[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 76 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E963-E965]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


    DOD INCREMENTAL COSse member.TS IN SUPPORT OF U.N. PEACEKEEPING

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                          Tuesday, May 9, 1995
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, many members have expressed interest in 
the scope and nature of incremental costs incurred by the Department of 
Defense in support of peacekeeping operations conducted or authorized 
by the United Nations. This issue was the subject of some confusion 
during the debate in the House on H.R. 7, the National Security 
Revitalization Act.
  On January 13, I wrote to Secretary of Defense William Perry 
requesting detailed information on these costs. On February 15, I 
received an interim response from Under Secretary of Defense Walter 
Slocombe, followed by further clarification in a letter from Under 
Secretary Slocombe on April 18.
  The Department of Defense now estimates its voluntary incremental 
costs in support of nonassessed U.N. peacekeeping operations at $1.41 
billion in fiscal year 1994. As Under Secretary Slocombe points out in 
his latest letter:

       Were the United States to credit amounts of this size 
     against our annual U.N. peacekeeping assessment, it would 
     cancel out our entire yearly contribution, thereby seriously 
     impairing the U.N.'s capability to conduct peacekeeping 
     operations.

  Because these are now the latest official Department of Defense 
estimates of these costs, I ask that this correspondence be included in 
the Record.

                         Committee on International Relations,

                                 Washington, DC, January 13, 1995.
     Hon. William J. Perry,
      Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense, The Pentagon, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Perry: I write concerning the Committee on 
     International Relations impending markup of H.R. 7, the 
     foreign affairs portion of the ``Contract with America'', and 
     information we need prior to that markup in order to defend 
     the Administration's position.
       Two provisions in H.R. 7, if enacted as currently drafted, 
     would cripple the ability of the United States to support 
     U.N. peacekeeping operations, and might well shut down such 
     operations altogether. Sections 501 and 508 of that 
     legislation, taken together, would prohibit effectively the 
     ability of the Defense Department to support U.N. 
     peacekeeping operations, and off-set any DOD support for U.N. 
     authorized actions against the U.S. peacekeeping assessment 
     to the U.N.
       I believe that these provisions stem from a political 
     perception that DOD participation in or support for U.N. 
     peacekeeping operations and related activities has had a 
     negative impact on U.S. military readiness. While I 
     anticipate a lengthy debate this year in Congress on the 
     subject of U.S. military readiness generally, my problem is 
     that we in Congress do not have the necessary information to 
     have an informed debate on whether and how DOD support for 
     U.N. peackeeping operations might contribute to the readiness 
     issue.
       I therefore would urge you to provide at your earliest 
     possible convenience the following information:
       How does DOD differentiate between direct and indirect 
     support for ``Contingency Operations'', and for direct and 
     indirect support for U.N. peackeeping operations?
       What costs has DOD incurred in Fiscal Year 1994 for 
     contingency operations for U.N. authorized operations, such 
     as the no-fly zone in Iraq? For ``Blue Helmet'' operations 
     such as UNSOM II?
       How much was DOD reimbursed by the U.N. in Fiscal Year 94 
     for support of U.N. peacekeeping operations? In each case, at 
     what time were DOD costs incurred, on what date did DOD 
     request each such reimbursement, and when did each such U.N. 
     reimbursement occur?
       How much of these costs in Fiscal Year 1994 have been 
     covered by U.S. supplemental appropriations? In cases where 
     supplemental appropriations have been provided and the U.N. 
     has subsequently reimbursed those costs, how much has DOD 
     returned to the U.S. Treasury?
       Who within DOD compiles information on incremental costs 
     associated with U.N. peackeeping operations? Is it done by 
     each service, then collated by the Office of the Secretary of 
     Defense? Or some other way?
       I look forward to your prompt response.
       [[Page E964]] With best regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                  Lee H. Hamilton,
     Ranking Democratic Member.
                                                                    ____


