Order Code RL32783
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and
Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and Other Activities
Updated April 19, 2005
Amy Belasco
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division
Larry Nowels
Specialist in Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and
Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and Other Activities
Summary
On February 14, 2005, President Bush submitted an $81.9 billion supplemental
appropriation request for FY2005 (subsequently amended to total $82.04 billion) to
provide funds for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the “global
war on terror,” reconstruction in Afghanistan, Tsunami relief and rehabilitation, and
other activities. As the fifth supplemental of the Bush Administration to focus on the
“global war on terrorism” and homeland security, these supplemental funds for
FY2005 would be in addition to the $25.7 billion received in August 2004 as part of
the FY2005 DOD Appropriations Act to cover war-related costs for the initial
months of the fiscal year (P.L. 108-287).
The Administration’s request includes $74.96 billion for the Department of
Defense, $5.6 billion for reconstruction and other foreign aid, $950 million for
Tsunami relief, and $770 million for other activities. If enacted as an emergency
appropriation, as requested, the funds would not be subject to limits in annual budget
resolutions but would add to the size of the U.S. budget deficit. Taking into account
the funds already provided, DOD’s request would bring its FY2005 total
appropriation to about $100 billion, which is over 45% higher than the amount
provided in the FY2004 supplemental (P.L. 108-106).
While OMB Director Joshua Bolten argues that the request is an emergency
supplemental for “known and urgent requirements,” that cannot be met with existing
funds, some Members have questioned whether this characterization fits some
elements in the request. Some have questioned whether the $5 billion requested in
the supplemental by the Defense Department for the Army’s initiative to re-organize
Army units is an unanticipated emergency request since it was announced in the fall
of 2003; others argue that the initiative is a war-related expense because it is
expected to relieve war-induced stress on Army forces. For foreign aid and Iraq
diplomatic facilities, the issue is whether the requests represent true emergencies or
could wait for later consideration. If not dealt with in the FY2005 supplemental
under an “emergency” designation, however, these foreign policy items could be
added to the pending FY2006 international affairs appropriation bills and would
place additional pressure on the Administration to defend an already sizable foreign
policy increase proposed for next year.
Another controversial issue is the Administration’s proposal to place policy
authority and control of funding with the Defense Department rather than the State
Department to train and equip Afghan and Iraqi security forces. The Administration
is also requesting $400 million for contingency funds related to the war on terror and
$200 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority, both of which have raised concerns.
The House passed H.R. 1268 on March 16, approving $81.4 billion in
supplemental funding. The Senate bill, reported on April 6, provides $80.6 billion.
This report will be updated to reflect legislative action.
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview and Context of the FY2005 Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Previous Funding for the “Global War on Terror” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Main Elements in the FY2005 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Defense Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Foreign Policy Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Other Supplemental Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Immigration Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Craig Amendment, AgJOBS bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Chambliss Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Mikulski Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Cross-Cutting Issues in the FY2005 Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Iraq and Afghanistan Security Forces Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Supplemental Requests that May Fail to Meet the “Emergency” Test . . . . 11
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Defense Department Request and Congressional Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Senate Floor Debate on Defense Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Expanding Military Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Other Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Pending Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
House and Senate Action on Defense Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Shifts in Funding for Various Defense Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Enhancing Death Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
House Floor Debate on the Defense Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Future Cost and Accountability Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Size and Composition of DOD Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Congressional Action — House and Senate Fund Personnel
and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Higher Survivor Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Congressional Action — House and Senate Expand Eligibility . . . . . 25
Recapitalization, Modularity and Construction Costs Grow . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Procurement and Modularity Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Military Construction Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Congressional Action — Approach to Procurement Differs . . . . . . . . 29
Congressional Action — Military Construction Concerns . . . . . . . . . 30
New Flexible Accounts to Train and Equip Afghan and Iraqi Security
Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Congressional Action — House and Senate Bills Add
Oversight Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Flexible Funds to Provide Support to Allies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Congressional Action — House Cuts and Senate Supports Request . . 34
DOD Request for FY2005 by Appropriation Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Foreign Policy Supplemental Request and Congressional Review . . . . . . . . . . . 40
House and Senate Action — Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
U.S. Diplomatic and USAID Operations in Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Afghanistan Reconstruction, Counternarcotics, Police Training, and
Other Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Sudan North-South Peace Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Darfur Region and Eastern Chad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Global War on Terrorism-Related Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
U.N. Peacekeeping Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Palestinian Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Ukraine Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Broadcasting to Arab and Muslim Audiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
List of Tables
Table 1. Main Elements in FY2005 Emergency Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Defense-Related Amendments: Senate Floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 3. Defense-Related Amendments: House Floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 4. DOD Funding: FY2004 Enacted and FY2005 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 5. Proposed Changes in Death Benefits for Active-Duty
Servicemembers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 6. Defense Department FY2005 Supplemental Request and Prior
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Table 7. Foreign Policy Budget, FY2001-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 8. Foreign Policy Amendments: House Floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 9. Foreign Policy Funds in FY2005 Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for
Iraq and Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and
Other Activities
Most Recent Developments
On April 11, 2005, the Senate began debate on H.R. 1268, which provides $80.6
billion, about $1.46 billion less than the President’s $82 billion request and $785
million below the House-passed level. After several days of debate, the Senate has
added amendments to broaden eligibility for benefits for survivors of active-duty
members who die and adopted various other amendments. In the past few days,
debate has centered on immigration measures, primarily proposals to change
programs for foreign temporary workers.1 On April 19, the Senate failed to invoke
cloture and limit debate on the Craig and Chambliss amendments, alternative
proposals to allow more immigrants to work legally in U.S. agriculture. A cloture
vote on the Mikulski amendment that would increase the number of visas for
seasonal workers is expected later today, as is a cloture vote on the bill itself.
Numerous other amendments have been filed, and debate is expected to continue
until the end of the week.
The House approved its bill on March 16. The Senate measure reduces the
requested defense-related portion of H.R. 1268 slightly ($392 million) to $74.56
billion, while the House adds $1.86 billion to the defense spending request. The
Senate Committee bill falls about $315 million below the President’s $6.3 billion
foreign aid and State Department proposals, while the House measure cuts these
programs by nearly $1.4 billion. A key difference between the House and Senate
bills is the Senate support for most of the funds sought for a new U.S. embassy in
Iraq. The House measure includes a provision banning use of funds for embassy
construction. Both bills offset some costs by rescinding $1 billion in previously
appropriated economic aid for Turkey.
H.R. 1268, as passed by the House, also includes the text of H.R. 418, the
REAL ID Act of 2005, regarding immigration and identification-document security
issues as approved by the House in February. H.R. 418 includes several provisions
that may complicate final passage of the supplemental. These provisions include 1)
setting minimum standards for state-issued drivers licenses that can be accepted for
federal purposes (e.g. to board aircraft); 2) expanding the scope of terror-related
activity that makes an alien inadmissible or deportable; and 3) allowing the Secretary
1 CRS Report RL32044, Immigration: Policy Considerations Related to Guest Worker
Programs, by Andorra Bruno.
CRS-2
of the Department of Homeland Security to waive all laws in order to construct
barriers at U.S. borders.2 Thus far, the Senate bill does not address this issue.
Overview and Context of the FY2005 Supplemental
The FY2005 supplemental is the fifth of the Bush administration to focus on
the global war on terrorism and homeland security. As emergency funding, these
requests have not been subject to limits on spending in annual budget resolutions.
In the case of both foreign assistance and Defense Department appropriations, some
funding to combat terrorism has been included in regular as well as previous
supplemental appropriations acts.
Previous Funding for the “Global War on Terror”
Thus far, in response to Administration requests, Congress has provided $268.7
billion in emergency supplemental funding for the “global war on terror,” including
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, enhanced security for defense
installations, and foreign aid spending for reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan and
related activities.3 If enacted, this request would bring the total amount of war-
related funding in this administration to $350.6 billion. The bulk of these funds have
been and continue to be for military operations as the United States enters its fourth
year of operations in Afghanistan and its third year of operations in Iraq.4
In addition to the FY2005 supplemental request, funds for the Department of
Defense (DOD) have been provided for Iraq and Afghanistan and the “global war on
terror” in four previous supplementals as well as regular appropriations acts.5 For
DOD, funds provided by Congress for the period FY2001 thru FY2004 totaled
$176.2 billion. Congress also appropriated $25 billion to cover war costs in the
initial months of FY2005 as well as any shortfalls in FY2004. DOD obligated $2
billion of those funds in FY2004. Thus, the total cost projected by DOD for FY2005
is $98 billion — $23 billion already provided and $74.9 billion requested. That total
is over 45% higher than the $64.9 billion provided to DOD in the FY2004
Supplemental. If Congress provides the monies requested, DOD would have
2 See CRS Report RL32754, Analysis of Provisions in H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of
FY2005, by Michael John Garcia, Mikyung Lee, Todd Tatelman, and Larry M. Eig.
