Foreign Assistance
Reporting of Defense Articles and Services Provided through Drawdowns Needs to Be Improved Gao ID: GAO-02-1027 September 20, 2002Since 1961, the President has had special statutory authority to order the "drawdown" of defense articles--such as aircraft, vehicles, various weapons, and spare parts--and services or military education and training from Department of Defense (DOD) and military service inventories and transfer them to foreign countries or international organizations. Drawdowns give the President the ability to respond to U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives, such as counternarcotics efforts, peacekeeping needs, and unforeseen military and nonmilitary emergencies, by providing military assistance without first seeking additional legislative authority or appropriations from Congress. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency's reports to Congress on the costs and delivery status of drawdowns are inaccurate and incomplete. Two principal problems contribute to the agency's inability to meet the reporting requirements. First, its information system for recording drawdown data is outmoded and difficult to use--service drawdown reports are in different formats, and any conversion errors have to be manually corrected. Second, the services do not regularly provide updates to the agency on drawdown costs and deliveries, and available information sometimes does not get into the system. Drawdowns benefit the United States and foreign recipients primarily by providing the President the flexibility to address foreign policy and national security objectives quickly. Drawdowns also allow the President to provide defense articles and services to improve foreign recipients' capability to conduct military and police missions in support of U.S. foreign policy. Other benefits cited include improved military-to-military relations between the U.S. military services and the foreign recipients and expanded markets for U.S. defense firms. According to U.S. and foreign military officials, the use of drawdowns presents some concerns. Because drawdowns are used to quickly address U.S. national interests and emergencies, the costs associated with a drawdown, such as refurbishment and transportation, are not budgeted for by the services and are not reimbursed.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-02-1027, Foreign Assistance: Reporting of Defense Articles and Services Provided through Drawdowns Needs to Be Improved
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-1027
entitled 'Foreign Assistance: Reporting of Defense Articles and
Services Provided through Drawdowns Needs to Be Improved' which was
released on September 20, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to Congressional Committees:
September 2002:
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE:
Reporting of Defense Articles and Services Provided through Drawdowns
Needs to Be Improved:
GAO-02-1027:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
DSCA Does Not Meet Congressional Reporting Requirements:
Drawdowns Benefit the United States and Foreign Recipients:
Drawdowns Present Some Concerns for the United States and Foreign
Recipients:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Scope and Methodology:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Drawdown Authorizations, Fiscal Year 1961-June 30, 2002:
Appendix II: Drawdown Authorizations as a Percentage of Total U.S.
Military Assistance, Fiscal Years 1961-2001:
Appendix III: Comparison of DSCA and Military Services‘ Data on
Drawdown
Transfers, Fiscal Years 1961-2001:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix V: GAO COntact and Staff Acknowledgements:
GAO Contact:
Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Drawdown Authorizations, Fiscal Year 1961--June 30, 2002:
Table 2: Drawdown Authorizations, Fiscal Year 1961--June 30, 2002, by
Legislative Authority:
Table 3: Total Drawdown Authorizations as a Percentage of Total U.S.
Military Assistance, Fiscal Years 1961-2001:
Table 4: DSCA and Military Services‘ Data on Cost of Defense Articles
and Services Transferred to Foreign Recipients, Fiscal Years 1993-2001:
Figure:
Figure 1: Value of Drawdowns Authorized as a Percentage of Total U.S.
Military Assistance, Fiscal Years 1961-2001:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DSCA: Defense Security Cooperation Agency:
Letter September 20, 2002:
The Honorable Carl Levin, Chairman
The Honorable John W. Warner, Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate:
The Honorable Bob Stump, Chairman
The Honorable Ike Skelton, Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives:
Since 1961, the President has had special statutory authority to order
the ’drawdown“ of defense articles--such as aircraft, vehicles, various
weapons, and spare parts--and services or military education and
training from Department of Defense (DOD) and military service
inventories and transfer them to foreign countries or international
organizations.[Footnote 1] Drawdowns give the President the ability to
respond to U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives, such
as counternarcotics efforts, peacekeeping needs, and unforeseen
military and nonmilitary emergencies, by providing military assistance
without first seeking additional legislative authority or
appropriations from the Congress. From fiscal year 1963 through June
2002, the President signed 90 presidential determinations authorizing
the drawdown of over $3.3 billion worth of defense articles and
services.[Footnote 2]
At the President‘s discretion, drawdown proposals are typically
developed in an interagency process that generally includes DOD, the
National Security Council, and the Department of State. When a drawdown
is agreed on, State prepares a justification package, including the
presidential determination for the President‘s signature. Once the
presidential determination is approved, the Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, a component of DOD, executes the drawdown by
working with the military services to determine what specific defense
articles and services will be provided and is charged with tracking and
reporting on its status.
Drawdowns have been used with greater frequency in recent years. Since
fiscal year 1990, 70 of the 90 total presidential determinations were
approved, authorizing the transfer of over $2.3 billion of defense
articles and services.[Footnote 3] In light of the increased use of
drawdowns during the 1990s, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2002 directed that we examine the use of certain drawdown
authorities.[Footnote 4] In response, we determined (1) whether the
costs to DOD and the status of drawdowns are reported to the Congress,
as required; (2) how drawdowns benefit the United States and foreign
recipients; and (3) what concerns, if any, are associated with these
drawdowns.
To address these objectives, we analyzed relevant documents and
discussed these matters with cognizant Defense Security Cooperation
Agency, military service, and State officials in Washington, D.C. We
also selected four countries--Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia, Jordan,
and Mexico--as case studies to analyze specific costs, benefits, and
concerns associated with drawdowns. Bosnia and Jordan represent
examples of the use of drawdowns in an emergency situation to help
stabilize their respective regions, and Colombia and Mexico are
examples of U.S. assistance in the national interest for international
counternarcotics efforts. We visited Bosnia and Jordan and met with
U.S. embassy and host country officials, including officials in the
host country ministries of defense and military services.
Results in Brief:
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency‘s reports to the Congress on
the costs and delivery status of drawdowns are inaccurate and
incomplete. For example, in 1996, the agency notified the Congress that
50 tanks were planned for delivery under a drawdown to Jordan. Although
88 tanks were eventually provided, further information on costs or
deliveries was not reported to the Congress as required. Additionally,
we found that the Defense Security Cooperation Agency‘s system had no
record of four presidential determinations authorizing drawdowns
totaling $17 million. Without this information, neither the Congress
nor the executive branch have accurate and up-to-date information
readily available to oversee and manage the assistance provided through
drawdowns. Two principal problems contribute to the agency‘s inability
to meet the reporting requirements. First, its information system for
recording drawdown data is outmoded and difficult to use--service
drawdown reports are in different formats, and any conversion errors
have to be manually corrected. Second, the services do not regularly
provide updates to the agency on drawdown costs and deliveries, and
available information sometimes does not get into the system. Regarding
the 88 tanks delivered to Jordan, the Defense Security Cooperation
Agency desk officer for Jordan and the Army had the correct
information, but the agency‘s system indicated that only 5 tanks were
delivered.
Drawdowns benefit the United States and foreign recipients primarily by
providing the President the flexibility to address foreign policy and
national security objectives quickly. For example, after the signing of
the Dayton Peace Accords in 1995, the United States was able to supply
Bosnia with defense articles and services to help ensure the military
stability in Bosnia within 6 months of the presidential determination.
According to cognizant U.S. and foreign officials, drawdowns also allow
the President to provide defense articles and services to improve
foreign recipients‘ capability to conduct military and police missions
in support of U.S. foreign policy. Other benefits cited include
improved military-to-military relations between the U.S. military
services and the foreign recipients and expanded markets for U.S.
defense firms.
According to U.S. and foreign military officials, the use of drawdowns
presents some concerns. Because drawdowns are used to quickly address
U.S. national interests and emergencies, the costs associated with a
drawdown, such as refurbishment and transportation, are not budgeted
for by the services and are not reimbursed. Since 1993, the services
report they have provided $724.2 million in defense articles and
services in response to drawdowns. We noted that the President can
request reimbursement for the military services from the Congress, but
has not done so since 1979. In addition, although the services stated
that providing defense articles and services through drawdowns without
reimbursement reduces their readiness, none could provide specific
examples. For the foreign recipients, cognizant officials stated that
they often did not have sufficient funding in their budgets or receive
enough financial assistance from the United States to maintain or
operate the defense articles provided, especially items not in ready
supply or no longer in the U.S. military services‘ inventory. Thus, the
foreign recipient may not be able to use the articles as intended.
