FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

Congressional research reportMar 18, 2015

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the

Islamic State (IS)

(name redacted), Coordinator

Specialist in Foreign Policy

(name redacted)

Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology

(name redacted)

Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget

(name redacted)

Specialist in Defense Health Care Policy

March 18, 2015

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R43807

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

Summary

In 2014, two major global threats—the Ebola outbreak in West Africa and the Islamic State (IS)

in the Middle East—caused serious concern within the Obama Administration and among

Members of Congress. In November 2014, the President requested a total of $11.7 billion for

responding to the Ebola crisis and combatting the Islamic State.

On November 5, 2014, the President requested $6.18 billion in FY2015 emergency

appropriations for Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of State and international

assistance programs, and DOD to address the Ebola crisis domestically and overseas. The funding

would enhance domestic preparedness and support overseas operations to end the current

epidemic and prevent the spread of Ebola and other infectious diseases. The request included

$2.43 billion for Health and Human Services, $2.10 billion for the Department of State and

International Programs, and $112 million for the Department of Defense to advance research and

technologies to control Ebola and other infectious diseases.

Appropriations requested for a new Contingency Fund (not Overseas Contingency Operations—

OCO) totaling $1.54 billion under HHS and Department of State accounts were accompanied by

a request for the authority to transfer these funds to any federal agency to help meet Ebola or

other infectious disease-related critical needs that may suddenly arise, both domestically and

overseas. In addition to the new Contingency Fund, the request also sought transfer authority for

the emergency appropriations to any other federal accounts to meet the purposes specified in the

request. The Administration asserted that these authorities are necessary for flexibility and a

whole-of-government approach to this crisis.

On November 10, 2014, the President submitted to Congress an amended FY2015 OCO request

for an additional $5.5 billion to combat IS—nearly $5 billion for DOD and $520 million for the

Department of State. This brought the FY2015 OCO request to a total of $71.4 billion.

DOD’s amended OCO funding request of $4.94 billion for FY2015 was for incremental U.S.

military personnel expenses; fuel, supplies, and repair costs for ground, air, and sea-based

operations, as well as other support; command, control, and intelligence activities, and

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and classified activities; replacement of expended

munitions; building the capacity of Iraqi security forces and Kurdish and tribal forces; providing

support to coalition members; and other small-scale humanitarian relief and reconstruction

activities. In addition, DOD’s earlier OCO request included an allocation of $500 million to train

Syrian opposition forces to combat ISIS.

The Department of State’s amended OCO request of $520 million was for expanding the Center

for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications’ messaging in key languages; helping the

moderate Syrian opposition develop capacity and credibility; supporting Jordan and Lebanon’s

territory and borders; humanitarian support related to IS attacks in Syria and Iraq; and expanding

U.S. international broadcasting to provide a platform for moderate Muslims to voice opposition to

extremism.

Both the Ebola and IS requests designated budget authority as either an emergency requirement

or Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism (OCO/GWOT). Funds designated

in this manner would effectively not be subject to the discretionary spending limits established by

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

the Budget Control Act, 2011, as amended (P.L. 112-25), and could, therefore, increase the

deficit.

The conference version of the Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113235), approved the DOD Ebola request and the $5.4 billion requested to combat the Islamic State

plus an unspecified increase in Department of State OCO funds that is available to counter IS.

The DOD total included $1.6 billion requested for a new Iraq train-and-equip account and $500

million to train vetted Syrian opposition forces, the more controversial elements. The FY2015

National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 113-291/H.R. 3797), signed into law on December 19,

2014, reduced the amount and limited the authorities in a new Counterterrorism Response

Partnership Fund (CTPF) that could include funds to train Syrian opposition forces, as well as

other partnerships.

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1

The Emergency Request for the U.S. Ebola Response .................................................................... 1

Health and Human Services (HHS) ........................................................................................... 4

Department of State and International Assistance Programs ..................................................... 5

Department of Defense .............................................................................................................. 7

Amended OCO Funds to Combat the Islamic State ........................................................................ 9

Department of Defense .............................................................................................................. 9

Limits on DOD’s Authority to Train and Equip Iraqi and Syrian Forces .......................... 10

The FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and Train and Equip............ 13

Additional U.S. Military Personnel ................................................................................... 14

Department of State and International Assistance Programs ................................................... 15

Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 17

Tables

Table 1. Emergency Funds Requested and Appropriated for Ebola and Other Infectious

Diseases ........................................................................................................................................ 2

Table 2. DOD’s OCO Funding: FY2014 Enacted to FY2015 Enacted ......................................... 11

Table 3. U.S. Military Strength, FY2014-FY2015, Amended OCO .............................................. 15

Table 4. OCO: A Comparison of FY2014 Estimates vs. the FY2015 Amended Request

and Enacted for Accounts to Support Combatting IS ................................................................. 17

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 19

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

Introduction

In the context of legislative action to fund the government through September 30, 2015, Congress

considered new funding requests from the President to counter two global issues—the Ebola

crisis and the Islamic State (IS). In 2014 these two threats became major concerns within the

Obama Administration and among many Members of Congress. The first cases of Ebola in

Guinea, West Africa were reported in March 2014 and the outbreak proceeded to spread rapidly.

The IS threat quickly came to be viewed as an immediate threat to U.S. partners and allies in the

Middle East region, and a concern around the world, in late summer 2014.

On November 5, 2014, the President requested FY2015 appropriations of $6.18 billion for Health

and Human Services (HHS), the Department of State and international assistance programs, and

the Department of Defense (DOD) to contain the Ebola crisis domestically and overseas. On

November 10, 2014, the President increased the FY2015 Overseas Contingency Operations

(OCO) request by $5.5 billion to combat IS.

Congressional action on both occurred within the omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 83/P.L. 113235, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015), providing a total of

more than $10.8 billion in emergency and OCO funds to address Ebola and counter the Islamic

State. The President signed the full-year funding bill into law on December 16, 2014.

The Emergency Request for the U.S. Ebola Response

The November 5, 2014 request of $6.18 billion was for U.S. government efforts to contain the

Ebola outbreak, enhance domestic preparedness, and improve global capability to prevent the

spread of other infectious diseases. Of the $4.64 billion for immediate needs, $2.43 billion was

sought for HHS and $2.10 billion for the Department of State and International Programs.

Additionally, DOD would receive $112 million to advance its research and technologies to end

the Ebola outbreak and other infectious diseases. For flexibility, an additional $1.54 billion would

be for a Contingency Fund to be available for use within HHS and State or for transfer to other

agencies, as needed. The Ebola request would designate all requested budget authority as

emergency requirements, so that it would effectively not be subject to the statutory discretionary

spending limits established by the Budget Control Act of 2011, as amended (P.L. 112-25, BCA).1

Congress included $5.41 billion in its final appropriation bill: $2.77 billion for Health and Human

Services, $2.53 billion for the Department of State, and $112 million for the Department of

Defense. Amounts were designated as emergency spending, and transfer authority for HHS and

State was also included; however, the Contingency Fund was not. Funds requested and

appropriated are displayed in Table 1, followed by a discussion of funding for each department.