3 This includes $40 billion in P.L. 107-38 and P.L. 107-117, $23.9 billion in P.L. 107-206,
$78.5 billion in P.L. 108-11, $7.1 billion in P.L. 107-248, $10 billion in P.L. 108-7, $86.8
billion in P.L. 108-106, $25.7 billion in P.L. 108-287, less rescission of $3.5 billion in P.L.
108-87.
4 DOD’s war-related funding totals $201.2 billion; see CRS Report RS21644, The Cost of
Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Enhanced Security, by Amy Belasco.
5 DOD received $7.1 billion in the FY2003 DOD Appropriations Act, P.L. 107-248, $10
billion in FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Act, and $25 billion in P.L. 108-287, the
FY2005 DOD Appropriations.
CRS-3
received between FY2001 through FY2005, a total of $276 billion for these
missions.6
6 For more information on war costs, see CRS Report RS21644, The Cost of Operations in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Enhanced Security, by Amy Belasco.
CRS-4
Table 1. Main Elements in FY2005 Emergency Supplemental
(billions of dollars)
FY2005
House
Senate
Department/Category
Supplemental
Passed
Rept.
Request
Supplemental TOTAL
82.04
81.37
80.58
Defense Total
74.96
76.82
74.56
Military personnel
16.87
17.07
17.53
Operation and Maintenance/other
32.88
32.47
32.25
Tsunami relief
0.23
0.23
0.23
Train and Equip Afghan Security Forces
1.29
1.29
1.29
Train and Equip Iraqi Security Forces
5.70
5.70
5.70
[Support for Allies]a
[2.00]
[1.50]
[1.97]
[Army and Marine Corps Restructuring]b [5.30]
[5.30]
[5.30]
Procurement
16.14
18.23
15.87
Research, Dev., Test & Evaluation
0.46
0.51
0.55
Military Construction overseas
1.06
0.99
0.81
Military Construction in the United Statesc
0.34
0.34
0.34
Foreign Policy Total
6.29
3.92
4.98
Iraqi Embassy: mission ops & construction d
1.37
1.31
1.31
Afghan reconstruction, counternarcotics
2.05
1.41
2.05
Sudan/Darfur
0.34
0.38
0.34
Tsunami Recovery and Reconstructione
0.70
0.66
0.66
Aid to partners in global war on terrorism
0.75
0.35
0.59
Palestinian aid f
0.20
0.20
0.20
Other peacekeeping and foreign aid
0.88
0.62
0.84
Rescission prior foreign aid appropriations
-.-
-1.00
-1.00
Other
0.79
0.63
1.05
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
0.11
0.11
0.11
Immigration and Customs
-.-
-.-
.28
Coast Guard
0.16
0.16
0.16
Dept of Justice: FBI, BATF, IG, US Marshals
0.08
0.08
0.08
DEA — Afghanistan
0.01
0.01
0.01
Tsunami warning system
0.02
0.02
0.03
Director of National Intelligence (DNI)
0.25
0.25
0.09
Capitol Police
0.06
-.-
0.05
Natural disaster aid for Hawaii & elsewhere
-.-
-.-
0.18
HHS — vaccine production
-.-
-.-
0.01
Judiciary — additional case workload
0.10
-.-
0.06
Rescissions
-.-
-.-
-0.01
Sources: OMB, Request for FY2005 Supplemental, February 14, 2005. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/budget/amendments/supplemental_2_14_05.pdf]; Department of Defense, FY2005 Supplemental
request for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), and Operation
Unified Assistance, February 2005 (hereinafter, DOD, FY2005 Justification).
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2005_supp.pdf]; OMB Request for FY2005
Supplemental for Legislative and Judicial Branches, March 2, 2005.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Figures in “[ ]” are subsets of other totals.
CRS-5
a. Includes funds for coalition support for Jordan, Pakistan, and other countries aiding in the global
war on terror, plus “lift and sustain” funds for unspecified allies.
b. Total cost of Army modularity and Marine Corps restructuring, primarily procurement of
equipment for new units; costs are included in the relevant appropriation title.
c. Funding for military construction to support Army and Marine Corps restructuring.
d. H.R. 1268, as passed by the House, includes $592 million for a new U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
However, an amendment adopted during floor debate prohibits the use of any funds in the bill
for embassy security, construction, and maintenance.
e. Excludes $250 million in non-foreign policy funds.
f. The Senate-reported bill includes $150 million for the Palestinians and $50 million for Israel.
On the foreign policy side, if enacted as proposed, the supplemental would
increase the U.S. foreign policy budget from $29.7 billion enacted in FY2005 to $36
billion, an increase of 21%. It would also push the FY2005 amount above the $33.6
billion international affairs budget request for FY2006. Except for FY2004, which
included the $18.5 billion Iraq reconstruction aid package, the FY2005 total — both
enacted and the supplemental request — would represent the largest foreign policy
budget, in real terms, since fiscal 1985, and be roughly 50% higher than the
international affairs budget (nominal) immediately prior to the 9/11 attacks.
Main Elements in the FY2005 Request
Table 1 provides an overview of the request. This table does not include the
funding already received by DOD for war-related costs for FY2005, which is shown
in later tables.
Defense Request. The DOD request includes $16.9 billion for military
personnel and $32.5 billion for operations and maintenance that together total $44.9
billion. Of that total, about $35.5 billion is directly associated with operations in Iraq
and $9.4 billion with Afghanistan according to the Defense Department justification
material. In addition, the request includes $5.7 billion to train and equip Iraq’s
security forces and $1.3 billion for Afghanistan’s security forces. Including those
funds, the total for Iraq would be $41.2 billion and for Afghanistan, $10.7 billion.
DOD does not allocate the remaining funds by mission — e.g. for depot
maintenance or recruiting and retention — nor does DOD allocate its procurement
or Research, Development, Test & Evaluation request. About $5 billion of DOD’s
procurement request is for the Army’s modularity initiative, and the Marine Corps
restructuring, which are both designed to create additional units, which can be more
easily deployed independently. The remainder of DOD’s procurement is for a variety
of items to upgrade primarily Army units, as well as $2.7 billion for force protection
items; the request also includes $5.0 billion for classified programs (see Table 1).
Foreign Policy Request. The President’s request for $6.3 billion in FY2005
supplemental funding would support a broad range of foreign policy activities:
! U.S. diplomatic costs in Iraq
! Afghanistan reconstruction and counternarcotics programs
! Darfur humanitarian relief and peace implementation aid for Sudan
CRS-6
! War on Terrorism assistance, including funds for Jordan and
Pakistan
! Palestinian aid
! Ukraine assistance
! U.N. peacekeeping contributions
! Broadcasting programs in the Middle East
! Tsunami recovery and reconstruction
Other Supplemental Requests. The Administration’s supplemental
request also includes several additional items addressing homeland security and
global war on terrorism matters:
! Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation — $110 million for the
deployment of radiation detection equipment and the training of law
enforcement personnel at four overseas posts designed to provide
officials with the means to detect, deter, and interdict illicit
trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive materials.
! Coast Guard operating expenses — $112 million to finance Coast
Guard port security and law enforcement capabilities in the Persian
Gulf, and $49 million for acquisition, construction, and
improvements for a major refit, renovation, and subsystem
replacement of the Coast Guard’s 110-foot Patrol Boats.
! FBI — $80 million to expand the Terrorist Screening Center and to
cover costs of FBI personnel stationed in Iraq.
! Drug Enforcement Administration — $8 million to support DEA’s
participation in the Counternarcotics Implementation Plan for
Afghanistan; and
! Director of National Intelligence (DNI) — $250 million for
additional personnel and a new building for the new DNI who is to
oversee the intelligence budget.
! Capitol Police — $60 million, as requested by the Legislative
Branch.7
! The Judiciary — $100 million, as requested by the Judiciary Branch,
for costs associated with additional case workload.7
7 These requests were submitted on March 2, separate from the balance of the supplemental
proposal.
CRS-7
Immigration Provisions8
The Administration did not include any immigration provisions in its requests,
but in floor debate, the Senate is considering a variety of amendments with debate
focusing on the following three proposals.