To help ensure that the Congress has accurate and complete information
on the use of drawdowns, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Defense Security Cooperation Agency and military
services, develop a system that will enable the agency to report to the
Congress on the status of drawdowns, as required. In commenting on a
draft of this report, DOD concurred with our recommendation.
Background:
The Congress has long recognized the need for the President to have
flexibility in the foreign policy area. This is reflected in sections
506 and 552 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. In
addition, the Congress has occasionally authorized the President to
initiate drawdowns for specific purposes in foreign operations
appropriations acts.[Footnote 5]
Section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act authorizes the
President to ’drawdown“ defense articles, services, and military
education and training from DOD and the military services‘ inventories
and provide such articles and services to foreign countries or
international organizations. Before exercising this authority, the
President must report to the Congress that an unforeseen emergency
exists requiring immediate military assistance that cannot be met under
any other law.
Section 506(a)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act authorizes the
President to drawdown articles and services from the inventory and
resources of any U.S. government agency and provide them to foreign
countries or international organizations in a number of nonemergency
situations. As above, before exercising this authority, the President
must first report to the Congress that any such drawdown is in the
national interests of the United States. This special authority is
broad in scope, allowing the President to use drawdowns to assist with
counternarcotics efforts, provide international disaster assistance
and migration and refugee assistance, aid prisoner-of-war and missing-
in-action efforts in Southeast Asia, supplement peacekeeping missions,
and support mid-to long-term national interests in nonemergency
situations.
Section 552 of the Foreign Assistance Act authorizes the President to
provide assistance for peacekeeping operations and other programs
carried out in furtherance of U.S. national security interests.
Specifically, section 552(c)(2) authorizes the President to direct the
drawdown of commodities and services from the inventory and resources
from any U.S. agency if the President determines that an unforeseen
emergency requires the immediate provision of such assistance.
At the discretion of the President, drawdown proposals are typically
developed in an interagency process that generally includes DOD, the
National Security Council, and State but may include other executive
branch agencies. Based on the estimated price and availability of the
defense articles and services, the agencies agree on the parameters of
the drawdown and State prepares a justification package, including the
presidential determination for the President‘s signature. Once the
presidential determination is approved, the Defense Security
Cooperation Agency (DSCA), a component of DOD, executes the drawdown by
working with the military services to determine what specific defense
articles and services will be provided and who will provide them. DSCA
is also charged with tracking and reporting on the drawdown status. A
drawdown is typically completed when the emergency or foreign policy
goal has been met or the dollar value of the authority has been
reached.
The excess defense articles program, which authorizes the President to
transfer defense articles excess to DOD‘s needs to eligible foreign
countries or international organizations, is sometimes used in
conjunction with drawdowns. Defense articles, including excess defense
articles, that are transferred under presidential determinations
authorizing drawdowns must be fully operational on delivery. The
drawdown authority may be used, if necessary, to refurbish defense
articles to operational status.[Footnote 6]
In the 27 years from 1963 through 1989, the President approved 20
determinations authorizing drawdowns valued at a total of about $1
billion. In the 13 years since 1989, the President approved 70
determinations authorizing drawdowns valued at about $2.3 billion (see
app. I). Of the 90 total drawdowns, 58 totaling about $2.1 billion were
authorized under section 506 of the Foreign Assistance Act; 15
additional drawdowns valued at about $141.7 million were authorized
under section 552. As shown in figure 1, drawdown authorizations as a
percentage of total military assistance provided by the United States
have varied considerably over the years (see also app. II). But the
increased use of drawdowns in the 1990s represents a larger percentage
of total annual military assistance than in any other period except
during the Vietnam War.[Footnote 7]
Figure 1: Value of Drawdowns Authorized as a Percentage of Total U.S.
Military Assistance, Fiscal Years 1961-2001:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Amounts for military assistance in fiscal years 1961-99 are from
U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants, Obligations and Loan Authorizations,
July 1, 1945 - September 30, 1999, U.S. Agency for International
Development. Amounts for military assistance in fiscal years 2000-01
are from the Department of State‘s Congressional Budget Justification
for Foreign Operations for FY 2002.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of Figure]
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, also requires that the
President report to the Congress on military assistance, including
drawdowns, provided to foreign recipients. Specifically,
* Section 506(b)(2) requires the President to keep the Congress fully
and currently informed of all military assistance provided under
section 506. This includes detailing all military assistance to a
foreign country or international organization upon delivery of any
article or upon completion of any service or education and training.
* Section 655 requires the President to submit an annual report to the
Congress on the aggregate value and quantity of defense articles and
services and military education and training activities both authorized
and actually provided by the United States to each foreign recipient.
The Director of DSCA is primarily responsible for preparing these
reports, as delegated by the President through the Secretary of
Defense.
DSCA Does Not Meet Congressional Reporting Requirements:
Overall, DSCA‘s reports to the Congress on the status of drawdowns are
inaccurate and incomplete. Its information system for tracking the
status of drawdowns is outmoded, and the military services do not
regularly provide DSCA updated information on the transfers they are
implementing. As a result, the Congress and the executive branch do not
have accurate and up-to-date information readily available to oversee
and manage the assistance provided through drawdowns.
DSCA uses its ’1000 System“ as a central repository for drawdown data.
The 1000 System was designed in the late 1960s to track defense
articles and services granted under the Military Assistance Program,
which was discontinued in 1982. Although the Army, Air Force, and Navy
compile data on the cost, type, quantity, and delivery status of
defense articles and services supplied as drawdowns; each service uses
a different automated system--any updates submitted to DSCA have to be
converted to the 1000 System, and any coding or conversion errors have
to be manually corrected.
In addition, the services do not regularly report this information to
DSCA. DSCA officials stated that it might take a few months to several
years for the military services to report drawdown data. A March 2002
Navy memo regarding DSCA‘s request for an update stated that the 1000
System was an impediment to drawdown processing. A DSCA official told
us that the Navy had not provided updated information for several
years. Further, although officials at the Army Security Assistance
Command said that the Army was sending updates of drawdown data to DSCA
on a monthly basis, agency officials told us that they were not aware
of the updates.
In response to specific inquiries, DSCA usually relies on its country
desk officers to work with the military services to determine the
defense articles and services provided and the associated costs to DOD
and the services. Nevertheless, we found that this information, as well
as other information that the DSCA desk officers maintain, is often not
entered into the 1000 System.
Our analysis of updates provided by the services[Footnote 8] and of
more detailed information from our four case studies revealed numerous
inaccuracies in the 1000 System and DSCA‘s reports to the Congress.
* Four presidential determinations authorizing drawdowns totaling
$17 million were not on DSCA‘s list, and three presidential
determinations were incorrectly identified in the 1000 System.
* For a 1993 drawdown to Israel, DSCA‘s 1000 System reports that
nothing has been delivered. In information provided to us, the Army
reported that Apache and Blackhawk helicopters and services worth
$272 million were provided to Israel, but indicated that its records
are not clear whether the helicopters were provided as part of the 1993
drawdown. However, an Army security assistance officer in Israel during
1993 told us that the helicopter deliveries were part of the 1993
drawdown.
* DSCA was required to report every 60 days on the delivery and
disposition of defense articles and services to Bosnia.[Footnote 9] In
June 2001, in its last 60-day report to the Congress, DSCA reported
that $98.3 million in defense articles and services had been provided
to Bosnia. Records provided to us by the military services indicate
that DSCA did not use actual costs in these reports.
* For the 1996 drawdown to Jordan, the President authorized the
transfer of 88 M60 tanks. DSCA stated in its 1996 annual report to the
Congress that 50 tanks were authorized, but did it not report whether
these tanks were delivered or at what cost. In subsequent annual
reports to the Congress, DSCA provided no further updates on the Jordan
drawdown. According to U.S. embassy officials and the DSCA Jordan desk
officer, 50 tanks were delivered in December 1996, and the remaining 38
tanks were delivered in December 1998. As recently as July 2002, the
1000 System indicated that only 5 tanks had been delivered to Jordan at
a cost of $10.6 million. The Army reported that $15.5 million was the
value of all 88 tanks, but this figure did not include costs for
refurbishment, spare parts, and transportation.