Departments were required to provide the appropriations committees with detailed spending plans

within 30 days of enactment, and additional reporting over time2 (see Table 1).

For more information about these spending limits, see OMB, “Sequestration Update Report to the President and

Congress for Fiscal year 2015,” August 20, 2014, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/omb/assets/

legislatve_reports/sequestration/sequestration_update_august2014.pdf.

The Department of Health and Human Services spend plan: Ebola Emergency Funding Spend Plan, January 12, 2015;

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

Table 1. Emergency Funds Requested and Appropriated for

Ebola and Other Infectious Diseases

Amounts are U.S. dollars in millions

Department/

Agency and/or

Account

Request

P.L. 113235

Purpose(s)

FUNDING FOR IMMEDIATE NEEDS

HHS/CDC

1,830.0

1,771.0

HHS/ASPR,

PHSSEF

166.0

576.0

Domestic training, PPE, and creating more than 50 regional

Ebola Treatment Centers (ETCs).

HHS/ASPR,

PHSSEF, BARDA

157.0

Manufacture of vaccines and treatments for clinical trials.

HHS, PHSSEF

10.0

Modeling and genetic sequencing of Ebola virus. Activity not

explicitly mentioned in the final appropriation, but could be

included in the ASPR PHSSEF amount above.

HHS/NIH, NIAID

238.0

Clinical trials on investigational vaccines and treatments.

HHS/FDA

25.0

Development, review, and regulation of vaccines and treatments.

FDA funding is provided in the Agriculture funding division of

P.L. 113-235.

HHS Total

2,426.0

2,767.0

USAID, Operating

Expenses

19.0

Operating costs to address Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

USAID, Inspector

General

5.6

Oversight of Ebola response in West Africa.

1,401.0

1,436.3

Disaster assistance to address humanitarian needs for West

Africa.

USAID, Global

Health Programs

340.0

312.0

Expanded USAID global health security activities to control

infectious diseases and limit spread of Ebola.

State/USAID,

Economic Support

Fund

211.7

711.7

Training and program assistance to prevent economic and

government instability during Ebola crisis, including

reimbursement for earlier response.

State, Diplomatic,

Consular

Programs

35.4

36.4

Medical support and evacuation capacity, repatriation assistance,

and other needs.

State, Repatriation

Loans Program

1.0

Repatriation loans to U.S. citizens as necessary related to Ebola

outbreak. Activity not specified in P.L. 113-235.

USAID,

International

Disaster

Assistance

Various domestic and international activities in several CDC

accounts. The final appropriation provided $571 million for

domestic activities and $1,200 million for international activities.

(...continued)

the Department of State’s spend plan: Section 9004 Ebola Report and Congressional Notification U.S. Department of

State and U.S. Agency for International Development, January 16, 2015.

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

Department/

Agency and/or

Account

Request

P.L. 113235

Purpose(s)

State,

International

Organizations and

Programs

35.0

Estimated U.S. contributions to UNMEER. Activity not specified

in P.L. 113-235.

State,

International

Organizations and

Programs

50.3

Voluntary U.S. contributions to WHO and International Civil

Aviation Organization for support to affected countries. Activity

not specified in P.L. 113-235.

State,

Nonproliferation,

Anti-terrorism,

Demining, and

Related Programs

5.3

Biosafety and hazardous materials training in affected countries,

efforts to mitigate the illicit acquisition of Ebola virus, and to

promote biosecurity practices associated with the Ebola virus

disease outbreak response efforts.

State/USAID

Total

2,104.3

2,526.3

Defense/DARPA

112.0

Defense Total

112.0

4,642.4

5,405.3

Subtotal,

immediate

needs

Developing technologies, e.g., using antibodies from survivors,

and shortening vaccine development time. P.L. 113-235 specified

$95 million for defense-wide research, development, testing, and

evaluation, and $17 million for defense-wide procurement.

CONTINGENCY FUNDING

HHS, contingency

funds

751.0

0.0

For the HHS PHSSEF, “to prevent, prepare for, and respond to

Ebola or other infectious disease domestically or

internationally.”

State/USAID,

contingency funds

792.0

0.0

For the USAID Economic Support Fund, emergency expenses

for humanitarian, economic, stabilization aid.

Subtotal,

contingency

funds

1,543.0

0.0

Contingency funding not provided in P.L. 113-235.

TOTAL

6,185.4

5,405.3

Sources: White House, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), “Estimate #4–FY 2015 Emergency

Appropriations Request to Enhance the U.S. Government’s Response to Ebola at Home and Abroad,”

November 5, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget_amendments; and text and accompanying

explanatory statements for P.L. 113-235.

Note: Amounts may not add due to rounding. “ns” means account details not specified.

Acronyms: ASPR is HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response; BARDA is HHS Biomedical

Advanced Research and Development Authority; CDC is HHS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;

DARPA is Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; FDA is HHS Food and Drug Administration; NIAID is

NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; NIH is HHS National Institutes of Health; PHSSEF is

HHS Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund, administered by the HHS Secretary; PPE is personal

protective equipment; UNMEER is United Nations Mission for Ebola Emergency Response, and WHO is World

Health Organization.

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

Health and Human Services (HHS)

For Ebola preparedness and response activities in the Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS), the President’s request sought $2.426 billion for immediate needs and an additional $751

million in contingency funding. The FY2015 consolidated appropriation provided $2.767 billion

for immediate needs, more than was requested, but did not provide contingency funding. Funds

are intended to support both domestic and international activities. The entire appropriated amount

was designated as emergency spending, as was requested. Requested and appropriated amounts

presented in Table 1 above follows:

•

$1.83 billion was requested for domestic and international Ebola response

activities by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Domestic

activities would include assistance to states to monitor travelers, and stockpiling

of personal protective equipment (PPE) for hospitals. International activities

would include infection control, contact tracing, laboratory surveillance,

emergency operations centers, and training in affected countries in West Africa.3

The FY2015 consolidated appropriation provided $1.77 billion to CDC for these

activities.4

•

$176 million5 was requested, and $576 million was provided, to support domestic

Ebola responses through the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund

account (PHSSEF, a fund administered by the HHS Secretary) for the HHS

Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). Funding was

requested and provided (substantially above the requested level) for Hospital

Preparedness Program (HPP) grants6 to establish additional domestic Ebola

Treatment Centers, and to improve readiness to detect cases of Ebola infection

throughout the nation’s health system including purchase of personal protective

equipment (PPE) and other supplies, and training.7 The FY2015 consolidated

appropriation did not, however, endorse the Administration’s plan to establish a

designated Ebola Treatment Center in every state.8

For more information, see CRS Report IF10022, The Global Health Security Agenda and International Health

Regulations, by (name redacted).