Craig Amendment, AgJOBS bill. Senator Larry Craig has offered an
amendment to H.R. 1268 based upon S. 359, the “Agricultural Job Opportunities,
Benefits, and Security Act of 2005” (AgJOBS bill). The Craig Amendment would
streamline the process of bringing in foreign workers under the H-2A temporary
agricultural worker program. The prospective employer would submit an application
to the Department of Labor (DOL) containing required assurances (regarding the
temporary or seasonal nature of the job, job offers to U.S. workers, etc.), with jobs
covered by collective bargaining agreements being subject to fewer assurances.
As is currently the case under the H-2A program, employers would have to pay
workers the higher of the applicable minimum wage, the prevailing wage rate, or a
wage rate known as the adverse effect wage rate (AEWR). Under AgJOBS,
however, the AEWR would remain at the January 2003 level for three years. In
addition to these H-2A provisions, AgJOBS would establish a two-stage legalization
program for agricultural workers. To obtain temporary resident status, the alien
worker would have to establish that he or she performed at least 575 hours, or 100
work days, of agricultural employment in the United States during 12 consecutive
months in the 18-month period ending on December 31, 2004, and meet other
requirements. To be eligible to adjust to legal permanent resident status, the alien
would have to perform at least 2,060 hours, or 360 work days, of agricultural work
in the United States during the six years following the date of enactment, and meet
other requirements.9
Chambliss Amendment. Senator Saxby Chambliss offered an amendment
to H.R. 1268 entitled the “Temporary Agricultural Work Reform Act of 2005.” This
measure has not been separately introduced in the Senate as a stand-alone bill. Like
the Craig amendment, the Chambliss amendment would streamline procedures for
bringing in H-2A workers. Under the Chambliss amendment, prospective employers
would file petitions containing required assurances with Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) but would not submit applications to the Department of Labor. With
respect to wages, employers would have to pay workers the higher of the applicable
minimum wage or the prevailing wage rate. They would not be subject to the adverse
effect wage rate.
In addition, the Chambliss amendment would create a new temporary worker
program, called the “blue card program.” This program would be open to current
unauthorized agricultural workers who have been in the United States since April 1,
2005, and meet other requirements. To be eligible for the blue card program, the
8 This section was written by CRS analysts, Andorra Bruno and Ruth Wasem.
9 For an analysis of guest worker issues, see CRS Report RL32044, Immigration:
Policy Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs.
CRS-8
worker would have to be sponsored by an employer. An alien with blue card status
could work in the United States for a maximum total period of nine years, including
extensions. While the Chambliss amendment would grant blue card workers legal
temporary status, it would not offer these guest workers a direct path to permanent
residency.
Mikulski Amendment. Senator Barbara Mikulski has offered an amendment
based on the “Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act” (S. 352). The Mikulski
amendment would increase the availability of visas for foreign temporary
nonagricultural workers, known as H-2B workers, by exempting returning H-2B
workers from the statutory cap of 66,000 annually, if the workers have already been
approved and successfully held the H-2B visa in the past three years. This provision
would expire at the end of FY2006.
The Mikulski amendment would cap at 33,000 the number of H-2B slots that
would be available during the first six months of a fiscal year. It also would require
DHS to submit specified information to Congress on the H-2B program on a regular
basis. In addition, the Mikulski amendment would impose a new fraud-prevention
and detection fee on H-2B employers, and would authorize DHS to impose additional
penalties on H-2B employers in certain circumstances.10
Congressional Action. On April 19, the Senate failed to invoke cloture and
limit debate, an action requiring 60 votes, on both the Chambliss and the Craig
amendments; the votes were 21 to 77 and 53 to 45 respectively. A vote to invoke
cloture on the Mikulski amendment is also expected today.
Cross-Cutting Issues in the FY2005 Supplemental
While Members have raised concerns regarding individual elements of the
supplemental request, two matters cut across both the defense and foreign policy
portions of the proposal: 1) funds for Iraq and Afghanistan security forces; and 2)
“emergency” designation of selected requests.
Iraq and Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
Within the Defense Department portion of the supplemental, the Administration
requests $1.3 billion for Afghan security force assistance and $5.7 billion for Iraq
security forces. These funds would support training, equipping, and deploying of
military, protective services, and border personnel, and in the case of Iraq, police
training. The resources would be provided to and solely under the authority of the
Secretary of Defense to transfer to the Combined Forces Command — Afghanistan
and to the Multi-National Security Transition Command — Iraq. Although the
Defense request includes some general allocations of where funds would be spent,
it does not include any details about plans for the number or type of forces, or the
10 For more information, see CRS Report RL32044, Immigration: Policy Considerations
Related to Guest Worker Programs by Andorra Bruno;
[http://www.congress.gov/erp/rl/pdf/RL32044.pdf].
CRS-9
schedule anticipated for training Iraqi or Afghan forces and in the request, all the
funds would be available for any expense related to training and equipping of those
forces until funds are expended. This request is similar to other recent DOD requests
for flexibility to use funds for a general purpose, such as support of allies in or
around Iraq and Afghanistan.
Although most of the past Iraq security forces assistance has been managed on
the ground by the Defense Department, the authority and control of funds remained
initially with the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), whose head reported to the
Secretary of Defense, and since June 28, 2004, with the State Department. The
supplemental proposal would shift this authority from the Department of State to
DOD, and move funds from the jurisdiction of the Foreign Operations
Appropriations Subcommittees to the Defense Subcommittees.
In approving $18.4 billion for the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF)
in P.L. 108-106, the FY2004 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation, Congress
earmarked $3.2 billion for security and law enforcement activities. As security
challenges increased through the first half of 2004 and the January 2005 Iraq
elections approached, the Administration, in September 2004, sought to re-prioritize
IRRF spending allocations to shift funds from lower priority activities to more
urgent, immediate needs. The White House proposed an increase for security and
law enforcement programs to $5.05 billion. Because the proposed transfers exceeded
authorities provided in P.L. 108-106, the Administration needed congressional
approval. Congress granted these transfers in P.L. 108-309, the first Continuing
Appropriations for FY2005.
Since late 2004, the Administration has programmed the Iraq security and law
enforcement funds to address a number of key activities, primarily managed by the
Defense Department, but with some responsibility granted to the Departments of
State and Justice and USAID:
! Police training and technical assistance — $1.8 billion (Departments
of State, Defense, and Justice).
! Border enforcement — $ 441 million (DOD).
! Facilities Protection Service — $53 million (DOD).
! Iraqi Armed Forces (IAF) facilities — $691 million (DOD).
! IAF equipment — $641 million (DOD).
! IAF training and operations — $433 million (DOD).
! Iraqi National Guard operations and personnel — $232 million
(DOD).
! Iraqi National Guard equipment — $92 million (DOD).
! Iraqi National Guard facilities — $359 million (DOD).
! Iraqi Security Forces Quick Response program — $120 million
(DOD).
! Commander’s Humanitarian Relief and Reconstruction — $86
million (DOD, Multinational Force-Iraq, and USAID).
For Afghanistan, security assistance funding since early 2002 has been provided
exclusively through the Foreign Operations Subcommittee regular Foreign Military
Financing (FMF) and Peacekeeping (PKO) accounts. FMF aid finances the
CRS-10
acquisition of military articles, services, and training, supports U.S. regional stability
goals, and enables friends and allies to improve their defense capabilities. Policy
direction and funding allocations fall under the responsibility of the State
Department, while DOD executes the program on the ground. Broadly, PKO
activities support non-U.N. voluntary operations, but in the case of Afghanistan,
Peacekeeping appropriations have been used to pay Afghan National Army (ANA)
salaries. Thus far, Congress has appropriated over $1.1 billion in FMF and PKO
support for Afghanistan, FY2002-2005. Similar to Iraq security assistance, FMF
funds have focused on ANA training and equipping. Unlike the Iraqi program,
Afghan police training and support has been funded separately out of the State
Department’s International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE)
account, and would remain under the State Department’s jurisdiction under the
supplemental proposal. The supplemental, however, seeks to shift the source of
ANA training and equipping from FMF/PKO accounts to DOD resources, and to
place authority of the program under the Secretary of Defense rather than the
Secretary of State.
During early review of the supplemental proposal, a number of concerns were
raised about this shift from the State Department to DOD for funding and
management of Iraqi and Afghanistan security forces assistance. Some noted that
this diverges from long-standing, historical practice of State Department and country
ambassador control of a key foreign policy tool in U.S. relations with allies and other
partner nations. While defense personnel may implement the programs, some argued
that it was important to maintain civilian authority over the program, especially over
foreign police assistance.