* Under a 1997 drawdown to Mexico, the President authorized the
transfer of 53 UH-1H helicopters, which was reported to the Congress.
As with Jordan, in subsequent annual reports to the Congress, DSCA
provided no further updates to the Mexico drawdown. In February 2001,
DSCA closed the drawdown, with concurrence from the services involved,
3 years after the drawdown was completed and nearly 18 months after the
helicopters had been returned to the United States. DSCA reported the
total costs as $16.1 million including $8 millionfor the 53
helicopters. However, as of July 2002, the 1000 System had not recorded
the transfer, much less noted the return of the helicopters.
Appendix III presents the dollar value of deliveries reported in DSCA‘s
1000 System compared with the dollar value shown in the military
services‘ reports for the 51 drawdowns authorized during fiscal years
1993-2001. Overall, the 1000 System reported the delivery of about
$300 million in defense articles and services, while the military
services reported
$724.2 million. DSCA and the military services‘ data agreed for 16
drawdowns--reporting no deliveries for 12--and differed by less than
$1 million for 12 others. Of the 23 drawdowns with differences greater
than $1 million, the military services generally reported significantly
higher amounts.
Drawdowns Benefit the United States and Foreign Recipients:
Drawdowns are an additional tool for the President to address U.S.
foreign policy and national security objectives. They allow the
President to provide military assistance to foreign recipients quickly
because the defense articles and services are not provided through
regular acquisition channels. Drawdowns also allow the United States to
provide additional or improved military capability to foreign
recipients. Officials from both the U.S. and recipient governments
stated that the transfer of defense articles and services through
drawdowns helps promote military-to-military relations. Also, DOD and
State officials told us that the transfer of defense articles under
drawdowns can help expand markets for U.S. defense firms.
Drawdowns Promote U.S. Foreign Policy Goals and Help Foreign
Recipients:
According to State officials, drawdowns allow the United States to
provide assistance to foreign recipients in an emergency using DOD
resources. In particular, drawdown authority has been useful in
providing humanitarian assistance in the wake of natural disasters. For
example, in response to a 1998 hurricane that struck Central America,
the President determined that a strong U.S. response to save lives and
assist in reestablishing basic infrastructure was needed. The drawdown
authority allowed DOD to use existing inventory and resources for its
relief efforts.[Footnote 10]
The importance of the President‘s ability to supply defense articles or
services quickly to address a regional crisis was evidenced by a 1996
drawdown to Bosnia. The United States provided defense articles and
services to the Bosnian Federation within 6 months of a July 1996
presidential determination. According to DOD and State officials, the
drawdown allowed assistance to be provided more quickly and at less
cost than other security assistance programs would have. The United
States provided 116 fully operational 155mm howitzers as excess defense
articles to help ensure the Bosnian Federation Army‘s capacity to
return indirect fire if attacked, which they lacked during the conflict
with the Bosnian Serbs. The United States also provided 45 M60 tanks,
80 armored personnel carriers, 15 UH-1H helicopters, and light arms
including 46,100 M16 rifles. These articles and related services met
the force requirements for military stabilization that were approved in
the Dayton Peace Agreement and enumerated in the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe Agreement on Sub-Regional Arms
Control. According to DOD and State officials, the defense articles and
services provided under the drawdown helped promote the peace and
military stability of Bosnia.
The drawdown authority is also useful for providing logistical
assistance to regional operations, as illustrated in the following
examples.
* In a 1999 drawdown to Kosovo, the United States supplied airlift and
related services for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
* In a 1999 drawdown to East Timor, the United States provided
transportation for peacekeepers as part of a regional multilateral
operation headed by Australia.
* Similarly, in a 2000 drawdown for disaster assistance in southern
Africa, the United States provided the logistical support for a South
African-led regional multilateral disaster response force.
Drawdowns are also used to support international counternarcotics
operations. During fiscal years 1996-99, the United States provided
defense articles and services through drawdowns to the Colombian and
Mexican military and national police to increase their ability to
interdict the flow of illicit narcotics to the United States. The
United States provided the Colombian Army and National Police with
fully operational defense articles including 7 C-26 aircraft, 12 UH-1H
helicopters, and 9 patrol boats. Similarly, the United States provided
Mexico with 53 UH-1H helicopters and 4 C-26 aircraft. According to
State officials, although Colombia and Mexico experienced difficulty in
using these articles (Mexico eventually returned the helicopters to the
United States), the drawdown helped improve their capability to conduct
counternarcotics operations. In the case of Colombia, the drawdown,
which was implemented by State, was a way to provide arms, ammunition,
and other lethal assistance to the Colombian National Police.
In 1996, 1998, and 1999, three separate drawdowns were intended to help
Jordan promote regional security of the Middle East. The drawdowns were
initiated after Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1995 and as
a result of Jordan‘s subsequent role in the Wye River Peace Conference.
The United States provided Jordan with 88 M60 tanks, 18 UH-1H
helicopters, 38 antitank armored personnel carriers, a C-130 aircraft,
a rescue boat and 2 personnel boats, 18 8-inch howitzers, and 302 air-
to-air missiles. According to DOD and State officials, the defense
articles that were transferred helped Jordan secure its borders.
Drawdowns Benefit the United States in Other Ways:
Drawdowns can help foster better military-to-military relations between
the United States and foreign recipients. According to DOD and State
officials, the current U.S. military-to-military relationship with
Jordan is excellent, in part because of the transfer of articles and
services through drawdowns. U.S. officials cited as evidence Jordan‘s
participation in peacekeeping operations in East Timor, Haiti, and
Sierra Leone. More recently in Afghanistan, the Jordanian Armed Forces
participated in demining operations and set up a field hospital that
has treated over 30,000 patients, including U.S. soldiers. DOD
officials also noted that U.S.-Jordanian training exercises resulted in
the U.S. Marine Corps being better prepared to operate in Afghanistan.
According to State officials, the transfer of defense articles under
drawdowns and excess defense articles help to expand markets for U.S.
defense firms. For example, the Jordanian Army signed a $38 million
contract with a U.S. defense firm to refit Jordan‘s M60 tanks,
including the 88 tanks transferred under a 1996 drawdown, with a new
120mm gun. Jordan plans to develop its defense industrial base around
this capability and make this service available to other countries in
the Middle East.
Drawdowns Present Some Concerns for the United States and Foreign
Recipients:
We found two major concerns in the current use of drawdowns that may
limit the benefits of the program. The U.S. military services are not
being reimbursed for the costs associated with a drawdown, and the
countries that receive defense articles through drawdowns often do not
have the resources to maintain and operate them.
Military Services Are Not Being Reimbursed for Costs Associated with
Drawdowns:
According to DOD and military service officials, the services are not
reimbursed for the defense articles provided or the associated costs of
drawdowns, and the articles are usually not replaced. Section 506(d) of
the Foreign Assistance Act authorizes the appropriation of funds to the
President to reimburse the services for the costs associated with
executing drawdowns. However, since 1979, the President has not
requested such reimbursements.
The military services can incur six types of costs when executing a
drawdown--(1) the value of the defense articles provided including
aircraft, vehicles, weapons and ammunition, or other major end items;
(2) the repair or refurbishment of these items;[Footnote 11] (3) spare
parts and tools; (4) training; (5) packing, crating, handling, and
transportation;[Footnote 12] and (6) administrative costs. The cost of
defense articles charged against a drawdown is a depreciated value and
not necessarily the replacement cost. The other costs of a drawdown are
typically paid out of a service‘s operations and maintenance account
and are not budgeted or planned for in advance. In effect, this means
that the services have less operations and maintenance funding for
other items in their inventories.
Information provided by the services shows that unreimbursed costs
associated with drawdowns have totaled about $724.2 million since 1993.
The Army reported about $557 million in unreimbursed costs, and the Air
Force and Navy reported $69.4 million and $97.8 million, respectively.
