Peacekeeping/Stabilization and Conflict Transitions: Background and Congressional Action on the Civilian Response/Reserve Corps and other Civilian Stabilization and Reconstruction Capabilities

Nina M. Serafino
Specialist in International Security Affairs

In November 2011, the Obama Administration announced the creation of a new State Department Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations to provide the institutional focus for policy and “operational solutions” to prevent, respond to, and stabilize crises in priority states. This bureau integrates the former Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS). In December 2011, the Administration nominated Frederick D. Barton to two posts: the Assistant Secretary for Conflict and Stabilization Operations and the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization. The second session of the 112th Congress may wish to follow the progress of the CSO Bureau in furthering the work of S/CRS as part of appropriations and oversight functions.

Congress established S/CRS by law in the Reconstruction and Stabilization Civilian Management Act, 2008, as Title XVI of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (S. 3001, P.L. 110-417, signed into law October 14, 2008). This legislation codified the existence and functions of S/CRS and authorized new operational capabilities within the State Department, a Civilian Response Corps (CRC) of government employees with an active and a standby component, and a reserve component. Earlier, in 2004, the George W. Bush Administration had stood up S/CRS to address long-standing concerns, both within Congress and the broader foreign policy community, over the perceived lack of the appropriate capabilities and processes to deal with transitions from conflict to stability. These capabilities and procedures include adequate planning mechanisms for stabilization and reconstruction operations, efficient interagency coordination structures and procedures in carrying out such tasks, and appropriate civilian personnel for many of the non-military tasks required..

From July 2004, S/CRS worked to establish the basic concepts, mechanisms, and capabilities necessary to carry out such operations. With a staff that slowly grew from a few dozen to well over 100 individuals, S/CRS took steps to monitor and plan for potential conflicts, to develop a rapid-response crisis management “surge” capability, to improve interagency and international coordination, to develop interagency training exercises, and to help State Department regional bureaus develop concepts and proposals for preventive action.

Not until four years later, in 2008, did Congress provide the first funding to establish civilian response capabilities, as well as the first line-item funding for S/CRS. The Bush Administration plans at that point contemplated a CRC force of 4,250, including a sizable reserve component of private citizens similar in concept to the U.S. military reserve. The Obama Administration proceeded with plans and funding requests to develop S/CRS and its operational arm, the CRC. The 111th Congress provided funding to expand the active and standby units, but not the civilian reserve. The 111th Congress also established a new USAID Complex Crises Fund (CCF) to support programs and activities responding to emerging or unforeseen complex crises abroad.

The first session of the 112th Congress provided considerably less funding for Civilian Stabilization Operations (funds for S/CRC, the CRC, and related USAID activities) and USAID’s CCF than the Administration requested. For FY2012, the Obama Administration requested $92.2 million for Conflict Stabilization Operations and $75 million for the CCF. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74), provided $8.5 million for Conflict Stabilization Operations and did not fund the USAID CCF. The extent to which this reduction will affect the operations of the new CSO bureau is unclear, however, as the bureau conceivably could draw on funds from other State Department accounts.


Date of Report: January 12, 2012
Number of Pages: 34
Order Number: RL32862
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The Berry Amendment: Requiring Defense Procurement to Come from Domestic Sources

Valerie Bailey Grasso
Specialist in Defense Acquisition

This report examines the original intent and purpose of the Berry Amendment and legislative proposals to amend the application of domestic source restrictions, as well as potential options for Congress. In order to protect the U.S. industrial base during periods of adversity and war, Congress passed domestic source restrictions as part of the 1941 Fifth Supplemental Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act. These provisions later became known as the Berry Amendment. The current Berry Amendment (Title 10 United States Code [U.S.C.] Section 2533a, Requirement to Buy Certain Articles from American Sources; Exceptions) contains a number of domestic source restrictions that prohibit DOD from acquiring food, clothing (like military uniforms), fabrics (including ballistic fibers), stainless steel, and hand or measuring tools that are not grown or produced in the United States. The Berry Amendment currently applies to DOD purchases only.