                               The Under Secretary of Defense,

                                Washington, DC, February 15, 1995.
      Hon. Lee H. Hamilton,
     Ranking Democrat, Committee on International Relations, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman: Secretary Perry asked me to respond to 
     your letter of January 13 about the effect of HR-7 on the 
     ability of the United States to support UN peacekeeping 
     activities. The provisions of the ``Contract with America'' 
     embodied in HR-7 that address this issue could certainly 
     significantly reduce the funding available to the United 
     Nations for these efforts, especially if the U.S. position 
     becomes the model for all nations to use. Let me discuss my 
     concerns with three particular sections of the bill.
       Section 501 would require that we deduct from our UN 
     peacekeeping assessment the ``costs of United States support 
     for, or participation in, United Nations Peacekeeping 
     activities for that preceding fiscal year.'' We oppose this. 
     If this provision is broadly interpreted and recent 
     experience is a guide, requiring the United States to deduct 
     these costs from our peacekeeping assessment would end all 
     U.S. assessment payments to UN peace operations--in violation 
     of our commitment under the UN charter--or force us to cease 
     those military activities which we voluntarily undertake to 
     support UN operations when they serve our national security 
     interests.
       Further, this section would invite chaos in the United 
     Nations financial system by prompting member states to adopt 
     our unilateral policy. For example, other NATO states may 
     seek credit for costs incurred in enforcing the Bosnia and 
     Iraq no-fly zones; Japan might seek reimbursement for the 
     fund it established to underwrite the logistics costs in 
     Somalia or for its large voluntary contributions to the 
     United Nations peace operation in Cambodia.
       The Department also takes strong exception to Section 507, 
     which would prohibit the United States from paying UN 
     peacekeeping assessments until we are reimbursed for all 
     prior-year assistance to the United Nations. The fact is, the 
     United States already receives preferential treatment in 
     being reimbursed promptly. Nevertheless, the process is 
     sufficiently complex and time consuming that reimbursement 
     takes some months to complete. In addition, any delays are 
     due in part to the fact that many member states, including 
     the United States, are perennially behind in paying their 
     peacekeeping assessments to the United Nations.
       Section 508 would prohibit the Department from paying 
     incremental costs associated with participation in United 
     Nations peace operations unless Congress has specifically 
     appropriated funds for this purpose. This Section is an 
     unacceptable infringement on the President's constitutional 
     authority and could spell the end of many important U.S. 
     operations. This provision would bar the President from 
     deploying forces or otherwise supporting peace operations 
     unless Congress first authorizes such operations. For 
     example, this prohibition would have delayed the time 
     sensitive Desert Shield/Desert Storm actions ordered by 
     President Bush, thereby jeopardizing the success of this 
     model of coordinated international efforts undertaken to 
     sustain world order.
       The effect of participation in United Nations peace 
     operations on the readiness of our armed forces has been a 
     much discussed topic. This should not be an issue. As you are 
     aware, the Secretary of Defense has made readiness a top 
     priority. The readiness of our military forces has clearly 
     been demonstrated through superb performance in a wide range 
     of contingency operations. Overall, the readiness ratings of 
     our units remain at very high levels and the Secretary is 
     committed to devoting the necessary resources to see our 
     forces remain ready. Next year, in fact, our readiness 
     funding per capita remains high, and in November 1994, the 
     Secretary announced a $2.7 billion quality of life initiative 
     tailored to ensure we sustain our well-trained military 
     personnel.
       We all know that peace operations are not a substitute for 
     vigorous alliances or strong unilateral U.S. action when it 
     is necessary to protect our vital interests. However, well-
     planned and well-managed United Nations peace operations have 
     a demonstrated capacity to effectively protect and advance 
     U.S. security and humanitarian interests. We do ourselves a 
     disservice as a nation if in the process of identifying and 
     taking steps to redress the shortcomings of United Nations 
     peace operations, we disregard or disparage the concrete U.S. 
     interests advanced by the more than 60,000 United Nations 
     troops--98 percent of them non-American--serving in seventeen 
     peace operations around the globe. For example, in the 
     Persian Gulf, a 1,200 person observer mission--which includes 
     15 Americans--monitors Iraqi troop movements along the Iraq-
     Kuwait border, demonstrating the international community's 
     continued resolve to contain Saddam Hussein's expansionist 
     ambitions. Another longer term effort has been the UN 
     presence in Cyprus, where 1,200 UN troops--all non-American--
     have successfully prevented a flareup of violence between two 
     key NATO allies.
       The enclosed fact sheet responds to each of your questions 
     on FY 1994 funding and reimbursement for contingency 
     operations, as well as providing information on how the 
     Department compiles relevant cost data. I trust that the 
     information provided advances informed congressional debate 
     on this issue.
                                               Walter B. Slocombe.
            Responses to Representative Hamilton's Questions

(1. How does DoD differentiate between direct and indirect support for 
``Contingency Operations,'' and for direct and indirect support for UN 
                       peacekeeping operations?)

       The Department incurs costs associated with a wide range of 
     unplanned ``contingency operations.'' Many, but not all of 
     these operations, are authorized by the United Nations. UN 
     peace operations are among these UN-authorized activities.
       U.S. involvement in UN related operations falls into three 
     different categories.
       (1) U.S. Participation in UN Peace Operations. A small 
     number of U.S. troops participate in UN mandated and assessed 
     ``blue-helmeted'' operations. These include some 800 U.S. 
     military personnel serving with UNPROFOR contingents in 
     Croatia and Macedonia and the more than 2,000 U.S. troops 
     that served in UNOSOM II in 1993 and 1994.
       (2) Support to UN Peace Operations. DoD provides various 
     forms of support on a reimbursable basis to UN blue-helmeted 
     peace operations under the authorities of Section 607 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Export Control Act. This 
     support takes the form, for example, of military services to 
     move troops or equipment to and from UN peace operations and 
     the lease or sale of various types of equipment for such 
     operations.
       (3) U.S. Participation in Operations Authorized by the UN. 
     Other U.S. troops participate in several operations that are 
     authorized by the UN, often at the request of the United 
     States as a means to gain wider international participation 
     and support. Some of these operations are carried out in 
     close coordination with and in the vicinity of ongoing UN 
     peace operations. Examples include U.S. forces involved in 
     conducting the Deny Flight operation over Croatia and Bosnia, 
     sanctions enforcement directed against Iraq and several 
     states of the former Yugoslavia, and the Multinational Force 
     operation in Haiti. Also included in this category is support 
     to UN peace operations for which the U.S. is not reimbursed 
     (e.g., transportation support in Angola).
       The Department does not differentiate between U.S. direct 
     and indirect support for contingency operations in general, 
     nor for UN peace operations in particular. Incremental costs 
     are calculated for all contingency operations, including 
     those operations identified as UN related.
       Pending clarification of the definitions contained in H.R. 
     7, the Department has not determined which of the above types 
     of operations and the costs associated with them should be 
     considered ``direct'' and ``indirect'' support of UN peace 
     operations.

  (2. What costs has DoD incurred in Fiscal Year 1994 for contingency 
  operations for UN authorized operations, such as the no-fly zone in 
        Iraq? for ``Blue Helmet'' operations such as UNOSOM II?)

       The table below provides FY 1994 incremental costs for each 
     of the UN authorized operations. (Note that total incremental 
     costs incurred by DoD for all contingency operations in FY 
     1994 were in excess of $1.9 billion, including responses to 
     increased tensions in Korea, and support to pick up and 
     process the Cuban migrants in Guantanamo and Panama as well 
     as many UN authorized operations.)
   Fiscal year 1994 U.N.-related operations DOD incremental costs\1\

                        [In millions of dollars]