In response to these concerns, Secretary of State Rice defended the proposal by
noting that Iraq, in particular, is a unique, war zone situation where the United States
needs to maintain a coherent strategy for training and equipping Iraqi security, police,
and border forces. She said that often these personnel operate along side American
military forces and that it made sense to have the Defense Department in charge of
training. She also remarked that the situation in Afghanistan was different, and that
police training would remain under the jurisdiction of the State Department. But, she
added, Afghanistan also remains a war zone and it is important for Afghan security
forces to be fully integrated in their operational efforts. Secretary Rice further
pledged that the Administration had established the “tightest” possible coordination
mechanisms, placing the chief of mission in charge of ensuring close collaboration
between the agencies.11
Congressional Action. The House-passed and Senate-reported measures
approve the Iraq and Afghanistan security forces funds at the requested levels, but
with additional congressional oversight and involvement of the Secretary of State.
The bills require that the Secretary of Defense notify congressional defense
committees at least five days in advance of any transfers made from this
appropriation and report to the same committees on a quarterly basis regarding the
11 See exchange between Representative Kolbe and Secretary Rice during the February 16,
2005, hearing of the House Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee.
CRS-11
details of all transfers. The bills further require that these funds are available “with
the concurrence of the Secretary of State.”
Supplemental Requests that May Fail to Meet the
“Emergency” Test
Appropriations that are designated as “emergency” requirements do not count
against congressionally-set discretionary budget ceilings, formally or informally, but
add to costs incurred by the government and cause the current budget deficit to grow.
Several Members of Congress, including key appropriation committee leaders, put
the Administration on notice that they will look closely at the supplemental proposal,
especially for items that do not represent true “emergencies;” that is requirements that
did not exist or were unforseen during consideration of the regular FY2005
appropriations or that could wait and be debated during FY2006 appropriation
deliberations.
The FY2006 Administration request includes proposals to tighten the definition
of emergency requirements that exempt items from enforcement mechanisms in the
Budget Enforcement Act. The Administration is proposing that emergency
requirements be defined as “a necessary expenditure that is sudden, urgent,
unforeseen, and not permanent.”12 The Administration also proposes that this
definition “encompass contingency operations that are national security related,” and
specifically says that “Military operations and foreign aid with costs that are incurred
regularly should be a part of base funding and, as such, are not covered under this
[emergency] definition.”13
This issue came up in recent hearings held by the Senate Budget Committee and
the Senate Appropriations Committees. In the Senate Budget Committee hearing of
March 1, 2005, some members questioned Administration witnesses about whether
all elements in the FY2005 supplemental were appropriately classified as emergency
spending — such as $5 billion for Army modularity and $300 million for recruiting
and retention — and other members argued that the definition of emergency
spending should be one-time expenditures.14
Within the foreign policy portion of the request, Members have questioned the
“emergency” nature of several proposals. For some time, the State Department
recognized the need for construction of a new embassy in Baghdad but did not
propose funds in the regular FY2005 budget. Instead, the Department seeks $658
million in the supplemental. Likewise, it was widely recognized in 2004 that
insufficient peacekeeping funds had been requested in the regular appropriation
12 Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2006 Analytical Perspectives, February
2005, p. 239; [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/spec.pdf].
13 Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2006 Analytical Perspectives, February
2005, p. 239; [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/spec.pdf].
14 Senate Budget Committee, transcript, Hearing on the Fiscal year 2006 Defense Budget
Request, March 1; see comments by Senator Conrad on p. 3 and Senator Allard on p. 28.
CRS-12
proposal, yet the Administration did not amend its pending request to cover what it
now calls a $780 million gap in peacekeeping requirements.
Additional assistance for Jordan, Pakistan, and Ukraine is also being questioned
by some as to whether the needs represent a true emergency or could be addressed
during consideration of FY2006 funds. Portions of the Afghan reconstruction
supplemental request have also been scrutinized, especially since the $2 billion
proposal follows about a $1 billion appropriation for FY2005 and a similar request
for FY2006. Further, the $400 million providing support for coalition members with
troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other “partner” countries in the war
on terrorism has also been challenged as new initiatives that would be more
appropriately considered as part of the regular FY2006 appropriation process. Some
have argued that longer-term tsunami related reconstruction assistance should be
debated later in the regular FY2006 Foreign Operations bill.
If not dealt with in the FY2005 supplemental under an “emergency” designation,
however, these foreign policy items could be added to pending FY2006 international
affairs appropriation requests that seek 13% higher spending compared with enacted
levels for FY2005. This would place additional pressure on the Administration to
defend an already sizable foreign policy increase that some believe will be closely
scrutinized by Congress.
Within the Defense request, some members have questioned whether funds for
the Army’s modularity initiative launched in the fall of 2003 to create 10 additional
brigades that would be more deployable individually fits the emergency criteria.
Others have questioned whether the funds for 30,000 additional Army personnel is
appropriately considered a temporary, emergency request rather than a longer-term
need. Funding for modularity and additional military personnel was approved by both
the House and the Senate appropriators. Other members have questioned whether
the cost of DOD’s military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are, in fact,
unanticipated or unpredictable since those operations are entering their third and
fourth year respectively, and monthly operational costs have averaged about $5
billion for some time, and should, therefore, be included in the Administration’s
regular request for defense. Questions have also been raised about whether military
construction requests — which typically take some time to build — fit the emergency
category.
Congressional Action. The House Appropriations Committee, in reporting
H.R. 1268, re-designated $995 million of foreign aid funding as non-emergency
requirements and rescinded $1 billion of previously appropriated economic aid for
Turkey as an off-set to the non-emergency items. The House panel determined that
assistance for Jordan, Pakistan, Ukraine, the Palestinians, portions of Afghanistan
reconstruction, and USAID operating expenses in Iraq do not fit the criteria for an
emergency designation, but nevertheless warrant support. The Committee’s report
noted that emergency assignments are limited to funds responding “to a situation
which poses direct threat to life and property, is sudden, is an urgent and compelling
need, is unpredictable, and is not permanent in nature.”
The House-reported measure also denied funding for several foreign policy
activities that the Committee felt would be more appropriately addressed during the
CRS-13
regular FY2006 appropriations review. Most notably, the legislation excludes $570
million in reconstruction support and $66 million in counter-narcotics programs for
Afghanistan that the Committee will take up during debate on the FY2006 Foreign
Operations measure. As mentioned above, however, folding these items into
consideration of the regular FY2006 spending bill is likely to intensify the challenges
of meeting the President’s $22.8 billion Foreign Operations appropriations request.
During House floor debate on March 16, lawmakers adopted an amendment by
Representative Upton prohibiting the use of funds in the bill for embassy security,
construction, and maintenance. Supporters argued, that among other things, the
Baghdad embassy request should have been proposed as part of regular FY2005 and
FY2006 appropriation bills and should not be assigned the emergency designation.
Although several members questioned whether the Army’s modularity initiative
was a legitimate emergency expense, the House appropriators stated in their report
that they felt “compelled to fully fund the Army’s request,” in order to help the Army
face “significant challenges,” and “mitigate the stress on the current active-duty
combat forces.”15
Senate appropriators also questioned whether all proposed military construction
projects — which often take some time to build — are appropriately emergency
requests, and cut several overseas projects for Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan which
they suggested should be considered during the regular defense authorization and
appropriations process when the issue of establishing a long-term U.S. presence
could be debated. During Senate floor debate, Senator Byrd also questioned whether
building a new prison facility in Guantanamo for detainees qualified as an
unanticipated emergency. An amendment to cut funding for Guantanamo was
defeated by a vote of 27 to 71.16
Unlike the House measure, H.R. 1268, as reported in the Senate, designates all
amounts as an emergency.
Defense Department Request and Congressional
Review
In the FY2005 Supplemental presently under consideration by Congress, the
Administration requests a total of $74.96 billion. The Defense Department request
is in addition to the $25 billion already provided in the FY2005 DOD appropriations
act (P.L.108-287) for war-related costs in the initial months of the fiscal year. Of that
$25 billion, $2 billion was obligated for FY2004 expenses, leaving $23 billion
available for FY2005. That brings the total amount anticipated by DOD for Iraq and
Afghanistan and other expenses in FY2005 to $98.0 billion or 45% higher than the
amount appropriated in FY2004.
15 See H. Rept.109-16, p. 6.
16 See S.Rept.109-52, p.31ff for military construction cuts. For Byrd amendment, see
Congressional Record, p. S3515ff, vote on S3523, and section on Senate floor action below.