Of note, requested funds are separate from charitable funds available to CDC. In 1992 Congress established the

nonprofit National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to aid the agency in its broad public

health mission. (Public Health Service Act §399G; 42 U.S.C. 280e-11.) The CDC Foundation reported in 2014 that it

had received commitments and donations of more than $43 million toward the Ebola response. Ariana Eunjung Cha,

“In Ebola Fight, Private Foundations Provide Critical Financial Aid,” Washington Post, November 16, 2014. See also

CDC Foundation, http://www.cdcfoundation.org/.

This amount includes the $10 million requested for modeling and genetic sequencing of Ebola virus. The FY2015

consolidated appropriations law did not explicitly address genetic sequencing, but this could be included in the $576

million provided through the PHSSEF for HHS/ASPR.

HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP),

http://www.phe.gov/PREPAREDNESS/PLANNING/HPP/Pages/default.aspx.

On December 2, 2014, HHS announced the designation of 35 Ebola Treatment Centers in 11 states and the District of

Columbia. HHS, “35 Hospitals Designated as Ebola Treatment centers,” press release, December 2, 2014,

http://www.hhs.gov/news. Also, the White House reiterated the funding request to continue to “build out” Ebola

treatment and assessment hospitals. White House, “Update on the Ebola Response,” fact sheet, December 2, 2014,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/12/02/fact-sheet-update-ebola-response.

E.S., p. 110.

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

•

$157 million was requested and provided to the HHS PHSSEF for the

Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) to bring

Ebola vaccines and treatments developed under National Institutes of Health

(NIH) and Department of Defense contracts to advanced development and

manufacture for clinical trials.

•

$238 million was requested and appropriated for NIH to fund clinical trials on

experimental Ebola vaccines and treatments.

•

$25 million was requested and appropriated for the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) for development, review, and regulation of Ebola vaccines

and treatments.9

Per the request, all HHS funds (both for immediate needs and contingency) would be used for

“purposes of preventing, preparing for, and responding to Ebola or other infectious diseases

domestically or internationally.”10 The FY2015 consolidated appropriations language provided

similarly broad authority to CDC and the HHS/ASPR to address Ebola and other infectious

disease threats, both domestically and abroad.11 Additional spending flexibility was provided in

the appropriations language regarding renovation of private facilities, reimbursement of

uninsured healthcare costs for Ebola patients treated in the United States, and other matters.12

The Administration requested broad authority for the HHS Secretary to transfer any appropriated

funds for Ebola response within HHS or to other departments as long as funds were to be used for

the stated purpose (quoted in the paragraph above). This authority would be in addition to

existing transfer authorities,13 and would require prior consultation with OMB and 10-day

advance notice to congressional appropriations committees. The FY2015 consolidated

appropriation did not provide such broad transfer authority, limiting CDC funds to transfers

within CDC, and PHSSEF funds to transfers within HHS.

As noted, Congress did not provide the requested contingency funding for HHS. Of the amounts

appropriated, amounts to CDC and the PHSSEF remain available through FY2019, amounts to

NIH remain available through FY2016, and amounts to FDA remain available until expended.

Department of State and International Assistance Programs

Title IX, Division J, of the FY2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriation Act, 2015

(P.L. 113-235), provided a total of $2.5 billion but did not provide contingency funding for Ebola

efforts within the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)

For more information about FDA’s role, see FDA, “Ebola Response Updates from FDA,” http://www.fda.gov/

EmergencyPreparedness/Counterterrorism/MedicalCountermeasures/ucm410308.htm.

White House, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), “Estimate #4–FY 2015 Emergency Appropriations

Request to Enhance the U.S. Government’s Response to Ebola at Home and Abroad,” November 5, 2014, p. 8,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget_amendments. This approach is common for HHS communicable disease

control programs. It recognizes that many domestic and international activities that are planned or underway to address

the Ebola outbreak—such as establishing Ebola treatment centers domestically and emergency operations centers in

African countries—would expand capacity for the prevention and control of other infectious diseases in the future.

For now, pages 391-392 of the enrolled bill.

Ibid., p. 392.

See “Transfers” section of CRS Report R43304, Public Health Service Agencies: Overview and Funding.

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

(see Table 1). The act also provided some transfer authority, but the funds were to be used

specifically for Ebola activities. Obligating funds for Ebola requires a 15-day notification to

Congress.

For Ebola preparedness and response activities conducted by USAID and the State Department,

the President requested $2.89 billion. Of that amount, $2.1 billion was for immediate responses

and $792 million was for a Contingency Fund.

Throughout FY2014 and FY2015, the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International

Development (USAID) had been drawing funds from International Disaster Assistance (IDA),

Global Health Programs (GHP), and Food for Peace accounts to address the Ebola crisis in West

Africa, as well as receiving support from DOD. $376.8 million ($64.5 million in FY2014 and

$312.7 million in FY2015) of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs (SFOPs) and

Agriculture appropriations were used to fund labs for testing; medical supplies and cots; building

and supporting Ebola treatment units (ETU); training and management of safe burial teams; and

training health care workers.14

Details of the requested and appropriated amounts follow:15

International Disaster Assistance (IDA)—Congress provided $1,436.3 million, $35 million more

than requested for IDA. The requested $1,401.0 million for IDA included $539.2 million for

clinical and non-medical management of 12 ETUs; $25 million for contact tracing; $36.8 million

for burial teams training and safe practices; $208.2 million for Community Care Centers; $66.9

million for outreach activities and household protections kits to promote safe behaviors; and

$269.1 million to ensure an adequate supply of personal protective equipment (PPE), which

includes procurement, transport, and warehousing of PPEs. An additional $190 million was for

addressing the food insecurity which has been worsened by the establishment of Ebola quarantine

zones in the Ebola-affected areas resulting in reduced production; loss of labor, livelihoods, and

transportation services; and higher food prices. Another $16.1 million would fund increased

staffing of the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) and USAID’s Response Management

Team (RMT), and support for 20 additional staff funded by USAID’s Operation Expenses (OE)

account.

Global Health Programs (GHP)—For GHP, Congress appropriated $312 million, $28 million

below the request of $340 million. $62 million was requested for disease surveillance,

laboratories, rapid response teams, and risk mitigation in the three Ebola-affected countries; and

$278 million was for the Global Health Security Agenda to establish Ebola Preparedness Plans to

rapidly detect and control any introduction of Ebola in currently unaffected countries in the

region.

Economic Support Fund (ESF)—Congress appropriated $711.7 million for ESF, $500 million

above the request of $211.7 million. Within the request, $71.7 million of ESF emergency funding

was requested to address second-order impacts in Ebola-affected countries and critical

innovations in responses to the epidemic. Examples include broadcasting of primary and

West Africa – Ebola Outbreak – Fact Sheet #1 (FY15), USAID, October 1, 2014, and West Africa – Ebola Outbreak

– Fact Sheet #8 (FY2015), USAID, November 19, 2014. http://www.usaid.gov/ebola/.

Emergency Request Justification, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, FY2015 and P.L.