There are several new provisions affecting the Berry Amendment. H.R. 2955, the “American Shoes for American Servicemembers Act,” was introduced on September 15, 2011 by Representative Mike Michaud and referred to the House Armed Services Committee. This provision would amend Title 10 U.S.C. Section 2533a(b)(1)(B) by clarifying that the Berry Amendment includes athletic footwear as well as the materials and components of the footwear.

On November 18, 2011, DOD adopted the final rule to implement Section 821 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for FY2011 (P.L. 111-383), which prohibits DOD from specifying the use of fire-resistant, rayon fiber in solicitations issued before January 1, 2015. Section 821 also requires the Comptroller General to submit reports to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, not later than March 15, 2011, that assessed the supply chain for the procurement of fire-resistant and fire-retardant fibers and materials for the production of military uniforms. The GAO report was submitted to Congress in June 2011.

Section 847 of P.L. 111-383, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2011 provided a nonavailability exception for the procurement of domestic hand or measuring tools. On March 17, 2011, DOD issued an interim rule in accordance with Section 847. The interim rule was published in the Federal Register and the public comment period extended through May 16, 2011. The final rule was issued on August 19, 2011.

H.R. 679, the Berry Amendment Extension Act, was introduced on February 11, 2011, and referred to the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management. The proposed measure would amend Subtitle H of Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from the purchase of clothing, tents, tarpaulins, and certain other textiles unless the items are grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States.

Some policymakers believe that policies like the Berry Amendment contradict free trade policies, and that the presence and degree of such competition is the most effective tool for promoting efficiencies and improving quality. On the other hand, some other policymakers believe that key domestic sectors need the protections afforded by the Berry Amendment. The debate over the Berry Amendment raises several questions, among them (1) If the United States does not produce a solely domestic item, or if U.S. manufacturers are at maximum production capability, should DOD restrict procurement from foreign sources, and (2) to what extent do U.S. national security interests and industrial base concerns justify waiver of the Berry Amendment?


Date of Report: January 13, 2012
Number of Pages: 20
Order Number: RL31236
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Defense Authorization and Appropriations Bills: FY1970-FY2012

Nese F. DeBruyne
Information Research Specialist

The passage of the Department of Defense (DOD) authorization and appropriations bills through Congress often does not follow the course laid out in textbooks on legislative procedure. Tracking DOD authorization or appropriation bills can often be confusing and time-consuming; this has been particularly true in recent years, when continuing resolutions (CRs) containing the DOD and other appropriation bills have been passed in lieu of the 12 regular appropriations bills for the entire U.S. government.

This report is a research aid, which lists the DOD authorization bills (Table 1) and appropriations bills (Table 2) for FY1970-FY2012. This report includes all the pertinent information on the passage of these bills through the legislative process: bill numbers, report numbers, dates reported and passed, recorded vote numbers and vote tallies, dates of passage of the conference reports with their numbers and votes, vetoes, substitutions, dates of final passage, and public law numbers. Key definitions are also included.


Date of Report: January 12, 2012
Number of Pages: 23
Order Number: 98-756
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Veterans’ Medical Care: FY2012 Appropriations

Sidath Viranga Panangala
Specialist in Veterans Policy

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides benefits to veterans who meet certain eligibility criteria. Benefits to veterans range from disability compensation and pensions to hospital and medical care. The VA provides these benefits through three major operating units: the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), and the National Cemetery Administration (NCA).

This report focuses on the VHA. The VHA is primarily a direct service provider of primary care, specialized care, and related medical and social support services to veterans through the nation’s largest integrated health care system. Veterans generally must enroll in the VA health care system to receive medical care. Eligibility for enrollment is based primarily on previous military service, disability, and income. VA provides free inpatient and outpatient medical care to veterans for service-connected conditions and to low-income veterans for nonservice-connected conditions.