CRS-14
Potential major defense issues in the FY2005 supplemental include:
! the long-range cost and accountability for costs in the global war on
terror;
! the composition and size of the Defense request;
! enhanced death benefits for service members;
! investment funding for restructuring;
! oversight of flexible funds to support allies;
! implications of military construction funding.
Senate Floor Debate on Defense Request
Since debate started on the supplemental on April 11, 2005, the Senate
considered a number of amendments to the defense portion of the bill (see Table 2
below).
Expanding Military Benefits. In amendments passed by voice vote, the
Senate expanded benefits for survivors of those active-duty service members who die
by:
! providing basic housing allowance for dependents for a year rather
than six months;
! increasing the death gratuity from $12,400 to $100,000 for all active
duty service members after October 1, 2001, expanding eligibility in
the Senate-reported version;
! provides Federal employees who are activated reservists with
additional pay to make up the difference between their military and
civilian salaries; and
! provides meal and telephone services for soldiers recuperating from
Afghan or Iraq-incurred injuries (see Table 2 below).
Other Actions. In floor action, the Senate also restored funding for a new
building for the Director of National Intelligence that was cut during markup. The
Senate rejected an amendment to cut $36 million in military construction funds for
a new prison facility in Guantanamo Bay. On April 12, 2005, a Senate amendment
that would provide $1.98 billion for medical care for veterans was ruled out of
order.17
The Senate also indicated its concerns about accountability by passing the Byrd
amendment which states a sense of the Senate that military costs be included in the
Defense Department’s regular appropriations act, a provision included in the FY2004
Supplemental as well as reiterating a requirement that DOD report its costs for Iraq
and Afghanistan, semi-annually as required in the FY2004 supplemental and the
FY2005 DOD Appropriations Act.18
17 Congressional Record, April 13, 2005.
18 Congressional Record, p. S3786ff.
CRS-15
Pending Amendments. Debate is expected to continue throughout the week.
At least a dozen defense-related amendments are pending on the floor and a number
of others have been submitted. Of these amendments, at least two are likely to be
controversial — an amendment to prevent DOD from terminating the C-130J
program, an aircraft used for intra-theater lift and other missions and a proposal to
require the Navy to keep 12 carriers rather than retire one as planned (see Senate
amendments 418 and 499). The Defense Department considers 11 carriers to be
sufficient because ships are being deployed for longer periods, and plans to terminate
the C-130J program because of cost increases and problems in meeting requirements.
The Air Force is also considering restructuring the C-130J program because
termination costs have been reported to be as high as $2 billion.19
Table 2. Defense-Related Amendments: Senate Floor
Sponsor
Purpose/Congressional Record page reference
Status
Extends payment of basic housing allowance for dependents
Kerry
Approved
of active-duty service members who die on active duty. (p.
(SA333)
(voice)
S3513, 3521)
Kerry
Provides $100,000 death gratuity to survivors of all active-
Approved
(SA334)
duty service members who die. (p. S3513, 3521)
(voice)
Makes up the difference in civilian and military pay for
Approved
Durbin
federal employees who are activated for reserve duty. (p.
(voice)
S3518ff)
Sense of the Senate that veterans rated as unemployable be
Adopted
Reid
considered eligible for concurrent receipt of VA benefits and
(voice)
military retirement. (p. S3620)
Provides meal and telephone service benefits for active-duty
Adopted
Obama
service members recuperating from Iraq or Afghan-incurred
(voice)
injuries. (p. S3641)
Provides amount requested for new building and additional
Approved
Stevens
employees for new Director of National Intelligence (p. 3532)
(UC)
Requires report by 7/15/05 on property disposal process
Approved
Warner
applying during current base closure round. (p. S3644)
(voice)
Renames “death gratuity” the “Fallen Hero compensation” in
Adopted
Salazar
permanent statute. (p.S3643)
(voice)
Sense of the Senate that Congress should not delay enactment
Coryn-
Adopted (61-
of appropriations to support armed forces in Iraq and
Feinstein
38)
elsewhere by debating immigration reform. (p.S3523-32)
Sense of the Senate that war costs should be included in
Adopted (61-
Byrd
regular DOD appropriations. (p. S3786ff)
31)
Cuts $36 million in military construction funds for detention
Rejected
Byrd
facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (p. S3513ff)
(27-71)
19 Inside the Air Force, “Senior USAF officer C-130J terminaition costs could exceed $2
billion,” March 4, 2005 and Washington Post, “Air Force to Require Lockheed Cost Details,
April 14, 2005.
CRS-16
Sponsor
Purpose/Congressional Record page reference
Status
Murray
Provides $1.98 billion for medical care for veterans (p.
Ruled out of
S3451ff)
order
House and Senate Action on Defense Request
As marked up by the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) on April 6, 2005,
the total for the Defense Department would be $74.65 billion or $554 million less
than the Administration’s request and $1.86 billion less than the House version. The
Senate appropriators generally provided funds close to the amounts requested for
each service by DOD but distributed the funds somewhat differently among accounts.
Like the House, the SAC provides the full $7.0 billion requested to train Afghan and
Iraqi security forces but added several oversight mechanisms. For both special
accounts, the House and the SAC would require:
! the concurrence of the Secretary of State;
! five-day advance notification to the defense committees of fund
transfers;
! quarterly reports to the defense committees;
! availability of funds limited to the end of FY2006.
Shifts in Funding for Various Defense Accounts. The Senate
appropriators made several major adjustments to DOD’s requests specifically
directing more funds to military personnel accounts to pay for enhanced death
benefits for survivors of service members as well as adding funds to RDT&E
accounts. To offset these increases, the Senate panel cut $500 million in operations
and maintenance monies that was designated to train and equip foreign sources, with
those costs to be funded instead in the special Iraq Security Forces Fund described
above. The House added funds to procurement accounts.
The SAC also cut $253 million in military construction funds because they were
not convinced that the projects met an emergency criteria and because of concerns
about the implications that the projects may prematurely signify an “enduring
presence” of the United States in the region.20 The Senate panel also cut $265
million in procurement, mainly from classified programs. Unlike the House, the
Senate appropriators did not add funds for additional Army and Marine Corps
equipment such as trucks and other vehicles.
In markup, the Senate Appropriations Committee added several provisions
including a section that would prohibit DOD from spending funds for a winner-take-
all competition for the DD(X) destroyer as is being considered by DOD. For
additional details about the Senate-reported bill, see individual sections below.
Enhancing Death Benefits. The Senate appropriators, like the House,
endorsed the Administration’s proposal to raise the limit on life insurance that
20 For a discussion of these construction issues, see CRS Memo, “Military Construction in
Support of Afghanistan and Iraq,” by Amy Belasco, April 11, 2005, available from author.
CRS-17
members can purchase from $250,000 to $400,000 and to increase the death gratuity
from $12,400 to $100,000 in certain circumstances. DOD proposed that the Secretary
of Defense be given discretion to determine who would be eligible for the higher
benefits retroactively and in the future. The House and the Senate bills propose
different changes in the eligibility standards for survivors to receive these enhanced
death benefits with the House changing the eligibility for life insurance and the
Senate changing eligibility for the death gratuity (see section below entitled “Higher
Survivor Benefits” for a full discussion).
House Floor Debate on the Defense Request
As passed by the House on March 16, 2005, H.R. 1268 provides DOD with a
total of $76.8 billion, $1.8 billion above the request. The House added funds for
trucks, tracked vehicles, and other equipment for the Army and Marine Corps much
of which would otherwise be funded in the regular FY2006 DOD appropriations. In
addition to supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of the fiscal
year, the bill provides a total of $18 billion for procurement of equipment for
returning and deploying units, for new Army and Marine Corps units, and to replace
equipment losses. Despite some concerns about whether the emergency classification
was appropriate, the House fully-funded the Army and Marine Corps request for $5.3
billion to restructure units to be more deployable.
The bill also fully funds the DOD request for $7.0 billion to train and equip
Afghan and Iraqi security forces though it requires concurrence of the Secretary of
State in use of the funds and includes additional reporting requirements. The bill
provides $480 million less than the $2.9 billion requested for coalition and other
support for allies working with U.S. military forces. H.R. 1268 also includes
enhanced death benefits for service members. During the two days of floor debate
on H.R. 1268 on March 15th and March 16th, 2005, the House considered 11 defense-
related amendments (see Table 3). The House adopted an amendment that modified
eligibility for enhanced death benefits for service members that was included in the
bill. The House rejected attempts by some members to add amendments to set up a
commission modeled on World War II’s Truman Commission to investigate
contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan in response to recent concerns about accounting
for war costs. For more details, see discussion of individual issues below.
CRS-18
Table 3. Defense-Related Amendments: House Floor
Sponsor
Purpose/Congressional Record page reference
Status
Reduces and then increases Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-wide by $1 million; with the intent to require the
Approved
Moran
Defense Department to provide Congress with standards for
(voice)
success in Iraq. (p. H1458)
Prohibits the use of funds in the bill for purposes that would
Approved
Markey
violate the United Nations Convention Against Torture. (p.
(420-2)
H1496)
Prohibits the use of funds in the bill for contracts that
Approved
Velazquez
contravene small business participation goals in Sec. 15 (g)(2)
(voice)
of the Small Business Act.
Adds $5 million to Operation and Maintenance defense-wide to
Rejected
Tierney
be used to create a commission to investigate contracting in
(191-236)
Iraq. (p. H1455; H1486)
Motion to recommit bill with instructions to increase funds for
Rejected
Hooley
O&M by $40 million and funding for Defense Health by $100
(200-229)
million.
Transfers $186 million from regular defense appropriations bills
Woolsey
Withdrawn
to National Guard and Reserve personnel. (p. H1457)
Adds title, Hope at Home Act, providing that activated
reservists with federal jobs would receive the difference
Lantos
between their military and civilian salaries, and provides tax
Withdrawn
credits to private businesses which make up the difference in
income. (p. H1490).
Requires that military personnel who are evacuated due to
Markey
injuries continue to receive hazardous duty pay until they are re-
Withdrawn
assigned. (p. H1495)
Prohibits obligating funds in the bill for national intelligence
activities in countries sponsoring terrorism until President
Obey
informs congressional intelligence and defense communities of
Withdrawn
all clandestine military activities where U.S. government
involvement will be hidden.
Establishes a select committee of the House to investigate
Point of
Tierney
awarding and implementation of contracts in Afghanistan
Order
and Iraq. (p. H1452)
Prohibits use of funds in the bill for reconstruction contracts in
Point of
Filner
Iraq unless employers agree to give preference to veterans.
Order
Sources: Congressional Record, March 15, p.H.1427-H.1500 and March 16, 2005, p.
H1545-26.
Future Cost and Accountability Issues
As part of the current debate about U.S. involvement in Iraq, the long-range cost
of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and accounting for those costs continue to be
significant issues. The Administration has not provided a projection of DOD costs
for FY2006-FY2011 that was required by January 1, 2005 in the FY2005 DOD
CRS-19
Appropriations Act.21 The Congressional Budget Office recently published an
illustrative long-term cost estimate that assumes that military personnel deployed or
supporting operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and enhanced security for defense
installations remain at today’s level of about 300,000 through FY2006, then decline
gradually to 74,000 by FY2010, and remain at that level through FY2015.22 Based
on those assumptions, CBO estimated that the cost for DOD from FY2006-FY2010
would be $260 billion and the ten-year cost through FY2015 would be $393 billion.23
Typically, CBO’s estimates are lower than DOD requests.24
CRS has estimated that DOD has already received $201.2 billion for Iraq,
Afghanistan, and enhanced security through previous enacted appropriations. If
Congress provides the $75 billion requested for the remainder of FY2005, and if
CBO’s estimate of $260 billion were to be accurate, DOD’s costs could total $536
billion by FY2010.
The Democratic staff of the House Budget Committee (HBC) also recently
issued a report specifically projecting the future costs of the Iraq war (i.e. excluding
Afghanistan and enhanced security) under two scenarios. One scenario envisions that
the United States withdraws all forces from Iraq within four years or by 2009, a
scenario which Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld told reporters that he expected to be
the case.25 Based on that scenario, the study estimates Iraq costs could total $461
billion including $287 billion in DOD costs and $175 billion in interest costs of the
Federal government because of the additional borrowing necessary to pay for the war.
Assuming a more gradual withdrawal of forces for Iraq as assumed by CBO, this
analysis estimates costs through FY2015 would total $646 billion, including $430
billion in DOD costs and $217 billion in additional interest costs.26
Congressional Action. Although the Administration did not include any
funds for war-related expenses in FY2006, both the House and Senate budget
committees are expected to include a reserve fund of about $50 billion for FY2006
but no war-related funding for later years. The House is currently marking up its
resolution. In a recent estimate, CBO reported that the deficit in FY2005 —
including an estimate of war-related spending — would total $394 billion in FY2005
21 See Section 9012 of P.L. 108-287; the President may waive the requirement if he certifies
that the cost may not be provided for “purposes of national security.”
22 CBO, Estimate of War Spending, FY2005-FY2015, February 1, 2005.
[http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/60xx/doc6067/02-01-WarSpending.pdf]
23 CBO, Estimate of War Spending, FY2005-FY2015, February 1, 2005.
[http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/60xx/doc6067/02-01-WarSpending.pdf]
24 CBO, Letter to Senator Kent Conrad, “Estimated Costs of Continuing Operations in Iraq
and Other Operations of the Global War on Terrorism,” June 25, 2004, p. 1.
25 New York Times, “Rumsfeld Sees an Iraq Pullout in Four Years,” December 7, 2004.
26 House Budget Committee, Democratic Caucus, “Iraq War Cost Estimate” Costs to Date
and Costs to Go,” February 15, 2005.
[http://www.house.gov/budget_democrats/analyses/06iraq_war_cost_update.pdf].
CRS-20
and $370 billion to $375 billion in FY2006.27 Although several members expressed
concerns about the lack of information about future costs of the war and occupations,
H.R.1268 does not address this issue.
Accountability Concerns. Attempts on the House side to add amendments
during markup and floor debate to set up investigating committees or a special
commission modeled on the World War II Truman Commission that would
investigate war-time contracting failed to be added to H.R. 1268. During floor
debate, members raised concerns about where and how the Department of Defense
has spent the $200 billion already appropriated for the “global war on terror” in light
of recent reports by auditors about misuse of funds and DOD’s lateness in submitting
reports on war costs. DOD has not yet sent Congress two reports on war costs and
other matters that were required by statute and due on April 1 and October 31, 2004;
nor has DOD delivered an estimate of costs for FY2006-FY2011 that was due
January 1, 2005.28 An amendment offered by Congressman Tierney to set up a select
committee of the House made up of 15 members to investigate the awarding and
implementation of contracts was ruled out of order and a follow-up amendment to
provide $5 million to be used for such a commission was rejected by a vote of 236
to 191 (see Table 3 above).
The House later adopted by voice vote the Moran amendment which reduced
and then added $1 million to funding for Operation and Maintenance Defensewide
with the intent — as voiced on the floor — that these funds would be used by the
Defense Department to provide Congress with information about its standards for
success in Iraq. The House also adopted the Velazquez amendment that would
require that contractors receiving funds in the act comply with small business
participation goals. In floor debate, Senator Byrd’s sense of the Senate amendment
to include war and occupation costs in DOD’s regular appropriations, following
various precedents, and to require DOD to submit reports on costs that are overdue
passed by a vote of 61 to 31.29
Torture and Intelligence Amendments. During floor debate on March
16, 2005, the House adopted an amendment offered by Representative Markey that
would prohibit the use of funds for any act in violation of the U.N. Convention
against torture that the United States signed. Congressman Obey also withdrew an
amendment offered earlier that would have prohibited the obligation of funds in the
act for intelligence activities until the Administration submitted to the intelligence
and defense communities on the Hill a procedure for advance reporting on
clandestine activities, stating that the White House had agreed to work out a reporting
process.30
27 CBO, Letter to Senator Thad Cochran, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S.
Senate, March 4, 2005, p. 1.
28 See P.L.108-106, Sec. 1120, P.L.108-287, Section 9010, and Sec. 9012; for debate,
Congressional Record, March 15, 2005, p.H1444, H1449, H1453-H1459.
29 Congressional Record, April 18, 2005, p. S3786ff.
30 See Congressional Record, March 16, 2005, p. H.1515. For further information about
(continued...)