Case by case, unreimbursed costs ranged from less than $100 to
approximately $87.2 million. A large proportion of these costs were for
refurbishing the defense articles, providing spare parts and support
equipment, and transporting the articles. For example, the Army
reported that it spent approximately $31.4 million from its operations
and maintenance account to refurbish and deliver $55.8 million worth of
articles for the 1996 drawdown to Bosnia. Similarly, the Army spent
$23.8 million for spare parts and transportation from its operations
and maintenance account on $51.5 million worth of articles for the 1996
drawdown to Jordan. However, this figure did not include refurbishment.
Numerous DOD and service officials stated that the unreimbursed costs
associated with a drawdown negatively affect the readiness of the U.S.
military services. However, these officials could not provide any
examples of programs forgone or specific deficiencies in unit
readiness. In 1996, we reported that Army operations and maintenance
costs exceeded funding for contingency operations as a result, in part,
of Army expenditures on the 1996 drawdown to Bosnia.[Footnote 13] In
addition,
* A July 1996 memorandum from the Chief of Staff of the Army to the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that drawdowns affect the
Army‘s ability to respond to contingencies. It also stated that defense
articles for future drawdowns would have to be taken from war reserve
stocks or from reserve components.
* In other documents since 1996, the Army characterized the unbudgeted
expenditures from operations and maintenance accounts in support of
drawdowns as a drain on its readiness, training, transformation
activities, and quality-of-life funds and as a long-term risk to the
stability of Army investments.
Furthermore, in 2000, the military services reported to DSCA on the
effect on readiness of drawdowns for counternarcotics efforts.
Generally, the services characterized the effect as dollars spent on
unplanned contingencies and, therefore, not available to support other
requirements. In their responses to DSCA,
* The Army stated that it expected readiness to be adversely affected
by the diversion of $8 million worth of Blackhawk helicopter spare
parts for Colombia, but it did not say whether any specific helicopter
unit would be affected. Subsequently, the Joint Staff directed the Army
to provide the parts to Colombia under a 1999 drawdown.
* The Air Force noted that it would need to replace several utility
vehicles transferred under drawdown authority, but it did not specify
when or at what cost these vehicles would be replaced or the effect on
readiness of no longer having the vehicles.
In 1985, we reported that even if DOD and the military services were
reimbursed for the costs associated with drawdowns, full replacement
was unlikely, if not impossible. This is because, among other reasons,
the replacement cost of an article may have increased more than the
depreciated value charged against the drawdown or been replaced by a
newer (and more expensive) item.[Footnote 14]
Foreign Recipients Have Difficulty Maintaining Defense Articles:
According to DOD officials, drawdowns are successful over the long term
only if the foreign recipient has the ability to support the defense
articles or if the United States provides additional funding for
maintenance. Drawdowns typically provide for 1 or 2 years of essential
spare parts for aircraft, vehicles, and weapons, but many recipients do
not have the resources to support the defense articles after that. In
addition, because defense articles delivered under drawdowns are often
older articles, the spare parts and tools needed to maintain them may
not be readily available. Consequently, the recipients‘ ability to
conduct military or police missions in support of U.S. foreign policy
diminishes as vehicles and weapons break down and as parts for these
older defense articles become more difficult to obtain. Each of our
case studies provided examples of problems with the long-term
sustainability of the defense articles provided through drawdowns.
Bosnia. According to officials from the Bosnian Federation Ministry of
Defense and DOD, the Bosnian Federation Army does not have enough of
its own funds, and does not receive enough assistance from the United
States, to maintain the vehicles and weapons it received in the 1996
drawdown. Bosnia has received less than $6 million per year in
financing since 1996 to support the defense articles. However, Bosnian
Federation Ministry of Defense officials stated that they need
approximately $10 million per year just for spare parts and fuel. These
officials noted that, as of May 2002, the readiness of the Federation
units had significantly deteriorated and that the operational rates
were below 35 percent for the helicopters and below 60 percent for the
tanks.
Colombia. In 1998, we reported that a 1996 counternarcotics drawdown to
Colombia was hastily developed and did not consider sufficient
information on specific Colombian requirements--including Colombia‘s
ability to operate and maintain the articles.[Footnote 15] For example,
2 months after Colombia received 12 UH-1H helicopters, the Colombian
National Police reported that only 2 were operational. The U.S. embassy
estimated the cost of the repairs at about $1.2 million. As part of the
same drawdown, the United States transferred 5 C-26 aircraft to conduct
counternarcotics surveillance missions. According to U.S. embassy
officials, the United States spent at least an additional $3 million to
modify each aircraft to perform the surveillance missions, and it costs
at least $1 million annually to operate and maintain each aircraft.
Mexico. In 1996 and 1997, the United States provided the Mexican
military with 73 UH-1H helicopters--20 from a 1996 excess defense
articles transfer and 53 from a 1997 drawdown--and 2 years of spare
parts to assist Mexico in its counternarcotics efforts. As we reported
in 1998, the usefulness of the U.S.-provided helicopters was limited
because the helicopters were inappropriate for some counternarcotics
missions and lacked adequate:
logistical support.[Footnote 16] At the time, U.S. embassy officials
were concerned that once the U.S.-provided support had been used, the
Mexican military would not provide the additional support--estimated at
$25 million per year for the UH-1H fleet--because of budgetary
constraints. In March 1999, 72
UH-1H helicopters (one crashed) were grounded because of overuse and
airworthiness concerns. Shortly thereafter, Mexico transferred the 72
helicopters back to the United States for repair and ended its
involvement in the helicopter program.
Jordan. Although Jordan has allocated $16 million of U.S. aid per year
for sustainment and modernization since 2000, it cannot fully use all
of the defense articles it has received through drawdowns. For example,
the Jordanian Air Force cannot get all the necessary spare parts from
DOD‘s logistics system for its UH-1H‘s helicopters; as of May 2002,
only 20 of 36 helicopters were operational.[Footnote 17] In addition,
Jordan does not have funds to purchase additional munitions for some of
the weapons it received from the drawdowns. As a result, the Jordanian
Army and Air Force have never test fired the air-to-air missiles or the
antitank missiles it received. Furthermore, according to U.S. military
officials in Jordan, the shelf life of some of the other munitions and
light weapons ammunition used for training purposes may be expiring,
and Jordan does not have the funds to replace them.
Conclusions:
Drawdowns give the President the ability to provide defense articles,
training, and services to foreign countries and international
organizations without first seeking specific appropriations from the
Congress. In making this accommodation, the Congress has required that
the President regularly report on the use of these special authorities.
However, DSCA‘s system for collecting information on the status of
drawdowns is outmoded and does not readily permit DSCA to meet the
reporting requirements to the Congress. While DSCA can respond to ad
hoc inquiries about specific drawdowns, a way to systematically track
and accurately report on the status of drawdowns does not currently
exist. As a result, neither the Congress nor the executive branch has
complete and accurate information about the status of defense articles
and services provided to foreign recipients through drawdowns. In light
of the increased use of drawdowns since 1990, the need for such
information has increased accordingly.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To help ensure that the Congress has accurate and complete information
on the use of drawdowns, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Director of DSCA and the Secretaries of the
military services, develop a system that will enable DSCA to report to
the Congress on the cost, type, quantity, and delivery status of
defense articles and services transferred to foreign recipients through
drawdowns, as required.
Agency Comments:
DOD provided written comments on a draft of this report (see app. IV).
The Department of State had no comments.
DOD concurred with our recommendation, but stated that DSCA is
dependent on the military services for specific drawdown cost and
delivery information and is not funded to support this administrative
reporting requirement. We note that the Secretary of Defense has the
authority to require regular and timely reporting by the services and
believe that DOD should provide DSCA the necessary resources to fully
implement our recommendation. DSCA also provided certain technical
clarifications that we have incorporated as appropriate.
Scope and Methodology:
Overall, to examine the use of drawdown authorities, we focused on the
special authorities granting the President the ability to provide
military assistance in emergency situations and in the U.S. national
interests for the purposes of international counternarcotics control.