The President submitted his FY2012 budget request to Congress on February 14, 2011. The Administration’s FY2012 budget request for VHA (medical services, medical support and compliance, medical facilities, and medical and prosthetic research) was $51.4 billion. The President’s budget proposed to set up a $953 million contingency fund that would have provided additional funds up to $953 million to become available for obligation if the Administration determined that additional funds were required due to changes in economic conditions in 2012. Furthermore, as required by the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-81), the President’s budget requested $52.5 billion in advance appropriations for the three medical care accounts (medical services, medical support and compliance, and medical facilities) for FY2013.

On June 14, the House passed the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations bill (MILCON-VA Appropriations bill) for FY2012 (H.R. 2055; H.Rept. 112-94). The House-passed measure provided $51.1 billion for VHA for FY2012. The Senate passed its version of the MILCON-VA Appropriations bill for FY2012 (H.R. 2055; S.Rept. 112- 29) on July 20. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2055 provided a total of $51.2 billion for VHA. The House and Senate-passed versions of the MILCON-VA Appropriations bill for FY2012 provided $52.5 billion in advance appropriations for FY2013. Furthermore, both the House and Senate versions of the MILCON-VA Appropriations bill for FY2012 (H.Rept. 112-94; S.Rept. 112-29) did not approve the President’s proposal to set up a $953 million contingency fund.

Congress did not pass the MILCON-VA Appropriations bill for FY2012 before the fiscal year began on October 1, 2011, and funded most of the VA through a series of short-term continuing resolutions (CRs). On December 15, 2011, House and Senate conferees of H.R. 2055 reported a conference agreement (H.Rept. 112-331), which was titled the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, and included nine appropriations bills. Division H of this measure contained the MILCONVA Appropriations Act, 2012. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74; H.Rept. 112-331) was enacted into law on December 23, 2011. P.L. 112-74 provides a total of $51.2 billion for VHA for FY2012 and $52.5 billion in advance appropriations for FY2013. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74), did not approve the President’s proposal to set up a $953 million contingency fund.


Date of Report: January 6, 2012
Number of Pages: 25
Order Number: R41944
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues

David F. Burrelli, Coordinator
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy

Charles A. Henning
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy

Don J. Jansen
Analyst in Defense Health Care Policy

Lawrence Kapp
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy

Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many Members of Congress and their staffs. Recent military operations in Iraq and ongoing operations in Afghanistan, along with the operational role of the Reserve Components, further heighten interest in a wide range of military personnel policies and issues.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has selected a number of the military personnel issues considered in deliberations on the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012. This report provides a brief synopsis of sections that pertain to personnel policy. These include end strengths, pay raises, health care issues, and language affecting the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, as well as congressional concerns over the handling of sexual assaults in the military.

The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, was introduced in the House on April 14, 2011; reported by the House Committee on Armed Services on May 17, 2011 (H.Rept. 112-78); and passed on May 26, 2011.

Various Senate versions were introduced. S. 1867 was introduced on November 15, 2011, and passed by the Senate on December 1, 2011. Often the Senate will add language not included in the House version, add language that affects an issue in a differing manner (for example, the Senate may have end strengths numbers that differ from the House). Usually, these differences will be worked out under the Conference Committee’s consideration of the legislation. The Conference Committee language was incorporated into the report.

On December 14, 2011, the House passed the conference reported version of H.R. 1540. The next day, the Senate passed H.R. 1540. On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed P.L. 112-81 into law.

Where appropriate, related CRS products are identified to provide more detailed background information and analysis of the issue. For each issue, a CRS analyst is identified and contact information is provided.

This report focuses exclusively on the annual defense authorization process. It does not include language concerning appropriations, veterans’ affairs, tax implications of policy choices, or any discussion of separately introduced legislation.


Date of Report: January 5, 2012
Number of Pages: 44
Order Number: R41874
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.