{
  "id": "RL32141",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32141",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 104178,
      "date": "2003-11-07",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-08T14:34:47.292544",
      "title": "Funding for Military and Peacekeeping Operations: Recent History and Precedents",
      "summary": "Congress recently completed action on the Bush Administration's FY2004 supplemental budget\nrequest to fund continuing military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was\nsigned into law,  P.L. 108-106 , on November 6, 2003. A major issue in the congressional debate on\nthis, and other such supplementals of the past, is whether military and peacekeeping operations\nshould be funded with supplemental requests or via the regular defense appropriations process. \nSome Members of Congress have urged the President to include the costs of current and future\noperations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the Department of Defense's (DOD's) regular appropriations,\narguing that these are now ongoing operations that should be planned for and funded in the annual\ndefense budget. Others prefer supplementals due to the unpredictability of military and\npeacekeeping circumstances in Iraq and Afghanistan. This unpredictability, they argue, makes it\nextremely difficult to estimate the costs of either type of operation in advance.\n  This report examines 46 cases since FY1990 in which Congress approved funding for combat\nor peacekeeping operations using regular appropriations, supplemental appropriations, or a\ncombination of the two. The report   shows that since 1990, Congress generally\nhas funded combat\noperations with supplemental appropriations. In initial stages of post-combat peacekeeping\noperations, however, Congress has tended to rely on a combination of supplemental and regular\nappropriations. As peacekeeping operations have become ongoing, Congress has switched to using\nregular appropriations.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32141",
          "sha1": "5d13feb4ca5ca550b8a629590dd7f8a10eaef660",
          "filename": "files/20031107_RL32141_5d13feb4ca5ca550b8a629590dd7f8a10eaef660.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32141",
          "sha1": "7f5d5cae670bd5b7fc78c75f2f9d8a142cf2fce9",
          "filename": "files/20031107_RL32141_7f5d5cae670bd5b7fc78c75f2f9d8a142cf2fce9.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Appropriations",
    "Intelligence and National Security"
  ]
}