We selected four countries--Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia, Jordan, and
Mexico--as case studies to analyze specific costs, benefits, and
problems associated with the drawdowns. Bosnia and Jordan represent
examples of the use of drawdowns in an emergency situation to help
stabilize their respective regions, and Colombia and Mexico represent
examples of U.S. assistance in the national interest for
counternarcotics efforts.
To determine whether the costs to DOD and the status of drawdowns are
reported to the Congress, as required, we analyzed relevant DSCA and
military services‘ reports and documentation and addressed this issue
with cognizant DSCA, military services, and State officials.
Specifically, we:
* compared DSCA‘s list of presidential determinations authorizing
drawdowns to presidential determinations published in the Federal
Register and drawdown reports from the military services;
* analyzed DSCA‘s cost and delivery data for the drawdowns from fiscal
years 1993-2001 by comparing it with data collected from the military
services;[Footnote 18] and:
* compared information that we obtained from the DSCA country desk
officers with information from U.S. embassy officials in the case study
countries to determine the status of specific drawdowns, including
deliveries and costs.
We also reviewed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, to
determine the relevant reporting requirements.
To determine how the drawdowns benefit the United States and foreign
recipients and what concerns, if any, are associated with the programs,
we focused primarily on the four case study countries. We analyzed
relevant DSCA, military services, and State documentation. We visited
Bosnia and Jordan and met with U.S. embassy and host country officials,
including officials in the host country ministries of defense and
military services, and reviewed relevant documentation. We met with the
cognizant officials of the unified military commands for Bosnia,
Colombia, and Jordan. In Washington, D.C., we met with DSCA country
desk officers and officials from DSCA‘s Comptroller‘s Office and
General Counsel‘s Office; the U.S. military service‘s respective
security assistance offices; and the Office of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, Directorate for Strategic Plans and Policy. We also met with
cognizant officials in the Department of State‘s Bureau for Political
and Military Affairs and the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs.
We conducted our work between November 2001 and August 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
We will send copies of this report to the interested congressional
committees and the Secretaries of Defense and State. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. In addition, this report will
be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
call me at (202) 512-4268 or contact me at FordJ@gao.gov. An additional
GAO contact and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix V.
Jess T. Ford, Director
International Affairs and Trade:
Signed by Jess T. Ford:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Drawdown Authorizations, Fiscal Year 1961--June 30, 2002:
Table 1 lists the 90 presidential determinations that have authorized
$3.3 billion in drawdowns since fiscal year 1963. The first drawdown
authorized military assistance for India; the most recent authorized
counterterrorism assistance for the Philippines in June 2002. Over the
years, over 55 countries and other organizations such as the United
Nations have been authorized U.S. military assistance through
drawdowns.
Israel was authorized to receive the most military assistance with nine
drawdowns totaling approximately $923 million during the early and mid-
1990s. South Vietnam was second with drawdown authority totaling
$375 million under two presidential determinations in 1965 and 1966.
Cambodia was third with drawdown authority totaling $325 million under
presidential determinations in 1974 and 1975.
The frequency of presidential determinations has increased since 1990.
During fiscal years 1961-89, 20 presidential determinations authorized
a total of about $1 billion in drawdowns. Since 1990, 70 presidential
determinations authorized $2.3 billion in drawdowns.
Table 1: Drawdown Authorizations, Fiscal Year 1961--June 30, 2002:
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 63-15; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: India[D]; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: War with China; Dollars in thousands:
Total authorization: $55,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 65-12; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: S. Vietnam; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Military assistance; for Vietnam;
Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 75,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 66-06; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: S. Vietnam; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Military assistance; for Vietnam;
Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 300,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 74-12; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Cambodia; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: N. Vietnamese threat; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 200,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 74-19; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Cambodia; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: N. Vietnamese threat; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 50,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 75-09; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Cambodia; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: N. Vietnamese threat; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 75,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 80-21; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Thailand; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: N. Vietnamese threat; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 1,100.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 81-00; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Liberia; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: National interest; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 3,400.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 81-02; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: El Salvador; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: National interest; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 5,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 81-04; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: El Salvador; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Guerrilla threat; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 20,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 82-05; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: El Salvador; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Guerrilla threat; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 55,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 83-08; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Chad; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: Support war with Libya; Dollars in thousands:
Total authorization: 10,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 83-09; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Chad; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: Support war with Libya; Dollars in thousands:
Total authorization: 15,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 86-06; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Chad; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: Support war with Libya; Dollars in thousands:
Total authorization: 10,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 86-08; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Honduras; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Threat from Nicaragua; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 20,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 86-13; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Philippines; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Disaster relief; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 10,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 87-05; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Chad; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: Support war with Libya; Dollars in thousands:
Total authorization: 25,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 88-15; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 552(c)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Observer group for; Afghanistan and
Pakistan; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 200.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 89-06; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Jamaica; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: Disaster relief; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 10,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 89-24; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Colombia; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Counternarcotics; assistance;
Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 65,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 90-33; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Belize, Bolivia,; Colombia,
Ecuador,; Jamaica, Mexico; Dollars in thousands: Legislative:
506(a)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in thousands:
Purpose[C]: Counternarcotics; assistance; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 53,300.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 90-40; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Israel; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: In support of Desert Storm; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 74,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 90-41; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Philippines; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Disaster relief; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 10,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 91-01; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Israel; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: In support of Desert Storm; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 43,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 91-16; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Turkey; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: In support of Desert Storm; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 32,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 91-26; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Turkey; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 506(a)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: Relief for Kurds; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 25,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 91-31; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Turkey; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 506(a)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: Relief for Kurds; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 50,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 91-35; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Bangladesh; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Disaster relief; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 20,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 92-05; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Senegal; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 552(c)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: Peacekeeping; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 10,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 92-17; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Mexico; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 506(a)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: Counternarcotics; assistance; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 26,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 92-23; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Israel[D]; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: Foreign Operations Act; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: National interest; Dollars
in thousands: Total authorization: 47,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 92-47; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Azerbaijan[D]; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 552(c)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Peacekeeping in Nagorno-; Karabakh;
Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 2,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 92-48; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Colombia; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Counternarcotics; assistance;
Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 7,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 92-49; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Pakistan; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Disaster relief; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 5,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 93-17; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Israel; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: Foreign Operations Act; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: National interest; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 491,100.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 93-27; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Ecuador; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 506(a)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: Disaster relief; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 2,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 93-43; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 552(c)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Peacekeeping; Dollars in thousands:
Total authorization: 25,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 93-45; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Laos; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: Foreign Operations Act; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: POW/MIA recovery; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 11,800.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 94-07; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Egypt; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 552(c)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: Return of defense; articles from Pakistan;
Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 13,500.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 94-20; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Israel[D]; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: Foreign Operations Act; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: National interest; Dollars
in thousands: Total authorization: 161,900.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 94-21; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Israel; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 552(c)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: Support for Palestinian; police; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 4,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 94-25; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations[D, G]; Dollars
in thousands: Legislative: 552(c); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: War crimes; tribunal for Yugoslav
war; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 6,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 94-34; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Dominican Republic; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Anti-smuggling assistance; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 15,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 94-41; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Jamaica; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: Haiti refugee assistance; Dollars in thousands:
Total authorization: 1,500.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 94-44; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Disaster relief in Rwanda; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 75,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 94-50; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Haiti; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: Support for multinational; coalition force;
Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 50,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 95-03; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Israel[D]; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: Foreign Operations Act; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: National interest; Dollars
in thousands: Total authorization: 75,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 95-17; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Israel; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 552(c)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: Support for Palestinian; police; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 5,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 95-28; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Haiti; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 552(c)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: Peacekeeping efforts in; Haiti; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 7,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 95-29; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: France, United; Kingdom;
Dollars in thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Rapid reaction; force for
Bosnia; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 12,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 95-33; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: France, United; Kingdom;