CRS-21
Size and Composition of DOD Request
The Defense Department request for FY2005 — including the $25 billion in
funds previously provided in the FY2005 regular DOD Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-
287) — totals $98.0 billion or over 45% more than the $65.1 billion provided in the
FY2004 Emergency Supplemental (P.L. 108-106). The total request includes several
major types of expenses as shown in Table 4:
! Recurring costs for military operations, which increase by 17%
from $60.2 billion in FY2004 to $70.5 billion in FY2005;
! Investment costs, which grow six-fold from $3 billion in FY2004
to almost $18 billion in FY2005 to replace equipment damaged or
lost in battles, recapitalize equipment for units returning to the
United States who leave their equipment behind, and buy additional
equipment for units to improve capability or add force protection;
! Support for other nations, which increase five-fold from $2 billion
to $11.5 billion including funds to train and equip Afghan and Iraqi
security forces, funds to pay for cooperative operations in the war on
terrorism by Jordan and Pakistan (coalition support), DOD
counterdrug programs in Afghanistan, administrative costs in Iraq,
and the Commanders Emergency Response Fund (CERP), a program
providing funds directly to unit commanders to distribute for local
needs.
Much of the year’s operating costs have already been provided in the $25 billion
included in Title IX of the FY2005 DOD Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-287).
Combined with peacetime appropriations for FY2005, those funds may allow DOD
to finance or cash flow war-related expenses through May 2005.31 Of the total
request, about 70% is for operational costs — higher pay for active-duty forces who
are deployed, the cost of activating reservists, higher operating tempo costs, higher
depot maintenance costs to repair equipment reflecting wear and tear on equipment,
and classified programs. In the FY2005 supplemental request, recurring costs for
military operations increase by $10 billion or 17%. About $3.5 billion is for higher
than anticipated fuel costs, and another $3.5 billion is for higher operating tempo.
Military personnel costs are comparable to FY2004 reflecting force levels in
FY2005 similar to those the previous year. The Defense Department anticipates that
forces in Iraq will decline from a highpoint of about 160,000 before the Iraqi
30 (...continued)
issues relating to clandestine activities, see CRS Report RL32601, Comparison of 9/11
Commission Recommended Intelligence Reforms, S. 2845, S. 2774, H.R. 5024,
Administration Proposal, H.R. 10, Current Law, by Alfred Cumming.
31 CRS calculation taking into account average peacetime and war-related obligation rates,
assumes DOD would use all 4th quarter peacetime Army O&M and military personnel funds
as well as remaining transfer authority (where DOD moves funds between appropriation
accounts with Congressional approval).
CRS-22
elections to 138,000 or about 20 brigades. Force levels in Afghanistan are expected
to remain at about 18,000 or three brigades.32 DOD continues to provide little
information about the roughly 300,000 military personnel either deployed or
supporting Iraq and Afghan operations, as well as enhanced security for defense
installations. The justification does not say how many reserve personnel are expected
to be activated, on average, for FY2005, or the number of personnel likely to be
deployed more than once in three years for active-duty forces or more than once in
five years for reserves, the policy standard set by DOD. As of the end of FY2004,
one-third of all those deployed had served two or more deployments suggesting that
these DOD policies are currently not being met.33
32 DOD, FY2005 Justification, p. 15.
33 Data from the Defense Manpower Data Center.
CRS-23
Table 4. DOD Funding: FY2004 Enacted and FY2005 Request
(in billions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2005
FY2004
P.L. 108-
Type of Cost
Total
Request
Enacted
287
[Brackets = entry not included in totals]
(Title IX +
(net of Title
Supp.
Title IX
Request)
IX)
Military Operations Costs
60.2
21.4
70.5
49.1
Operating Tempo
31.8
15.8
35.6
19.8
Military Personnel
18.6
1.1
17.6
16.5
Depot Maintenance
2.8
0.4
3.6
3.2
Healthcare Support
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.2
Fuel price increase
0.0
1.0
3.5
2.5
Working Capital Fundsa
0.0
0.5
0.9
0.4
Morale/ Welfare/ Recreation
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.3
Classified/Other Global War on Terrorismb
6.3
1.8
8.0
6.2
Investment Costs
3.0
2.6
17.8
15.2
Military Constructionc 0.5
0.0
1.1
1.1
Replacing battle losses
0
0.0
1.8
1.8
Recapitalization and Procurement
2.2
2.6
9.5
6.6
Army Modularityd
0.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
Marine Corps Force Structure Review Grp
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
Storm Damage Repair
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
Support to Other Nations
2.0
1.1
11.5
10.4
Iraq
[Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund,
[5.0]
0.0
0.0
0.0
security costs funded in foreign operations]
Iraq Security Fund
0.0
0.0
5.7
5.7
Commanders Emergency Response Fund
[. ]
0.4
0.7
0.3
[legislative cap]
Train and Equip: Backfill
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
CPA Operating Costs/Iraq Project and
NA
0.0
0.3
0.3
Contracting Office
Afghanistan
[Military Aid training of security forces
[.7]
0.0
0.0
0.0
funded in foreign ops]
Afghan Security Fund
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
Commanders Emerg. Response Program
0.1
0.1
0.0
Train and Equip: Backfill
0.3
0.3
0.0
Afghan Freedom Spt. Act & Counterdrug
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.5
Coalition Support (Includes Lift &Sustain)
1.9
0.0
2.0
2.0
Special Operations Forces Ctr in Jordan
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
Tsunami Relief
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
TOTAL SUPP’L
65.2
24.9
99.8
74.9
FY2005 Already Enacted in Title IX
NA
24.9
-24.9
NA
FY2005 New Request
NA
NA
74.9
74.9
Notes and Sources: See [http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2005_supp.pdf]
a. Excludes fuel price increase.
b. Includes both procurement and O&M funds.
c. Excludes military construction for modularity.
d. Includes military construction associated with modularity.
CRS-24
The FY2005 Supplemental request includes about $1.7 billion for the cost of an
additional 30,000 active-duty military personnel authorized by Congress for FY2005
in order to reduce stress on current forces. Some Members have suggested that these
additional personnel will be needed on a long-term basis rather than temporarily
because of Afghanistan and Iraq and hence that this expense should be included in
DOD’s regular budget rather than the supplemental.
The Defense Department has argued that the additional personnel will only be
needed temporarily until additional units are created by the Army’s modularity
initiative in FY2007, additional military spaces are freed up through converting
military billets to civilian slots, and “re-balancing” or changing the skill mix of active
and reserve Army units to increase skills now needed in greater numbers is
completed. Military police, civil affairs and intelligence personnel billets are to be
increased while artillery personnel and others are decreased.
Congressional Action — House and Senate Fund Personnel and
Operations. Both the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) and the House
added funds to military personnel accounts with the SAC adds directed to fund the
higher death benefits in the bill (see section below). Both bills reduce DOD’s $31
billion in operation and maintenance (O&M) funding (excluding Tsunami relief and
the Afghan and Iraq Security Funds) by between $600 million and $700 million. The
House cuts are directed at funds being provided to reimburse allies for their
participation in the “global war on terror” (see section below).34 The Senate-reported
version reduces O&M for a duplicate request from DOD to provide “train and equip”
funds in both the Army O&M account and the Iraq Security Forces Fund. Unlike
previous supplementals, DOD’s FY2005 request applies savings in FY2005 from
$1.1 billion in peacetime training of Army forces and $159 million training for
Marine Corps forces to wartime costs.35
Higher Survivor Benefits
DOD’s FY2005 Supplemental request includes $376 million to provide higher
death benefits to the families of those killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan
including funds to pay higher benefits retroactively.36 Under the Administration’s
proposed language, for the future, the Secretary of Defense could designate those
areas where service members who died in action or as a result of related injuries or
illness would be eligible to receive a death gratuity of $100,000 rather than the
current $12,420 level. In addition, the Administration proposes to increase the limit
on Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) from the current $250,000 to
$400,000.
34 These proposed reductions are taken from Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (see
Table 6). Total for Operation and Maintenance includes funding for working capital funds,
Defense Health, and Drug Interdiction.
35 House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 109-16, March 11, 2005, p. 12.
36 DOD, FY2005 Justification, February 2005, p. 15;
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2005_supp.pdf].
CRS-25
Both changes would be applied retroactively to October 7, 2001 for those who
died while serving in the Iraq and Afghan theater of operations; thus, survivors of
those killed would receive an additional $238,000 including $88,000 in a death
gratuity and $150,000 in higher insurance payments (see Table 5).37
There has been considerable debate in Congress about who should receive these
proposed enhanced benefits. In testimony, General Myers, Chair of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and the Chiefs of the individual services each voiced personal opinions that
these enhanced benefits should be available to any service member who died
regardless of the circumstances.38 Several bills have been introduced by members of
Congress to provide such benefits including the Standing with Our Troops Act of
FY2005 and the Heroes Act.39
Congressional Action — House and Senate Expand Eligibility. Both
the House and the Senate are proposing to increase eligibility for survivor benefits
in ways that differ from the Administration and differ about who would be eligible
for retroactive and future benefits (see Table 5). The House version appears to be
somewhat broader than the Senate in terms of eligibility of survivors of those service
members who have died and those dying in the future.
