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: