The House Budget Committee heard testimony regarding a $85.4 billion funding request for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) for 2015, including $79.4 billion for defense and $5.9 billion for state department programs. Committee members questioned whether OCO funding should continue and whether these requests should be in the base budget instead. Witnesses from the department of defense and state advocated for continuing OCO funds, but many committee members were skeptical of OCO and certain funding allocations.

1. Budget Committee | OCO Funding
To: Crystal Zhao
From: Robby Stephany Smith
Subject: Budget Committee Hearing on Funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
Date: July 17, 2014
CC: Jon Oehmen
Summary:
The House Budget Committee heard testimony from several witnesses regarding Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) funding. Members of the committee questioned the necessity of
OCO as a whole, the specifications of the funding requests, and the future of OCO within the
U.S. Government and its existential impact on the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of
State, and Congress. The request is for $85.4 billion for OCO funds for 2015, of which $79.4
billion is for defense and $5.9 billion is for the State Department and other international
programs. These international programs include a $5 billion allocation for the President’s new
Counterterrorism Partnership Fund and funds for an EU reassurance initiative fund. Members
were largely skeptical of these two new broad and ambiguous funding requests. In summary, this
hearing lead to the question: Should OCO funding continue? With Members leaning towards no
and witnesses from DOD and State advocating for continuation of these funds.
Department of Defense:
On the Defense side of the spending, a portion of funds will be used to continue counterterrorism
efforts, to train partner nations, to “reset” equipment, to support NATO and our Allies through
various joint exercises, and to provide Syrian regional stabilization via a $1 billion allocation of
funds. Some are skeptical of putting more effort and funds into Afghanistan after seeing the
dismal state of Iraq at the present and a seemingly futile mission there that lead to great U.S. loss
– both financial and physical. Witnesses claim, however, that Afghanistan is inherently different
form Iraq due to a difference in attitude of our allies on the ground. Iraqi’s wanted Americans out
and thus we failed to achieve a status of forces agreement. Afghanis want Americans’ aid and
help, thus making a status of forces agreement more viable to attain. Some think that if this
“blank check” is given to DOD, there is a chance to be in Afghanistan “forever”, while witnesses
pointed out the contradictions of Congressional funding decisions over the past few years. There
is also some skepticism surrounding the proposed $500 million to assist Syrian rebels.
There were many questions from Members to the witnesses surrounding the overall nature of
these budget requests. Many are of the opinion that these requests were foreseeable and thus
should have been included in the original base budget for the sake of true fiscal responsibility
and transparency. While some Members referred to OCO as a “slush” fund, those testifying
asserted the necessity of the fund for DOD’s success in protecting our nation.

2. Budget Committee | OCO Funding
Department of State:
For the State Department, there was some confusion as to why exactly State is taking on war-
related activities and how some of their long-term peacekeeping missions and activities are
placed within OCO requests. It was asked why these requests were not put forth in a regional
budget, but due to the temporary, extraordinary, and immediate nature of the situations, State
believes these requests met the OCO funding parameters. There is much contention over the true
fit of State’s requests within these terms. Questions also addressed the relevancy of State’s
requests, asking if terrorism even pertained to the funding requests.
Questioning and Concluding Thoughts:
On the whole, Members believe that OCO skirts the Budget Control Act caps, while agencies
believe that OCO funding will be an enduring requirement after Afghanistan. Members also
countered that emergency spending must be for a true emergency. Members asked, if OCO
funding is necessary in perpetuity for the Department’s operations, then why they did not come
to Congress to ask for an increase in funding caps. Some Members referred to OCO as a “cookie
jar” of funding for DOD. Others noted that it seems like DOD wants to “skip a step” and not
have to explain why or how they are using their funding. As the two agencies justified the nature
of their funding requests, one Member made the comparison to FEMA, another agency that
needs to be able to respond immediately in extraordinary circumstances but doesn’t have this
special “cookie jar” of funding. Another Member likened such fiscal behavior to “planning, but
always missing”, thus always needing an extra coffer of funds. Congresswoman Lee was also
concerned about DOD not being “audit-ready” and the fact that OCO probably is not, nor can be.
To counter such skepticism of OCO, witnesses noted that without such funds, the U.S. would not
just have a “hollow” force, but rather a broken force. While concerns about DOD’s ability to
manage to a budget were mentioned, Congressman Flores’ questioning of witnesses brought up
three alternatives for the future of OCO – having no OCO and no added top-line support for
DOD’s absorption of these costs; having no OCO but increasing the top-line of DOD for
absorbing these costs; or leaving things currently as they are and continue Congressional funding
of OCO. Most Members asserted that these funding requests belong in the base budget and that
the rationale for OCO is pretty thin. Although, there was broader discussion of the fact that there
have been two decades of war without war taxes to pay for it – just slashing and borrowing – to
slightly justify OCO’s original existence.
In closing, Members asked if DOD thought about the long-term costs and implications of war on
other areas of spending such as veterans’ healthcare. In reference to the President’s new
Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, witnesses stated that budgeting and planning are not on the
same schedule at DOD right now, thus plans for how to spend funds are pretty thin. Overall there
needs to be balancing of approaches for developing the sustainable counterterrorism plan.