Dollars in thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Rapid reaction; force for
Bosnia; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 3,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 95-34; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: France, United; Kingdom;
Dollars in thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Rapid reaction; force for
Bosnia; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 17,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 96-11; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Jordan; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: Foreign Operations Act; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Border security and armed; forces
modernization; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 100,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 96-17; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Israel[D]; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 552(c)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Explosive detection; and disarming;
Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 22,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 96-39; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Bosnia; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: Foreign Operations Act; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Military stabilization; program;
Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 100,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 96-42; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Vietnam[D]; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: Foreign Operations Act; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: POW/MIA recovery; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 3,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 96-50; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Cambodia; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: Foreign Operations Act; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: POW/MIA recovery; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 200.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 96-52; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Haiti; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 552(c)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: Training of presidential; guard; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 3,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 96-53; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Eritrea, Ethiopia,; Uganda;
Dollars in thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: National interest; Dollars
in thousands: Total authorization: 10,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 96-55; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Ghana, Guinea, Mali,; Nigeria,
Sierra Leone; Dollars in thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in
thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Support for
ECOMOG[F]; peacekeeping in Liberia; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 5,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 96-56; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Ghana, Guinea, Mali,; Nigeria,
Sierra Leone; Dollars in thousands: Legislative: 552(c)(2); Dollars in
thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Support for
ECOMOG[F]; peacekeeping in Liberia; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 10,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 96-57; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Colombia, Peru,; Venezuela,
Eastern; Caribbean; Dollars in thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(2);
Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]:
Counternarcotics; assistance; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 75,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 97-09; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Mexico; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: 506(a)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Purpose[C]: Counternarcotics; assistance; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 37,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 97-12; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 552(c)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Support for Turcoman; monitor
peacekeeping; effort; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 4,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 97-14; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Operation Pacific Haven for; Iraqi
and Kurdish refugees; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization:
10,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 97-38; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Colombia, Peru,; Venezuela,
Eastern; Caribbean; Dollars in thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(2);
Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]:
Counternarcotics; assistance; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 20,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 98-19; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Jordan; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: Foreign Operations Act; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Border security and armed; forces
modernization; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 25,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 98-41; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Colombia, Mexico[E, G];
Dollars in thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(2); Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Counternarcotics;
assistance; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 75,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 99-03; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: El Salvador, Guatemala,;
Honduras, Nicaragua; Dollars in thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(2);
Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]:
Disaster relief for; Hurricane Mitch; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 30,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 99-04; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: El Salvador, Guatemala,;
Honduras, Nicaragua; Dollars in thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(2);
Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]:
Disaster relief for; Hurricane Mitch; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 45,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 99-18; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Jordan; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: Foreign Operations Act; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Border security and armed; forces
modernization; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 25,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 99-20; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 552(c)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Logistical support for Kosovo
peacekeeping efforts; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization:
25,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 99-32; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Tunisia; Dollars in thousands:
Legislative: Foreign Operations Act; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: National interest; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 5,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 99-34; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Ghana, Guinea, Mali,; Nigeria,
Sierra Leone; Dollars in thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in
thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Peacekeeping in
Sierra; Leone; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 3,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 99-35; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: Foreign Operations Act; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: War crimes tribunal in;
Kosovo; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 5,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 99-39; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: East Timor; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Logistical support for; peacekeeping
efforts; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 55,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 99-40; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 552(c)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Peacekeeping in Kosovo; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 5,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 99-43; Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Colombia, Ecuador,; Peru,
Panama; Dollars in thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(2); Dollars in
thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]:
Counternarcotics; assistance; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 69,700.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 2000-05; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Iraqi National
Congress; Dollars in thousands: Legislative: Iraq Liberation Act;
Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]:
Training Iraqi opposition; forces; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 5,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 2000-09; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Venezuela; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Disaster relief; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 20,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 2000-17; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Botswana,;
Mozambique, South; Africa, Zimbabwe; Dollars in thousands: Legislative:
506(a)(2); Dollars in thousands: [Empty]; Dollars in thousands:
Purpose[C]: Disaster relief; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization:
37,600.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 2000-27; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations;
Dollars in thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Peacekeeping in Sierra;
Leone; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 18,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 2000-33; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Tunisia; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: Foreign Operations Act; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: National interest; Dollars
in thousands: Total authorization: 4,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 2001-04; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations;
Dollars in thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Peacekeeping in Sierra;
Leone; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 36,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 2001-24; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Tunisia; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: Foreign Operations Act; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Training; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 5,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 2002-16; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Nigeria; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: National interest; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 4,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 2002-17; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Georgia; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: Foreign Operations Act; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Counterterrorism;
assistance; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 4,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 2002-18; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Afghanistan; Dollars
in thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Counterterrorism; assistance;
Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 2,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 2002-20; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Georgia; Dollars in
thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Counterterrorism; assistance;
Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 21,000.
Dollars in thousands: PD no.[A]: 2002-24; Dollars in thousands:
[Empty]; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Philippines; Dollars
in thousands: Legislative: 506(a)(1); Dollars in thousands: [Empty];
Dollars in thousands: Purpose[C]: Counterterrorism; assistance;
Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 10,000.
[A] The number of each drawdown authorization is represented by the
presidential determination number in each fiscal year.
[B] The legislation authorizing each drawdown. Unless indicated, each
entry identifies a section of the Foreign Assistance Act. References to
the Foreign Operations Act are to the act for that fiscal year.
[C] The foreign policy objective addressed by each drawdown. :
[D] Indicates the drawdown was authorized, but DSCA reports that no
defense articles or services were transferred to the foreign recipient.
[E] Defense articles were transferred to the countries listed; to
Bolivia, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras,
Jamaica, Peru, Trinidad, and Tobago; and to the countries of the
Eastern Caribbean Regional Security System, which includes Antigua and
Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia, and
St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
[F] The Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group for
peacekeeping activities in Liberia.
[G] These drawdowns were authorized for DOD and other U.S. agencies.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
As shown in table 2, 58 drawdowns totaling approximately $2.1 billion
were authorized under section 506 of the Foreign Assistance Act, which
allows the President to authorize assistance for unforeseen military
emergencies, counternarcotics, counterterrorism, and disaster relief.
Of the remaining 32 drawdowns, 16 drawdowns totaling approximately
$1.1 billion were authorized under various foreign operations acts to
support activities in the national interest, including efforts to
locate servicemen listed as prisoners of war and missing in action in
Southeast Asia; 15 drawdowns totaling $141.7 million were authorized
specifically for peacekeeping-related operations (section 552 of the
Foreign Assistance Act); and 1 drawdown totaling $5 million was
authorized under the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 for training Iraqi
opposition organizations.
Table 2: Drawdown Authorizations, Fiscal Year 1961--June 30, 2002, by
Legislative Authority:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Drawdown Authorizations as a Percentage of Total U.S.
Military Assistance, Fiscal Years 1961-2001:
Table 3 illustrates that drawdown authorizations have been used more
frequently in the 1990s, as shown in appendix I. It also shows that the
military assistance authorized by presidential determinations has more
than tripled as a percentage of overall U.S. military
assistance,[Footnote 19] averaging over 4.6 percent a year during
fiscal years 1990-2001 compared with 1.3 percent for the previous 29
years (fiscal years 1961-89). At least one drawdown has been authorized
every year since fiscal year 1986, with 10 each in fiscal years 1996
and 1999. In 2002, five drawdowns had been authorized through June--
primarily for counterterrorism purposes.
Table 3: Total Drawdown Authorizations as a Percentage of Total U.S.
Military Assistance, Fiscal Years 1961-2001:
Dollars in thousands.
1961; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total: $2,113,000; Dollars in
thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.
1962; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total: 2,062,800; Dollars in
thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.
1963; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 1; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: $55,000; Dollars in thousands: Total: 2,015,100; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 2.7.
1964; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total: 1,193,300; Dollars in
thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.
1965; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 1; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 75,000; Dollars in thousands: Total: 1,299,100; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 5.8.
1966; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 1; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 300,000; Dollars in thousands: Total: 2,120,900; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 14.1.
1967; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total: 2,396,500; Dollars in
thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.
1968; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total: 2,656,900; Dollars in
thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.
1969; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total: 3,115,300; Dollars in
thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.
1970; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total: 2,892,400; Dollars in
thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.
1971; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total: 4,395,700; Dollars in
thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.
1972; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total: 5,080,000; Dollars in
thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.
1973; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total: 5,355,800; Dollars in
thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.
1974; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 2; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 250,000; Dollars in thousands: Total: 4,604,500; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 5.4.
1975; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 1; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 75,000; Dollars in thousands: Total: 2,014,000; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 3.7.