113-235, Division J, Title IX.

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

secondary classes to school-aged students and investing in Information and Communication

Technology to establish a network that is to facilitate data sharing and disease surveillance during

the outbreak and that can be used in a potential future crisis. $60 million was for rebuilding nonEbola health services in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea; and $66 million was for longer-term

strengthening of basic health services in the Ebola-affected countries.

Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR)—$5.3 million was

requested and enacted for existing NADR expertise of securing dangerous pathogens to be used

for training of local law enforcement on imposing quarantines and securing facilities that store the

Ebola virus; handling and disposing of Ebola-contaminated items; and for biosecurity and related

capacity building.

Diplomatic Engagement—$36.4 million was enacted rather than the $71.4 million requested for

Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP), U.S. Contributions to International Organizations

(CIO), and Repatriation Loans. The request was to pay for evacuations of U.S. government

patients, oversight of the department efforts, outreach and reporting by VOA, U.S. contributions

to the U.N. Mission for Emergency Ebola Response (UNMEER), and repatriation loans to

American citizens who are exposed to the virus and need to be returned to the United States using

proper, but expensive, protocol.

Contingency Fund—P.L. 113-235 provided none of the requested $792 million of ESF funds as a

Contingency Fund to be available until expended. This amounted to 27% of the SFOPs

emergency request. The Contingency Fund was to be available for critical needs related to the

Ebola outbreak and global health security. The request included broad transfer authority of these

funds to other accounts in the Department of State, USAID, or other federal agencies, provided

that transfers were done in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), only

for amounts designated by the President to address critical Ebola crisis needs, in addition to

existing transfer authority, and with a 10-day advance notification to the House and Senate

Appropriations Committees. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law” language, arguably,

would have allowed these funds to be used in countries that currently are prohibited from

receiving U.S. foreign aid if they meet the criteria that there is a critical need related to Ebola in

that country.16 The Administration stated that the transfer authority and the general provisions

requested would provide the flexibility and whole-of-government approach that it said was

needed to address potentially rapid changes in the Ebola crisis.

Department of Defense

Within the Consolidated Appropriation (P.L. 113-235), Congress provided $112 million for DOD

to support additional research on ways to treat and prevent the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

Foreign aid may be suspended or denied for a range of foreign policy and national security reasons, including support

of international terrorism, human rights violations, trafficking in persons, trafficking in illicit narcotics, coercive family

planning programs, denial of religious freedom, disrupting regional stability, and engaging in weapons proliferation, to

name a few. The United States currently maintains robust sanctions regimes against foreign governments it has

identified as supporters of acts of international terrorism (Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Syria), nuclear arms proliferators (Iran,

North Korea, Syria), egregious violators of international human rights standards (Belarus, Burma, Cuba, Iran, North

Korea, Russia, Syria), and those threatening regional stability (Iran, North Korea, Russia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria).

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

On September 16, 2014, President Obama announced an increase in the U.S. response to the

current Ebola outbreak in West Africa. Part of that included DOD requests to reprogram excess

Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds appropriated for FY2014 to support the Overseas

Humanitarian Disaster and Civic Aid (OHDACA) account. DOD submitted two separate prior

approval reprogramming requests totaling $1 billion dated September 8 and September 17 to the

House and Senate Appropriations and Armed Services Committees. The committees approved the

reprogramming, but with limitations requiring additional DOD action prior to use of the funds. As

of November 17, 2014, the committees had approved DOD’s use of up to $750 million of the

reprogrammed funds for the Ebola crisis, in part as directed by USAID. The stated purposes for

the reprogrammed funds include17

•

transportation of DOD and non-DOD personnel and supplies;

•

coordinating delivery of supplies from both DOD and non-DOD sources such as

isolation units, personnel protective equipment (PPE), and medical supplies;

•

construction of Ebola treatment units (ETU); and

•

training and education in support of sanitation and mortuary affairs functions to

limit the spread of the Ebola outbreak.

For FY2015, the Administration sought $112 million in emergency-designated funds for the

Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA). These funds would support medical

research efforts in the United States aimed at developing Ebola treatments and preventive

measures. This includes new research focused on utilizing the antibodies of Ebola survivors to

provide temporary immunity for infected patients until an effective vaccine can be developed and

the accelerated development and testing of new Ebola vaccines and diagnostics.18

DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office (BTO) has previously funded medical research

initiatives. The Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2015 (P.L. 113-291) authorized appropriations in the requested amount. The

Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, appropriated the requested $112

million as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, with $17 million in the “Procurement, Defensewide” account available until September 30, 2017, and $95 million in the “Research,

Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide,’’ to remain available until September 30,

2016.19

Prior Approval Reprogramming Request FY14-16 dated September 6, 2014, “September 2014 Prior Approval

Request,” available at http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2014/

prior1415s/14-16_PA_September_2014_Request.pdf and Prior Approval Reprogramming Request FY14-17 dated

September 16, 2014, “Additional Ebola Response” available at http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/

execution/reprogramming/fy2014/prior1415s/14-17_PA_Ebola_Response.pdf.

“Department of Defense Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation,” p. 21 of the enclosure letter from the

Director of the Office of Management and Budget to the President submitting the FY2015 emergency appropriations

request, November 5, 2014. See http://go.usa.gov/HPgH.

See “Title X—Ebola Response and Preparedness” of Division C of P.L. 113-235.

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

Amended OCO Funds to Combat the Islamic State

Within the FY2015 appropriations (P.L. 113-235), Congress included $5.4 billion in OCO funds

for the Department of Defense for Operation Inherent Resolve, its ongoing efforts against the

Islamic State in Iraq and Syria through U.S. airstrikes and training of Iraqi and Syrian opposition

forces. While the OCO request of $520 million for the Department of State specifically

designated to counter the Islamic State (IS) was not provided in the appropriations act, some State

Department OCO accounts were increased with broader explanatory statement language for

“other assistance” or “other areas of unrest,” or “extraordinary costs, including those resulting

from conflict.”

Earlier, on November 10, 2014, the Administration had amended its FY2015 Overseas

Contingency Operations request by adding $4.94 billion for DOD and $520 million for the

Department of State to support efforts to combat the Islamic State (IS). DOD’s earlier OCO

request in June 2014 already had included an illustrative allocation of $500 million from the $4.0

billion requested in the Counterterrorism Response Fund (CTPF) to train and equip Syrian

opposition forces to fight the Islamic State. Including this allocation, DOD’s request to combat

the Islamic State totaled $5.4 billion.

These amendments brought the FY2015 OCO request to a government-wide total of $71.7

billion—$7.8 billion for State and $63.9 billion for DOD. This compares with $91.5 billion—$6.5

billion for State and $85.0 billion for DOD—appropriated in FY2014.20 Budget authority

designated as Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism (OCO/GWOT), which

is how all OCO funds are designated, is effectively not subject to the statutory discretionary

spending limits established by the BCA.21

Department of Defense

The FY2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-235; H.R. 83)

enacted December 16, 2015, approved a total of $5.4 billion in OCO-designated funds for DOD

to combat the Islamic State. In addition to $500 million to train vetted Syrian forces and $1.6

billion to train Iraqi security forces, this total included operational funds to conduct U.S. air

strikes in Syria and Iraq and support for U.S. trainers.22 While Congress did not adjust the funds

requested for air strikes and to support trainers, considerable changes were made to the

Administration’s requests for monies to train Iraqi and Syrian opposition forces.

As of January 30, 2015, DOD’s cost of operations to counter the Islamic State, which began

August 8, 2014, totaled $1.5 billion, averaging $8.4 million per day.23 Initially, DOD financed

airstrikes and the deployment of U.S. military personnel to Iraq to conduct an assessment and

Congressional Record, “Joint Explanatory Statement, H.R. 83,” p. H9646.

See footnote 3.

P.L. 113-235 sets a $500 million cap on funding to train and equip vetted Syrian opposition forces within the

Counterterrorism Partnership Fund. The Joint Explanatory Statement for H.R. 83/P.L. 113-235 shows no changes to

ISIL funding in the “Explanation of Project Adjustments” for each account, which means that Congress approved the

amount requested.

DOD, “Special Report, Operation Inherent Resolve, Targeted Operations Against ISIL Terrorists,” visited March 6,

2015, http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0814_iraq/.

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

provide advice using OCO funds already appropriated for FY2014. Starting October 1, 2014,

DOD tapped OCO-designated funds in the FY2015 Continuing Resolution (CR, H.J.Res. 124/P.L.

113-164), a practice known as “cash flowing”—relying on current funding until supplemental

funding is provided later in the year (see Table 2).24

Starting October 1, 2014, incremental costs of Operation Inherent Resolve, the new Iraq and

Syria operation, were being paid from funds appropriated by Congress in the FY2015 CR. Under

the CR, OCO for DOD was appropriated at a rate of operations based on the $85.4 billion in OCO

funds enacted in FY2014. This was $26.6 billion above the FY2015 request of $58.6 billion.

Limits on DOD’s Authority to Train and Equip Iraqi and Syrian Forces

Congress approved the $500 million requested to train and equip vetted Syrian opposition forces,

which was requested within a newly established Counterterrorism Partnership Response Fund

(CTPF). At the same time, the final act limited the broad authorities to train and equip forces

anywhere in the world proposed in the CTPF.25

These limitations were first included in the FY2015 CR (P.L. 113-164), in effect until December

13, 2014. In the CR, Congress provided DOD with temporary new authority to train and equip

Syrian opposition forces, but only if DOD requested and the four congressional defense

committees approved reprogramming of available funds.26 The CR permitted a broad range of

training and support activities and required vetting of Syrian participants. This language

paralleled Section 1209 that was included the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act

(NDAA; H.R. 3979/P.L. 113-291), which required approval of requests through reprogramming

and extending the authority until December 31, 2014.27

In addition to reducing CTPF funding from the $4.0 billion requested to $1.3 billion, Congress

narrowed the authorities requested, required that DOD submit reprogramming requests specifying

how the funds would be used, which would have to be approved by the four congressional

defense committees, and required extensive reporting 15 days in advance of using the funds.28

In November 2014, the four congressional defense committees approved a DOD reprogramming

request for $225 million to begin the effort to train vetted Syrian forces.29 In a January 16, 2015,

press conference, DOD said that several hundred U.S. personnel, plus an equal number of support

For example, DOD used OCO-designated FY2015 O&M, Navy and O&M, Air Force funds to conduct air strikes in

Iraq and Syria because these funds finance that type of expense.

DOD had requested a $500 million allocation to train and equip Syrian opposition forces within the CTPF. Congress

included a specific cap of up to $500 million for that purpose within the CTPF.

§149, P.L. 113-164 (H.J.Res. 124). The committees are the House and Senate Armed Services Committees and the

House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The CR was extended twice—in P.L. 113-202 and P.L. 113-203 until

passage of final appropriations

See section below for further details.

CRS Report R43727, Train and Equip Authorities for Syria: In Brief, by (name redacted) and (nam

e redacted).

DOD, Reprogramming Request 15-02PA, Syria Train and Equip, November 10, 2014; http://comptroller.

defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2015/prior1415s/1502_PA_Syria_Train_and_Equip.pdf. DOD, Reprogramming Request, 15-07IR, Syria Train and Equip, November 10,

2014; http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2015/ir1415s/1507_IR_Syria_Train_Equip.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

troops, would train Syrian opposition forces starting in March 2015, with training to be completed

over the next year.30

Congress did not change DOD’s request for operational costs to conduct air strikes against IS and

provide support for U.S. trainers. According to DOD budget justification materials, the $4.94

billion is for

•

incremental military personnel expenses (e.g., hardship pay) for U.S. military

supporting Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR);

•

fuel, supplies, and repair costs for ground operations, flying hours, and steaming

hours of ships in the region, as well as other support;

•

command, control, and intelligence activities, and intelligence, surveillance, and

reconnaissance, and classified activities;

•

replacement of expended munitions (e.g., Hellfire, Maverick, Tomahawks); and

•

$1.6 billion for building the capacity of Iraqi security forces and Kurdish and

tribal forces, providing support to coalition members, and other small-scale

humanitarian relief and reconstruction.31

Adding the $500 million—included as an illustrative allocation and enacted as a cap—to train and

equip Syrian opposition forces brings the total DOD amount to combat the Islamic State in

FY2015 to $5.4 billion. All of these funds were designated as OCO, and hence exempt from

budget caps.

Table 2. DOD’s OCO Funding: FY2014 Enacted to FY2015 Enacted

In Billions of Dollars of Budget Authority

FY2015 Nov.

2014

Amendment

and FY2015

Enactedc

Total

FY2015

OCO

Enacted

(H.R. 83/P.L.

113-235)

FY2014

Enacted

(P.L. 11376)

FY2015

Request,

Feb.

2014a

FY2015

Request,

June OCO

2014b

Military Personnel

7.97

5.39

0.14

5.54

7.97

4.97

Operation and

Maintenance (O&M)d

63.47

37.43

2.32

39.78

63.47

42.56

Revolving & Mgt.

Funds

0.26

0.09

0.00

0.09

0.26

0.09

Procurement

6.23

5.60

0.83

6.43

6.23

7.69

RDT&E

0.14

0.08

0.03

0.11

0.14

0.23

Title

Total

FY2015

OCO

Request

FY2015

Continuing

Resolution

(H.J.Res.

124/P.L. 113164)

Department of Defense, press conference with Rear Admiral John Kirby, January 16, 2015, http://www.defense.gov/

Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=5573.S.

DOD, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Overseas Contingency

Operations (OCO) Budget Amendment Update, p. 2 and p. 3, November 2014, http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/

45/Documents/defbudget/fy2015/amendment/FY15_OCO_Budget_Amendment_Update.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

FY2015 Nov.