U.S. Participation in Peace Operations:
    Former Yugoslavia (Macedonia)...................................3.0
    Somalia\2\....................................................528.0
Support to UN Peace Operations:
    Cambodia........................................................5.0
    Rwanda (UN requested airlift)..................................10.8
U.S. Participation in Operations Authorized by the UN:
    Angola..........................................................2.6
    Former Yugoslavia (Bosnia/Croatia)............................289.0
    Haiti (Interdiction/Sanctions).................................65.8
    Haiti (Uphold Democracy)......................................200.8
    Iraq (Provide Comfort).........................................91.8
    Iraq (Southern Watch).........................................333.0
    Rwanda.........................................................95.9
    Western Sahara....................................................1
                                                               ________

      Total.....................................................1,625.8

\1\Excludes costs of longstanding UN Operations such as Korea and the 
Multinational Observer Force in the Sinai.
\2\Includes both the U.S. troops participating in the UN operation and 
the Quick Reaction Force operating in support of this effort as these 
costs cannot be differentiated.
   (3. How much was DoD reimbursed by the UN in Fiscal Year 1994 for 
support of UN peacekeeping operations? In each case, at what time were 
      DoD costs incurred, on what date did DoD request each such 
     reimbursement, and when did each such UN reimbursement occur?)

       During FY 1994, the Department received $95.9 million in 
     reimbursements from the UN for goods and services provided to 
     and personnel participation in UN peace operations. Most of 
     the reimbursements ($92.8 million) were for Somalia. Of 
     these, $11.5 million was for costs incurred in FY 1994, with 
     the balance related to FY 1993 costs. At the minimum, it 
     takes 90 days for the DoD to forward a bill to the United 
     Nations, and 60 days for the United Nations to complete 
     reimbursement.
 
[[Page E965]]

  4. How much of these costs in Fiscal Year 1994 have been covered by 
     U.S. supplemental appropriations? In cases where supplemental 
     appropriations have been provided and the UN has subsequently 
   reimbursed those costs, how much has the DoD returned to the U.S. 
                               Treasury?)

       The information follows:

                 FISCAL YEAR 1994 UN-RELATED OPERATIONS                 
                        [In millions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Incremental   Covered by 
                                                  costs     supplemental
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Participation in Peace Operations:                                 
    Former Yugoslavia (Macedonia)............         3.0          3.0  
    Somalia..................................       528.0        424.1  
Support to U.N. Peace Operations:                                       
    Cambodia.................................         5.0   ............
    Rwanda (U.N. requested Airlift)..........        10.8   ............
U.S. Participation in Operations Authorized                             
 by the U.N.:                                                           
    Angola...................................         2.6   ............
    Former Yugoslavia (Bosnia)...............       289.0        273.7  
    Haiti (Interdiction/Sanctions)...........        65.8         50.0  
    Haiti (Uphold Democracy).................       200.8        (\1\)  
    Iraq (Provide Comfort)...................        91.8         92.0  
    Iraq (Southern Watch)....................       333.0        332.5  
    Rwanda (Unilateral Support)..............        95.9        122.2  
    Western Sahara...........................          .1   ............
                                              --------------------------
      Total..................................     1,625.8      1,297.5  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Secretary of Defense used the Feed and Forage authority to cover 
  $126.3 million of the costs incurred in this effort. The              
  appropriations to cover these costs are requested in the FY 1995      
  Emergency Supplemental.                                               
                                                                        
Note: The Department returned to the Treasury all reimbursements for    
  costs already funded through supplemental appropriations. For FY 1994,
  the total amount was $25 million, of which $22 million was associated 
  with UNOSOM II (Somalia) and the balance related to UNPROFOR (Former  
  Yugoslavia).                                                          

5. Who within DoD compiles information on incremental costs associated 
   with UN peacekeeping operations? Is it done by each Service, then 
collated by the Office of the Secretary of Defense? Or some other way?)

       The DoD Components determine the incremental costs for 
     contingency operations in which each is involved. They report 
     these costs to the Department of the Army, which as Executive 
     Agent for these efforts prepares a consolidated report for 
     all operations. The DoD is in the process of transferring the 
     reporting responsibility to the Defense Finance and 
     Accounting Service, an organization that has the basic 
     mission of providing this type of service to the Department.
                                                                    ____

                               The Under Secretary of Defense,

                                   Washington, DC, April 18, 1995.
     Hon. Lee Hamilton,
     Ranking Democrat, Committee on International Relations, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman; As I indicated in our 15 February 
     response to your January 13 letter regarding the impact of 
     H.R. 7 on the ability of the United States to support UN 
     peacekeeping activities, we initiated another examination of 
     the fiscal year 1994 costs associated with contingency 
     operations. In particular, we wanted to provide you a more 
     specific breakout of the costs associated with contingency 
     operations related to United Nations Security Council 
     resolutions, where possible. The attached information 
     provides the best data available.
       At the time that some of these UN-related operations 
     commenced, we did not foresee the requirement to account for 
     costs according to the authority under which U.S. forces 
     participated, and therefore, did not require the Services or 
     Defense Agencies to collect data at the level of detail 
     requested in your letter. We have since remedied this through 
     new financial procedures directed by the Under Secretary of 
     Defense (Comptroller). In the interim, working with the 
     Services and the Office of Management and Budget, we have 
     been able to use existing information to develop a better 
     estimate of the costs for certain operations. I stress, 
     however, that the attached figures are our ``best estimate'' 
     of the incremental costs since we did not require the 
     Services and Defense Agencies to capture these precise data.
       The most important point about this information is that it 
     indicates that crediting the incremental expenditures 
     associated with our voluntary participation in these UN-
     related operations would, at a minimum, reduce significantly 
     the USG's payment of United Nations peacekeeping assessments 
     if DoD's incremental costs were credited against the USG's 
     assessment. The United States spent $1.4 billion in fiscal 
     year 1994 on operations voluntarily undertaken in connection 
     with UN Security Council resolutions. Were the United States 
     to credit amounts of this size against our annual UN 
     peacekeeping assessment, it would cancel out our entire 
     yearly contribution, thereby seriously impairing the UN's 
     capability to conduct peacekeeping operations.
       I hope the following provides you with useful information 
     and is of value during any further debate of this issue in 
     the Congress.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               Walter B. Slocombe.

   INCREMENTAL COSTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994 ``NON-BLUE HELMET'' BUT UN-   
                          RELATED OPERATIONS\1\                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Cost               
                    Operation                     (million)     UNSCR   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Yugoslavia\2\............................      $289              
  Sanctions Enforcement (Sharp Guard)...........       (75)          787
  Humanitarian Airdrop (Provide Promise)........       (77)          770
  No-Fly Zone (Deny Flight).....................       (85)    781, 816,
                                                                     836
  Other Costs...................................       (52)             
Haiti:                                                                  
  Multinational Force (Uphold Democracy)........       197           940
  Sanctions Enforcement (Support Democracy).....        65           841
Southwest Asia:                                                         
  Sanctions Enforcement/No-Fly Zone-S. Iraq                             
   (Southern Watch).............................       333           687
  No-Fly Zone/Kurdish Relief-N. Iraq (Provide                           
   Comfort).....................................        92           688
Somalia (non-UNOSOM II)\3\......................       434           794
                                                 ------------           
    Total.......................................     1,410              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\For the purposes of this analysis, the operations were limited to    
  those carried out in relation to a UN Security Council Resolution     
  (UNSCR) but not including UN mandated and assessed ``blue helmet''    
  peace operations.                                                     
\2\Estimates based on reports from the Services. The category titled    
  ``Other Costs'' includes costs that are not attributable to the ``blue-
  helmet'' UNPROFOR operation, but are related to the other three       
  operations in the former Yugoslavia. Further, these costs could not be
  allocated accurately to a specific DoD component. All other costs were
  related directly to a Military Department.                            
\3\Estimate based on reports from the Services.                         



                          ____________________