1976; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total: 2,534,500; Dollars in
thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.
1977; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total: 2,190,600; Dollars in
thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.
1978; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total: 2,353,400; Dollars in
thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.
1979; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total: 6,725,200; Dollars in
thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.
1980; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 1; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 1,100; Dollars in thousands: Total: 2,122,400; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.1.
1981; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 3; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 28,400; Dollars in thousands: Total: 3,245,000; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.9.
1982; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 1; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 55,000; Dollars in thousands: Total: 4,194,900; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 1.3.
1983; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 2; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 25,000; Dollars in thousands: Total: 5,598,700; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.4.
1984; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total: 6,485,400; Dollars in
thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.
1985; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 0; Dollars in thousands: Total: 5,800,800; Dollars in
thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.
1986; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 3; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 40,000; Dollars in thousands: Total: 5,839,700; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.7.
1987; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 1; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 25,000; Dollars in thousands: Total: 5,102,000; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.5.
1988; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 1; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 200; Dollars in thousands: Total: 4,830,700; Dollars in
thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 0.
1989; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 2; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 75,000; Dollars in thousands: Total: 4,828,400; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 1.6.
1990; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 3; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 137,300; Dollars in thousands: Total: 4,893,300; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 2.8.
1991; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 5; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 170,000; Dollars in thousands: Total: 4,759,500; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 3.6.
1992; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 6; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 97,000; Dollars in thousands: Total: 4,347,500; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 2.2.
1993; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 4; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 529,900; Dollars in thousands: Total: 4,142,900; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 12.8.
1994; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 8; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 326,900; Dollars in thousands: Total: 3,930,700; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 8.3.
1995; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 6; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 119,000; Dollars in thousands: Total: 3,812,700; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 3.1.
1996; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 10; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 328,200; Dollars in thousands: Total: 3,970,200; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 8.2.
1997; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 4; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 71,000; Dollars in thousands: Total: 3,864,400; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 1.8.
1998; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 2; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 100,000; Dollars in thousands: Total: 3,588,600; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 2.6.
1999; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 10; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 267,700; Dollars in thousands: Total: 3,678,900; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 7.3.
2000; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 5; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 84,600; Dollars in thousands: Total: 5,018,600; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 1.7.
2001; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 2; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 41,000; Dollars in thousands: Total: 3,791,800; Dollars
in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 1.1.
2002 thru June; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 5; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 41,000; Dollars in thousands: Total:
N.A.; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: -.
Total; Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns: 90; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: $3,318,300; Dollars in thousands: Total: $154,966,100;
Dollars in thousands: Drawdowns as percentage of: 2.1.
Legend: N.A. = not available.
Source: GAO analysis. Amounts for military assistance in fiscal years
1961-99 are from U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants, Obligations and Loan
Authorizations, July 1, 1945-September 30, 1999, U.S. Agency for
International Development. Amounts for military assistance in fiscal
years 2000-01 are from the Department of State‘s Congressional Budget
Justification for Foreign Operations for FY 2002-03.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comparison of DSCA and Military Services‘ Data on
Drawdown
Transfers, Fiscal Years 1993-2001:
We analyzed cost and delivery data from DSCA‘s 1000 System and compared
it with similar information provided by the services for the 51
drawdowns authorized during fiscal years 1993-2001. Table 4 illustrates
the differences in the reported value of defense articles and services
delivered.
Overall, the 1000 System reported about $300 million in drawdown
transfers while the military services reported $724.2 million. Of the
51 drawdowns, DSCA and the military services‘ data agreed for 16,
including 12 with no reported deliveries, and differed by less than
$1 million for 12 others. Of the 23 drawdowns with differences greater
than $1 million, the military services generally reported significantly
higher amounts. We did not attempt to determine the reasons for the
differences in reporting. For example,
* DSCA reported no costs for a drawdown to Israel (93-17) while the
Army reported $272 million. However, Army officials noted that they
were not certain if the transfers it reported were specifically for the
drawdown.
* DSCA reported costs of $5.8 million for a drawdown to Mexico (97-09)
while the services reported $19.5 million.
* DSCA reported costs of $16.5 million for a drawdown to Jordan (98-19)
while the services reported $33 million.
Table 4: DSCA and Military Services‘ Data on Cost of Defense Articles
and Services Transferred to Foreign Recipients, Fiscal Years 1993-2001:
Dollars in thousands.
93-17; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Israel; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: $491,100; Dollars in thousands: DSCA
1000 System[B]: $0; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]:
$272,300.
93-27; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Ecuador; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 2,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 0.
93-43; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations; Dollars
in thousands: Total authorization: 25,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA
1000 System[B]: 3,800; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]:
6,400.
93-45; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Laos; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 11,800; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 900.
94-07; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Egypt; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 13,500; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 12,500.
94-20; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Israel[D]; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 161,900; Dollars in thousands: DSCA
1000 System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 0.
94-21; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Israel; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 4,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 1,600; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 1,600.
94-25; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations[D];
Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 6,000; Dollars in thousands:
DSCA 1000 System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 0.
94-34; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Dominican Republic;
Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 15,000; Dollars in
thousands: DSCA 1000 System[B]: 6,200; Dollars in thousands: Military
services[C]: 8,000.
94-41; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Jamaica; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 1,500; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 400.
94-44; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations; Dollars
in thousands: Total authorization: 75,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA
1000 System[B]: 3,600; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]:
3,600.
94-50; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Haiti; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 50,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 1,000; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 18,400.
95-03; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Israel[D]; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 75,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 0.
95-17; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Israel; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 5,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 1,500; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 1,500.
95-28; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Haiti; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 7,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 1,800.
95-29; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: France, United Kingdom;
Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 12,000; Dollars in
thousands: DSCA 1000 System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military
services[C]: 0.
95-33; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: France, United Kingdom;
Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 3,000; Dollars in thousands:
DSCA 1000 System[B]: 500; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]:
500.
95-34; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: France, United Kingdom;
Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 17,000; Dollars in
thousands: DSCA 1000 System[B]: 5,000; Dollars in thousands: Military
services[C]: 2,600.
96-11; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Jordan; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 100,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA
1000 System[B]: 92,900; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]:
87,500.
96-17; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Israel[D]; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 22,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 0.
96-39; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Bosnia; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 100,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA
1000 System[B]: 81,400; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]:
95,700.
96-42; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Vietnam[D]; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 3,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 0.
96-50; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Cambodia; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 200; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 0.
96-52; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Haiti; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 3,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 200.
96-53; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Eritrea, Ethiopia,
Uganda; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 10,000; Dollars in
thousands: DSCA 1000 System[B]: 3,700; Dollars in thousands: Military
services[C]: 3,600.
96-55; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Ghana, Guinea, Mali,;
Nigeria, Sierra Leone; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization:
5,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000 System[B]: 300; Dollars in
thousands: Military services[C]: 900.
96-56; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Ghana, Guinea, Mali,;
Nigeria, Sierra Leone; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization:
10,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000 System[B]: 600; Dollars in
thousands: Military services[C]: 2,900.
96-57; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Colombia, Peru,;
Venezuela, Eastern; Caribbean; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 75,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000 System[B]:
17,600; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 20,500.
97-09; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Mexico; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 37,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 5,800; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 19,500.
97-12; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations; Dollars
in thousands: Total authorization: 4,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA
1000 System[B]: 2,500; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]:
2,400.
97-14; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations; Dollars
in thousands: Total authorization: 10,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA
1000 System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 600.
97-38; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Colombia, Peru,;
Venezuela, Eastern; Caribbean; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 20,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000 System[B]:
1,200; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 12,800.
98-19; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Jordan; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 25,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 16,500; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 33,000.
98-41; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Colombia, Mexico[E];
Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 75,000; Dollars in
thousands: DSCA 1000 System[B]: 17,000; Dollars in thousands: Military
services[C]: 44,000.
99-03; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: El Salvador,
Guatemala,; Honduras, Nicaragua; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 30,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000 System[B]: 0;
Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 0.
99-04; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: El Salvador,
Guatemala,; Honduras, Nicaragua; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 45,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000 System[B]: 0;
Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 2,200.