2014

Amendment

and FY2015

Enactedc

Total

FY2015

OCO

Enacted

(H.R. 83/P.L.

113-235)

FY2014

Enacted

(P.L. 11376)

FY2015

Request,

Feb.

2014a

FY2015

Request,

June OCO

2014b

Military

Construction/Family

Housing

0.00

0.05

[.18]

0.05

0.00

0.22

Afghanistan Security

Forces Fund

4.73

4.11

0.00

4.11

4.73

4.11

Iraq Train & Equip

0.00

1.62

0.00

1.62

Counterterrorism

Partnership Fund

(CTPF)

0.00

4.00

0.00

4.00

0.00

1.30

Of Which Syria

Train & Equipe

[0]

[.50]

[0]

[.50]

European

Reassurance Initiative

(ERI)

0.00

0.93

0.00

0.93

0.00

0.18

Unexploded

Ordnance

0.00

[.25]

0.00

0.25

0.00

0.25

Otherf

2.36

0.93

0.00

0.93

2.36

1.96

Rescissions

-0.14

-0.12

0.00

-0.12

-0.14

-1.24

TOTAL OCO

85.03

79.45

58.44

4.94

63.65

85.03

63.94

Title

Total

FY2015

OCO

Request

FY2015

Continuing

Resolution

(H.J.Res.

124/P.L. 113164)

Sources: CRS calculations based on Congressional Record, Joint Explanatory Statement (JES) for H.R. 83,

Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Division C, DOD, p. H9643-H9646, and

Division I, p. H. 9947. OMB, OMB, Fiscal Year 2015 Analytical Perspectives, 3-10-14;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives. Senate Appropriations Committee, S. Rept.

113-211, Department of Defense Appropriations April, 2015 to accompany H.R. 4870, July 17, 2014;

Department of Defense, “Overview: Overseas Contingency Operations Budget Amendment,” November 4

2014; http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2015/amendment/

FY2015_OCO_Budget_Amendment_Overview_Book.pdf. H.J. Res. 124/P.L. 113-164; H.R. 83/P.L.113-235.

OMB, Table 28-1, FY2015 Analytical Perspectives; Policy Budget Authority and Outlays by Function,

Category, and Program, 3-10-14; http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives. NS=not

specified.

Department of Defense, Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Amendment, Overview, Overseas Contingency

Operations, June 2014; http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2015/amendment/

FY2015_Budget_Request_Overview_Book_Amended.pdf.

The Joint Explanatory Statement for H.R. 83/P.L. 113-235 shows no changes in the “Explanation of Project

Adjustments” for each account that refer to ISIL funding, which means that Congress approved the amount

requested. Table above excludes $112 million requested and enacted as emergency funds to combat Ebola.

The following accounts that are part of the O&M title are shown separately in this table: ASFF, ERI,

Unexploded Ordnance, Iraq Train and Equip, and CTPF.

DOD included an illustrative allocation of up to $500 in the CTPF; Congress specifically included up to

$500 million within CTPF in Sec. 9016.

Other includes Unexploded Ordnance, “Other Defense Programs,” the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund,

and a $1.0 billion congressional add for “Readiness.”

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

The FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and Train and Equip

The FY2015 NDAA (P.L. 113-291/H.R. 3979) changed DOD’s requested authorities to train and

equip Syrian opposition forces and to return to train Iraqi security forces.

DOD requested a $500 million allocation of funds within the Counterterrorism Partnership

Response Fund (CTPF) to train and equip Syrian opposition forces. The FY2015 NDAA made

major changes to limit DOD’s authority and increase congressional oversight and set a specific

$500 million cap on funds to train and equip Syrian opposition forces. The conference bill also

reduced the DOD request for the CTPF from $4.0 billion to $1.3 billion.

Congress did not accept the Administration’s request to permit the Secretary of Defense to waive

“any other provision of law that would otherwise prohibit, restrict, limit or otherwise constrain

the obligation or expenditure of [these] funds” when setting up partnerships to train and equip

foreign security forces conducting counterterrorism operations.32 Instead, Congress

•

required that partnerships generally rely on already existing authorities;

•

limited the geographic scope of the CTPF to Central and Africa Commands

unless the Secretary of Defense determined that U.S. security was at risk;

•

required that DOD submit specific requests as reprogrammings that would have

to be approved by the four congressional defense committees;

•

required a plan for use of the funds within 60 days of enactment and periodic

reports every 60 days;

•

set vetting requirements for Syrian opposition forces that would receive training

and equipment; and

•

limited the duration of the fund to December 2016.33

Instead of the blank waiver of other laws requested, the FY2015 NDAA permitted more limited

waiver authority for the Secretary of Defense of acquisition and arms sales provisions, and a more

general waiver for the President if determined to be vital to U.S. national security with

notification to the appropriate defense committees.34

Although the FY2015 NDAA approved the $1.6 billion requested for a new Iraq train-and-equip

account, it made several revisions to DOD’s proposal, including sunsetting the authority on

December 31, 2016, rather than September 30, 2017.

Congressional action endorsed the definition of purposes to train and equip Iraqi and other

security forces in the request where DOD would

Ibid., p. 12.

For CTPF reduction, see Sec. 4502 in Division D, Funding Tables in H.R. 3979; these tables do not segregate the

November 2014 budget amendment to counter ISIS from the earlier DOD OCO request except for the Iraq train and

equip request; Text, H.R. 3979, Rules Committee print 113-58, House Amendment to the Text of S. 1847, [Showing

the text of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.],

draft conference of FY2015 NDAA; http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00S1847.pdf. See Section 1534 for conditions applying to the CTPF.

Sec. 1236(j) in Ibid.

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

provide assistance to military and other security forces of, or associated with, the

Government of Iraq, including Kurdish and tribal security forces, with a national security

mission, to counter the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, including the provision of

equipment, supplies, services, training, facility and infrastructure repair, renovation,

construction, and stipends....35

The act also endorsed the Administration cost-sharing provision which capped U.S. obligations

capped at 60% until Iraqi, Kurdish, and tribal security forces contribute 40% of the $1.6 billion

total, in cash or in-kind; at least half of the contribution was to come from the government of

Iraq.36 The FY2015 NDAA deleted the exclusion of arms sales proposed by the Administration,

which permits Iraq to count those sales as contributions.37

Congress accepted the sharing provision proposed that required that for U.S. funds to be fully

obligated, Iraqi, Kurdish, and tribal security forces would have to contribute 40% of the $1.6

billion DOD request (including in-kind contributions), with at least half of that contribution to

come from the government of Iraq. Arms sales could not count toward the contribution. The

conference agreement of the FY2015 NDAA deleted the exclusion of arms sales.38

The enacted FY2015 NDAA also set a 25% cap on obligations and expenditures that would go

into effect 15 days after the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State submit to the

appropriate congressional committees and the House and Senate leadership a specific plan

identifying the forces to receive assistance, retraining, and rebuilding. The plan is to include

goals, concept of operations, timelines, types of training and other assistances, roles of other

partners, number and roles of U.S. military personnel, additional military support and

sustainment, and other relevant details. Ninety days later, and every 30 days thereafter, the

