring that it assess risks before contributing funds to LOTFA. The World Bank and UNDP use ARTF and LOTFA monitoring agents to help ensure that ministries use contributions as intended. However, security conditions and weaknesses in Afghan ministries pose challenges to their oversight. For example, the ARTF monitoring agent recently resigned due to security concerns. The World Bank is now seeking a new monitoring agent and does not anticipate a gap in monitoring. In addition, weaknesses in the Ministry of Interior's systems for paying wages to police challenge UNDP efforts to ensure that the ministry is using LOTFA funds as intended. GAO recommends that USAID (1) establish and implement policy requiring risk assessments in all cases before awarding bilateral direct assistance funds, (2) take additional steps to help ensure it implements controls for bilateral direct assistance, and (3) ensure adherence to its risk assessment policies for ARTF. In commenting on the first recommendation, USAID stated that its existing policies call for some form of risk assessment for all awards and that it has taken new steps to ensure risk assessment. GAO retained its recommendation because existing USAID policies do not require preaward risk assessments in all cases. USAID concurred with GAO's other recommendations.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Pompeo’s Meeting with Indian External Affairs Minister Jaishankar
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Jake Tapper of State of the Union on CNN
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Military Operations: DOD’s Fiscal Year 2003 Funding and Reported Obligations in Support of the Global War on Terrorism
    In U.S GAO News
    The Global War on Terrorism--principally involving operations in Afghanistan and Iraq--was funded in fiscal year 2003 by Congress's appropriation of almost $69 billion. To assist Congress in its oversight of spending, GAO is undertaking a series of reviews relating to contingency operations in support of the Global War on Terrorism. In September 2003, GAO issued a report that discussed fiscal year 2003 obligations and funding for the war through June 2003. This report continues the review of fiscal year 2003 by analyzing obligations reported in support of the Global War on Terrorism and reviews whether the amount of funding received by the military services was adequate to cover DOD's obligations for the war from October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003. GAO will also review the war's reported obligations and funding for fiscal year 2004.In fiscal year 2003, DOD reported obligations of over $61 billion in support of the Global War on Terrorism. GAO's analysis of the obligation data showed that 64 percent of fiscal year 2003 obligations reported for the war on terrorism went for Operation Iraqi Freedom; among the DOD components, the Army had the most obligations (46 percent); and among appropriation accounts the operation and maintenance account had the highest level of reported obligations (71 percent). The adequacy of funding available for the Global War on Terrorism for fiscal year 2003 military personnel and operation and maintenance accounts varied by service. For military personnel, the Army, Navy, and Air Force ended the fiscal year with more reported obligations for the war than funding and had to cover the shortfalls with money appropriated for their budgeted peacetime personnel costs. For operation and maintenance accounts, the Army, Navy, and Air Force appeared to have more funding than reported obligations for the war. However, the Navy and Air Force have stated that the seeming excess funding ($299 million and $176.6 million respectively) were in support of the war on terrorism, but had not been recorded as such. Therefore, Navy and Air Force obligations exactly match funding. The Marine Corps used funds appropriated for its budgeted peacetime operation and maintenance activities to cover shortfalls in funding for the war.
    [Read More…]
  • Federal Real Property Asset Management: Additional Direction in Government-Wide Guidance Could Enhance Natural Disaster Resilience
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found Selected agencies have taken some actions to incorporate resilience to natural disasters into their assets through processes used to make portfolio-wide decisions—known as “asset management”. GAO has previously identified characteristics for effective asset management, such as using quality data on assets. GAO found that selected agencies varied in how they incorporated resilience when applying these characteristics. For example, some agencies collected natural disaster risk data across their portfolios by conducting vulnerability assessments, whereas, others have not. In addition, officials from all four selected agencies said they primarily incorporate resilience information when constructing or repairing individual projects by using current design standards or assessing specific natural disaster risks. For example, according to officials from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a building at the McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge in Texas was able to sustain multiple hurricanes because it was rebuilt to exceed design standards. Project at the McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge that Elevated Concrete Piers and Improved the Roof Design to Address Hurricane Risks GAO found that federal government-wide guidance and requirements on asset management direct agencies to address risks such as climate change but do not explicitly direct them to incorporate natural disaster resilience into asset management decisions. In particular, a January 2021 executive order requires agencies to develop a climate action plan describing their vulnerabilities. However, neither this order nor Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) guidance require agencies to use the information collected to make investment decisions. Accordingly, agencies with high exposure to future natural disasters may not proactively incorporate resilience into decisions when prioritizing investments across their portfolios. According to the International Organization for Standardization's standard on climate change and GAO's Disaster Resilience Framework, organizations should assess how they might be affected by climate change, including natural disasters, and apply that information to decision-making. Using information gathered from tools, such as vulnerability assessments, can help agencies determine if an investment in assets to enhance resilience could provide the most value to the agencies in meeting their missions when compared to other potential investments. Why GAO Did This Study The federal government spends billions of dollars each year to manage real property assets, such as buildings, levees, and roads. The rising frequency and severity of natural disasters expose these assets to damage and the government to fiscal liabilities. In 2020, the United States experienced 22 separate billion-dollar natural disasters. As the owner of real property assets, federal agencies can enhance the natural disaster resilience of real property through asset management. This can include actions to prepare for disasters. GAO was asked to determine how agencies prevent or reduce damage to real property caused by natural disasters. This report addresses (1) how selected agencies have incorporated natural disaster resilience into their assets and (2) the extent to which government-wide guidance directs agencies to incorporate natural disaster resilience into asset management. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed key characteristics and principles for asset management and natural disaster resilience from GAO's prior work; reviewed agency documents; interviewed officials from four selected agencies that owned a large number of assets (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, General Services Administration, National Park Service, and FWS); and reviewed OMB guidance.
    [Read More…]
  • Designations of ISIS-Mozambique, JNIM, and al-Shabaab Leaders
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • How We Transformed Public Health Data for COVID-19 and the Futur
    In Human Health, Resources and Services
    Data is the lifeblood of [Read More…]
  • Man Sentenced to 55 Months in Prison for Violating Sanctions Against Senior Venezuelan Leaders
    In Crime News
    More from: March 17, 2021 [Read More…]
Network News © 2005 Area.Control.Network™ All rights reserved.