99-18; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Jordan; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 25,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 3,100; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 2,400.
99-20; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations; Dollars
in thousands: Total authorization: 25,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA
1000 System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 100.
99-32; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Tunisia; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 5,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 4,400; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 200.
99-34; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Ghana, Guinea, Mali,;
Nigeria, Sierra Leone; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization:
3,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000 System[B]: 1,700; Dollars in
thousands: Military services[C]: 2,800.
99-35; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations; Dollars
in thousands: Total authorization: 5,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA
1000 System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 0.
99-39; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: East Timor; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 55,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 600.
99-40; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations; Dollars
in thousands: Total authorization: 5,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA
1000 System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 3,700.
99-43; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Colombia, Peru,
Panama,; Eastern Caribbean; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization:
69,700; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000 System[B]: 21,800; Dollars in
thousands: Military services[C]: 44,100.
2000-05; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Iraqi National
Congress; Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 5,000; Dollars in
thousands: DSCA 1000 System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military
services[C]: 400.
2000-09; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Venezuela; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 20,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 0.
2000-17; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Botswana,
Mozambique,; South Africa, Zimbabwe; Dollars in thousands: Total
authorization: 37,600; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000 System[B]: 0;
Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 0.
2000-27; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations;
Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 18,000; Dollars in
thousands: DSCA 1000 System[B]: 700; Dollars in thousands: Military
services[C]: 6,000.
2000-33; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Tunisia; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 4,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 0; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 100.
2001-04; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: United Nations;
Dollars in thousands: Total authorization: 36,000; Dollars in
thousands: DSCA 1000 System[B]: 3,000; Dollars in thousands: Military
services[C]: 7,500.
2001-24; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: Tunisia; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: 5,000; Dollars in thousands: DSCA 1000
System[B]: 2,700; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]: 0.
Total; Dollars in thousands: Foreign recipient: [Empty]; Dollars in
thousands: Total authorization: $1,868,300; Dollars in thousands: DSCA
1000 System[B]: $300,100; Dollars in thousands: Military services[C]:
$724,200.
[A] Each drawdown authorization is represented by the presidential
determination number.
[B] DSCA‘s aggregate data on cost for delivery of defense articles and
services for each individual drawdown as recorded in the 1000 System as
of July 2, 2002.
[C] At our request, in November 2001, DSCA officials requested that the
military services provide updated drawdown delivery status and costs
for all drawdowns authorized since fiscal year 1993. We received
updated information from the Army in March 2002 and the equivalent
information from the Navy and Air Force in July 2002. The military
services reported that $48 worth of defense articles and services was
delivered to Ecuador under 93-27; however, we rounded this number to
zero in the table. :
[D] DSCA officials told us that the drawdown was authorized, but no
defense articles or services have ever been transferred.
[E] Defense articles were transferred to the countries listed; to
Bolivia, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras,
Jamaica, Peru, Trinidad, and Tobago; and to the countries of the
Eastern Caribbean Regional Security System, which includes Antigua and
Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia, and
St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:
DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY:
Washington DC 20301-2800:
10 SEP 2002:
In reply refer to: I-02/0119.02:
Ms. Susan S. Westin Managing Director International Affairs and Trade
US General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Westin:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft
report GAO-02-1027, ’FOREIGN ASSISTANCE: Reporting of Defense Articles
and Services Provided Through Drawdowns Needs to be Improved“ dated
August 13, 2002 (GAO Code 320086). The Department appreciates the
opportunity to commit on this report.
The report makes one recommendation. DoD concurs with Recommendation 1,
agreeing the system for reporting needs to be updated to allow the
Defense Security Cooperation Agency to report more accurately on
equipment and services provided to foreign countries through drawdown.
Specific comments on the recommendation are enclosed.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Millies:
Acting Director:
Signed by Richard J. Millies:
Enclosure:
GAO CODE 320086/GAO-02-1027:
’FOREIGN ASSISTANCE: REPORTING OF DEFENSE ARTICLES AND SERVICES
PROVIDED THROUGH DRAWDOWNS NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED“:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE RECOMMENDATION:
RECOMMENDATION 1: The GAO recommended the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Director of the Defense Security Cooperation
Agency (DSCA) and the Secretaries of the military services, develop a
system that will enable DSCA to report to Congress on the cost, type,
quantity, and delivery status of defense articles and services
transferred to foreign recipients through drawdowns, as required. (p.
20/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. DSCA is the Defense agency responsible for
implementing security assistance activities and also reports drawdown
activities as required by legislation. DSCA‘s reports are dependent on
accurate and consistent reporting of associated deliveries from the
military services: While DSCA is not funded to support this
administrative requirement, DSCA recognizes the need for better
drawdown reporting functionality in its automation systems and will
include these requirements in future updates to DSCA systems. In the
interim, DSCA will continue to pursue regular updates on drawdown costs
and deliveries from the military services.
[End of Section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Albert H. Huntington, III (202) 512-4140:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the above named individual, Allen Fleener, Ronald
Hughes, James Strus, and Jason Venner made key contributions to this
report. Lynn Cothern, Ernie Jackson, and Reid Lowe provided technical
assistance.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Section 506 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, (22
U.S.C. 2318) grants the President this special authority. Section
552(c) of the act provides the President special authority to use
drawdowns for peacekeeping purposes. In addition, the Congress
occasionally authorizes the President to initiate drawdowns for
specific purposes in foreign operations appropriations acts.
[2] The first drawdown was authorized in 1963. This dollar figure and,
unless otherwise noted, all other dollar amounts are in current-year
dollars. Adjusted for inflation to fiscal year 2002 constant dollars,
the total assistance provided through drawdowns is valued at
$6 billion.
[3] In fiscal year 2002 dollars, the total value of these drawdowns is
$2.7 billion.
[4] P.L. 107-107, sec. 1223.
[5] In addition, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-338)
authorized the President to provide military assistance to Iraqi
democratic opposition organizations through a drawdown.
[6] Excess defense articles provided apart from a drawdown are
typically offered either at reduced or no cost to eligible foreign
recipients, who are responsible for the costs of refurbishment and
subsequent support as well as any packing, handling, and transportation
charges.
[7] Military assistance includes military assistance program, foreign
military sales financing, international military education and
training, and excess defense articles.
[8] At our request, in November 2001, DSCA officials requested that the
military services provide updated drawdown delivery status and costs
for all drawdowns authorized since fiscal year 1993. We received
updated information from the Army in March 2002 and the equivalent
information from the Air Force and Navy in July 2002.
[9] Section 540(c) of the 1996 Foreign Operations, Export Financing,
and Related Programs Appropriations Act, P.L. 104-107. The first report
was issued to the Congress on
December 9, 1996.
[10] We reported on DOD‘s efforts in our report entitled Military
Operations: DOD‘s Disaster Relief Assistance in Response to Hurricane
Mitch, GAO/NSIAD-99-122R (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 1999).
[11] When defense articles need refurbishment to ensure they are fully
operational, the military services must use existing contracts.
[12] No new procurements are allowed under drawdowns, except to obtain
commercial transportation when it is cheaper than DOD transportation.
[13] See our report entitled Bosnia: Costs Are Exceeding DOD‘s
Estimate, GAO/NSIAD-96-204BR (Washington, D.C.: July 25, 1996).
[14] See our report entitled Use of Special Presidential Authorities
for Foreign Assistance, GAO/NSIAD-85-79, (Washington, D.C.: May 20,
1985).
[15] See our report entitled Drug Control: U.S. Counternarcotics
Efforts in Colombia Face Continuing Challenges, GAO/NSIAD-98-60
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 12, 1998).
[16] See our report entitled Drug Control: U.S.-Mexican
Counternarcotics Efforts Face Difficult Challenges, GAO/NSIAD-98-154
(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 1998).
[17] The 36 UH-1H helicopters include 18 helicopters transferred in a
1996 drawdown and 18 helicopters sold to Jordan in 1993.
[18] We limited our detailed analysis of DSCA‘s reports to fiscal years
1993-2001 because certain drawdown information before fiscal year 1993
was not readily available.
[19] Military assistance includes military assistance program, foreign
military sales financing, international military education and
training, and excess defense articles.
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