Secretary of Defense is to submit quarterly reports of any changes.39

Congress also agreed to the Administration’s request to expand current coalition support

authorities to include reimbursing Iraq for its logistical support expenses. In addition, $15 million

more would be provided for “emergencies and extraordinary payments” for “confidential military

purposes,” typically intelligence support.40

Additional U.S. Military Personnel

DOD’s additional request would increase U.S. troop strength in and around Iraq and Afghanistan

by some 4,000 in FY2015, including troops providing training and assistance in Iraq as well as

Office of Management and Budget, Estimate #5—FY 2015 Budget Amendments: Department of Defense (DOD) and

Department of State and Other International Programs (State/OIP) to implement the Administration’s Strategy to

Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and update the FY 2015 Overseas Contingency Operations

funding levels for both DOD and State/OIP, p. 11, 11/10/14; http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/

budget_amendments/amendment_11_10_14.pdf.

Ibid., p. 12.

§1236 in Rules Committee print 113-58, House amendment to the text of S. 1847, http://www.armedservices.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-S1847.pdf.

Sec. 1236 in Ibid. “Appropriate” committees include House and Senate Armed Services and Appropriations

Committees, House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees.

Ibid., p. 9.

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

providing additional support in the region. DOD has estimated 3,100 U.S. personnel for training

activities in Iraq and about 800 to train vetted Syrian opposition forces (including support

personnel).41 With approval of most of DOD’s OCO request, troop strength in and around Iraq

and Afghanistan would total 79,047 including 64,482 providing in-theater support (see Table 3).

The NDAA conference report required reporting of the number of U.S. military personnel

involved.

Table 3. U.S. Military Strength, FY2014-FY2015, Amended OCO

FY2014 Enacted

FY2015 CR

FY2015 Request

FY2015 Amdt/

Enacted

Total FY2015 Req.

Afghanistan (OEF)

37,234

11,661

Iraq (OIR)

2,904

In-theater Support

61,071

63,309

1,173

64,482

Total

98,305

74,970

4,077

79,047

Sources: Figure 2 in Department of Defense, Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Amendment, Overview, Overseas

Contingency Operations, June 2014; http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2015/

amendment/FY2015_Budget_Request_Overview_Book_Amended.pdf, and DOD, Office of the Under Secretary

of Defense (Comptroller) Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Budget Amendment

Update, November 2014; http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2015/amendment/

FY15_OCO_Budget_Amendment_Update.pdf.

Notes: Figures reflect average strength.

Department of State and International Assistance Programs

Congress did not provide OCO funds within the Consolidated and Further Continuing

Appropriations Act, FY2015 (P.L. 113-235), that specifically addressed the $520 million request,

although it did provide additional OCO funds. Within Title VIII, Division J of the consolidated

appropriations law, International Broadcasting OCO funds are for “extraordinary costs of United

States international broadcasting to Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq,” and International Disaster

Assistance OCO funds are for “extraordinary costs of the United States response to international

disasters and crises, including those resulting from conflict.” Increased ESF OCO funds were

provided for the “extraordinary costs of contingency operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq

and other assistance.”42 Comparing the FY2015 enacted with the November 10, 2014 amended

request indicates an overall increase of nearly 9% for just the amended accounts. Comparing

FY2015 enacted with the FY2014 actuals indicates an overall increase of 27.6%. The D&CP

OCO account is the only one to decline compared with both the total FY2015 request and

FY2014 actual funding levels (see Table 4).

For FY2015 Department of State efforts against IS, the $520 million amendment requested

Department of Defense, Press conferences with Admiral John Kirby, January 6, and January 9, 2015;

http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=5563, and http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/

Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=5561

See Explanatory Statement for H.R. 83/P.L. 113-235, Division J, Title VIII.

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

•

$8.6 million for D&CP to expand the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism

Communications’ counterterrorism messaging in key languages and increase

outreach and training programs aimed at countering IS propaganda;

•

$100 million for ESF to engage the moderate Syrian opposition and improve its

capacity and credibility;

•

$250 million for FMF to support Jordan and Lebanon’s efforts to protect their

national territory and maintain control over their borders;

•

$65 million for PKO to increase the capacity of the moderate Syrian opposition

to counter IS;

•

$90 million for IDA to provide humanitarian support related to IS attacks in Syria

and Iraq, including food, protection, shelter, clean water, and other supplies; and

•

$6.3 million to increase VOA broadcasting in Kurdish and Turkish language

services, expand Middle East Broadcasting Network’s Alhurra and Radio Sawa

efforts to amplify and provide a platform for moderate Muslims to voice

opposition to extremism over TV, radio, and Internet platforms.

A requested amendment to the General Provisions said: notwithstanding any other provision of

law, funds appropriated under this Act may be used to provide assistance for the Syrian

opposition. If agreed to, this language would have allowed the Administration to use any FY2015

State, Foreign Operations appropriations account and either enduring or OCO funds for aid to the

Syrian opposition. “The Syrian opposition” was not defined in the Administration’s proposal, and

U.S. officials continue to acknowledge that the opposition suffers from a lack of organization and

from infighting, and includes groups whose ideologies and goals may not be compatible with

U.S. long-term preferences for the region. Congress granted a more fully defined notwithstanding

authority for the ESF account in the FY2014 appropriations act and outlined criteria for the use of

funds and created strategy and notification requirements in relation to the authority.43 While

Congress did not provide the requested language for FY2015, it did include some limited transfer

authority for the OCO funds.

Section 7041(i) of Division K of the FY2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 3547, P.L. 113-76)

significantly expanded the Administration’s authority to provide nonlethal assistance in Syria for certain purposes using

the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account. Such assistance had been restricted by a series of preexisting provisions of

law (including some terrorism-related provisions) that required the President to assert emergency and contingency

authorities to provide such assistance to the Syrian opposition and communities in Syria. The new authority made

FY2014 and prior-year ESF funding available “notwithstanding any other provision of law for nonlethal assistance for

programs to address the needs of civilians affected by conflict in Syria, and for programs that seek to—(A) establish

governance in Syria that is representative, inclusive, and accountable; (B) develop and implement political processes

that are democratic, transparent, and adhere to the rule of law; (C) further the legitimacy of the Syrian opposition

through cross-border programs; (D) develop civil society and an independent media in Syria; (E) promote economic

development in Syria; (F) document, investigate, and prosecute human rights violations in Syria, including through

transitional justice programs and support for nongovernmental organizations; and (G) counter extremist ideologies.”

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

Table 4. OCO: A Comparison of FY2014 Estimates vs. the FY2015 Amended Request

and Enacted for Accounts to Support Combatting IS

(In $ Millions)

Total

FY2015

Enacted

% change

FY15

enacted vs.

FY15

Request

% change

FY15

enacted vs.

FY2014

actual

FY2014

actual

Nov. 10,

2014,

Amendmt.

Total

FY2015

Request

D&CP

$1,391.1

$8.6

$1,562.0

$1,350.0

-13.6%

-3.0%

ESF

$1,656.2

$100.0

$1,778.4

$2,114.3

+18.9%

+27.7%

FMF

$526.2

$250.0

$862.0

$866.4

+0.5%

+64.7%

PKO

$200.0

$65.0

$180.0

$328.7

+82.6%

+64.4%

IDA

$924.2

$90.0

$725.0

$1,335.0

+84.1%

+44.4%

$4.4

$6.3

$10.7

+69.8%

+143.2%

$4,705.9

$519.9

$5,113.7

$6,005.1

+8.7%

+27.6%

Int’l Broadcasting

Operations

Total

Source: The Department of State Congressional Budget Justification, FY2015 and FY2016, the White House

Amendment of June 26, 2014, and the White House Amendment of November 10, 2014.

Notes: This table presents only the OCO accounts that were amended by the President’s November 10, 2014,

request. In addition to these accounts, enacted USAID OCO for FY2015 increased over requested by 93.1%,

FY2015 enacted INCLE OCO funds increased over requested by 11.9%, and FY2015 enacted NADR OCO funds

increased over requested by $99.2 million dollars over none requested. For more detail on FY2016 State

Department OCO funds, see CRS Report R43901, State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget

Overview, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).

Issues for Congress

Contingency Funds. P.L. 113-235 did not provide the requested contingency funds. Some in

Congress had expressed concern about the request for $1.54 billion in an Ebola Contingency

Fund for HHS and State. As worded in the request, the broader transfer authority, in addition to

existing authority, would have allowed these funds to be transferred to any agency and among

appropriation accounts, as long as the funds are used “for emergency expenses related to the

humanitarian, economic, and stabilization crisis due to the Ebola outbreak.” Of further note was

the notwithstanding language included in the SFOPs ESF Contingency Fund. That would have

allowed these funds to be provided to countries that may currently be prohibited in law from

receiving U.S. aid, or otherwise bypass other congressional restrictions or mandates.

The Administration stated that given the changing nature of the Ebola epidemic and the need to

address unforeseen outbreaks before they become epidemics, HHS and State Department

Contingency Funds must be accompanied by the authority giving the Administration “maximum

flexibility to respond quickly,” both domestically and overseas.44 Only the funds designated by

the President as critical to address the Ebola outbreak and global health security would have been

obligated, according to the request, and a 10-day advance notification to House and Senate

Enclosed letter from the director of the Office of Management and Budget to the President submitting the FY2015

emergency appropriations request, November 5, 2014.

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

Appropriations Committees would have been required before funds could be transferred. The

Administration said that structuring the Contingency Fund in this way would have supported its

whole-of-government approach while allowing the Secretaries of HHS and State to oversee the

allocation of the funds toward the most pressing needs.

Ebola Emergency Response Act (H.R. 5710). On November 14, 2014, Representative

Christopher Smith (NJ) introduced the Ebola Emergency Response Act (H.R. 5710). It was

reported out of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on November 20, 2014, with no further

action taken. It would have authorized $1.801 billion for FY2015 emergency aid for countries

directly affected by an Ebola outbreak. Similar to the President’s request, it included

notwithstanding language and required consistency with International Disaster Assistance law

within Section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 that would allow any country to receive

U.S. aid for natural or manmade disasters and humanitarian concerns.

The legislation was an authorization of funds, not an appropriation, and also would have

authorized the President to use resources from any agency on a non-reimbursable basis, subject to

consent of the agency head and notwithstanding any provision of law related to limitations on the

use of authorities or funding of such other agency. The bill would have required notification to the

House Committees on Foreign Affairs, Energy and Commerce, Armed Services, and

Appropriations, and the Senate Committees on Foreign Relations, Health, Education, Labor, and

Pensions, Armed Services, and Appropriations within 15 days after use of this authority. A report

to the above congressional committees would have been required within 6 months after the Ebola

epidemic has been contained.

State Department Amended OCO for Combatting IS. Within the amended SFOPs OCO

request was a General Provision notwithstanding language that would have allowed any FY2015

funding in the SFOPs appropriations act (not just OCO) to be used for combatting IS. This would

have allowed both enduring and OCO funds to be used to support the Syrian opposition. While

Congress did include some limited transfer authority for OCO funds, it did not agree to the

notwithstanding language requested.

DOD Amended OCO for Combatting IS

H.R. 3979, the conference version of the FY2015 NDAA, continued the Continuing

Resolution provision that funds training of vetted Syria opposition forces, and approved

the DOD request for $1.618 billion for a new Iraq train-and-equip account. The

conference also rejected the broad authorities for the CTPF requested and included

additional reporting requirements for both the Iraq and Syria train-and-equip authorities.45

As this program is implemented, Congress may want to raise several budgetary and policy

oversight issues about the funding provided:

•

Will the $1.6 billion provided cover DOD’s Iraq training plans and could some

funding be available from other DOD OCO funds that may be larger than

needed?46

See Sec. 1236 for Iraq train-and-equip and other sections in Title XII for expansion of current train-and-equip

programs rather than the Administration’s proposal; Rules Committee print 113-58, House amendment to the text of S.

1847, http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-S1847.pdf.

DOD obligations for FY2014 have been slower than in the previous five years, suggesting that substantial one-year

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

FY2015 Funding to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS)

•

What are the pros and cons of the requested train-and-equip authority for Iraq for

Syria, and how might Congress make adjustments during implementation if

problems develop? Is the cost-sharing arrangement with Iraq practical?

•

Would Congress want to define or limit the missions of U.S. troops deployed in

Iraq or training Syrian forces through an Authorization for the Use of Military

Force?

OCO and Emergency Spending Designations. The President’s $6.18 billion request to counter

Ebola designated those funds as “emergency” requirements and the $5.4 billion budget authority

to counter the Islamic State as “OCO/GWOT.” As enacted, this funding is exempt from statutory

discretionary spending limits under the Budget Control Act.47 The FY2016 budget and beyond

may include additional funding for these missions. Congress may want to consider whether these

programs are temporary or enduring requirements that would be funded in DOD’s base budget.

Author Contact Information

(name redacted), Coordinator

Specialist in Foreign Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Specialist in Defense Health Care Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(...continued)

monies may expire prior to being obligated. In addition, DOD requested reprogrammings using $2.6 billion O&M,

Army as a source because the withdrawals have been faster than anticipated. If less funds are needed in FY2014, and

the withdrawal is ahead of schedule, the FY2015 request may also be overstated.

Such designations are pursuant to §251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of

1985. If Congress were to consider appropriations that were designated as an emergency, a point of order against that

designation that requires 60 votes to waive may be raised in the Senate. That Senate point of order does not apply to

funds designated as OCO/GWOT.

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.