Retroactive Increase in Benefits. The House version would give an
additional $150,000 to survivors of active duty service member who dies from injury
or illness “in the performance of duty,” a coverage broader than proposed by the
Administration which covered only those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not
clear who would be covered under this new standard. In floor debate, Congressman
Obey (author of the amendment adopted) suggested that the House version would
cover deaths of active-duty members who die while “in the line of duty” but not those
who die while off-duty, such as in a drunken driving accident.40 The cost of the
higher benefit is also not clear and could range from $95 million to $300 million
according to Representative Obey, and up to $500 million more than in the request
according to OMB.41 Additional funds were not provided to cover this cost but the
37 Office of Management and Budget, FY2005 Supplemental, 2-14-05, p. 57 to P. 58.
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/supplemental_2_14_05.pdf] For a
complete discussion of benefits available to survivors of deceased service members, see
CRS Report RL32769, Military Death Benefits: Status and Proposals, by David F. Burrelli
and Jennifer R. Corwell. The additional insurance payment would be given to all survivors
regardless of whether the service member had signed up; 98% of active-duty members elect
the coverage.
38 Senate Armed Services Committee, transcript, Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget,
February 17, 2005, p.78.
39 Senate Armed Services Committee, transcript, Hearing on Death Benefits for Survivors
of Military Personnel, February 1, 2005.
40 Congressional Record, March 15, 2005, p. H1466.
41 See Sec. 1114 (b) in H.R. 1268 and CQ, “Panel Endorses $81.3 billion Emergency
Supplemental,” by Gayle S. Putrich, March 8, 2005. See DOD, FY2005 Justification,
February 2005 for Administration’s proposed language, p.57, and p. 15 for cost. For OMB
(continued...)
CRS-26
Defense Department would be obligated to make payments if the language is
adopted.
The Senate appropriators adopted a different eligibility criterion that would give
$150,000 to survivors of members who die in the Afghan or Iraqi theater or to those
who die of “combat-related activities,” a standard currently defined in statute to
include hazardous duty, conditions simulating war or an instrumentality of war.42
The Senate bill adds about $400 million to DOD’s military personnel accounts for
the broader benefits that would apply retroactively and in the future. In the Senate
bill, however, these benefits would go into effect 90 days after enactment and lapse
on September 30, 2005. The authorizers are likely to address this issue in the
FY2006 National Defense Authorization. By voice vote on April 13, 2005, the Senate
adopted the Kerry amendment, which increased the death gratuity from $12,000 to
$100,000 for all active-duty service members retroactively to October 12, 2001.
Future Increases in Death Benefits. In the House version, service
members in the future could increase their coverage under Servicemembers Group
Life Insurance (SGLI) from $250,000 to $400,000 (in increments of $50,000).
Service members who opt out of the full coverage must get written concurrence from
his or her spouse. The Senate-reported bill also raises the maximum insurance level
to $400,000. Both the pending versions and the Administration would require that
spouses be informed if the member opts for insurance less than the maximum. For
those serving in a combat zone, the Senate-reported bill would require that DOD —
rather than the service member — pay the premium for $150,000 in coverage.
The House-passed version of the bill also raises the one-time death gratuity from
$12,420 to $100,000 for any service member who dies in the future rather than
leaving it to the discretion of the Secretary of Defense to decide whose survivors
would receive the higher payment. The Senate-reported bill increases the death
gratuity payment for both those who die in combat and those who die of combat-
related activities. In floor debate, the Senate passed by voice vote the Kerry
amendment which changes the Senate-reported bill and instead, provides a $100,000
gratuity to the survivors of all active-duty service members who die. If the Senate
provision that allows these changes to lapse on September 30, 2005, is adopted,
action by the authorizers is likely.
41 (...continued)
estimate, see Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy on
H.R. 1268, March 15, 2005;
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-1/hr1268sap-h.pdf]. See
Congressional Record, March 15, p.H1465-66 for Representative Obey’s later estimate.
During floor debate, this amendment was protected from challenge on points of order by an
amendment to H.Res 151, the rule governing consideration of H.R. 1268 by the Cole
amendment; see Congressional Record, March 15, 2005, p.H1429ff.
42 U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 1413a (e) (2).
CRS-27
Table 5. Proposed Changes in Death Benefits for Active-Duty Servicemembers
Death
Current
DOD Request
House Passed
Senate Markup
Benefit
Law
Service
Members
Retroactive to October 7, 2001:
Retroactive to October 7, 2001: Survivors
Retroactive to October 7, 2001: Survivors of members
members
may
Survivors of members who die in the
of members who die in the “performance of
who die in the Afghan or Iraq theater and who die as a
Group Life
purchase up
Afghan or Iraq theater receive
duty” receive $150,000.
result of combat or combat-related activities receive
Insurance
to $250,000
$150,000.
$150,000.a
(SGLI)
in life
After enactment: Members may purchase
insurance in
After enactment: Members may
up to $400,000 in life insurance in $50,000
After enactment: Members may purchase up to
$10,000
purchase up to $400,000 in life
increments. Spouses must be informed if
$400,000 in life insurance in $50,000 increments with
increments.
insurance in $50,000 increments.
member purchases less than maximum.
premiums for $150,000 to be paid by DOD for those in
combat zones. Spouses to be informed if member
Effective date: As soon as practicable.
purchases less than maximum.
Effective date: 90 days after enactment; lapses 9/30/05.
Death
Survivors of
Retroactive to Oct. 7, 2001: Survivors
Retroactive to Oct. 7, 2001: Survivors of
Retroactive to Oct. 7, 2001: Survivors of members
Gratuity
members
of members who die in the Afghan or
members who die in the Afghan or Iraq
who die in the Afghan or Iraq theater or as a result of
who die
Iraq theater receive $88,000.
theater receive $88,000.
combat or combat-related activities receive $88,000.
receive
$12,200.
After enactment: Survivors of those who
After enactment: Survivors of all members
After enactment: Survivors of all members who die in
die as a result of operations as
who die receive $100,000.
a combat zone or who die as a result of combat or
designated by the Secretary of Defense
combat-related activities receive $100,000.a
receive $100,000.
Effective date: On or after date of
enactment.
Effective date: 90 days after enactment; lapses 9/30/05.
Effective date: As soon as practicable
Sources: Department of Defense, FY2005 Supplemental Request for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), and Operation Unified Assistance, February
2005; H.R. 1268 engrossed as passed by the House, 3-16-05; [http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2005_supp.pdf]; Sec. 1113 - Sec. 1114 in H.R. 1268 as passed by
the House and Sec. 1111 and Sec. 1112 as reported by the Senate.
a. Combat-related is defined in U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 1413a to include combat, hazardous service, conditions simulating war and an instrumentality of war.
CRS-28
Other Benefits Increases. In the “Hope at Home Act” proposed by
Representative Lantos, the federal government would make up the difference
between military and civilian pay for reservists who are federal civilian employees
and employers would be given partial tax credits for doing the same. That proposal
was discussed and later withdrawn.43 An amendment to continue hazardous duty pay
for injured service members until they are re-assigned was also considered and
withdrawn (see Table 4 above). The Senate-reported bill does not address other
benefit issues but several senators mentioned during markup that they would be
proposing floor amendments on benefits issues. By voice vote, the Senate adopted
the Kerry amendment which would give dependents of all active-duty service
members who have died since October 7, 2001, basic housing allowance for one-year
rather than six months (see Table 2 above).
Recapitalization, Modularity and Construction Costs Grow
In the FY2005 supplemental, DOD is requesting a total of $17.8 billion for
investment, substantially above the $3 billion in the FY2004 supplemental (see
Table 3).44 This $17.8 billion includes:
! $16.1 billion for procurement;
! $0.5 billion for research, development, test and evaluation projects
(RDT&E); and
! $1.3 billion for military construction, $1 billion for construction
overseas, and $0.3 billion for the Army’s modularity initiative.
This funding is directed at several new DOD thrusts: a major push to provide
additional equipment for units not only to replace battle losses, but also to improve
capability, increase equipment, and add force protection equipment; accelerating the
Army’s plans to reorganize and reequip Army and Marine Corps units; and building
barracks and other facilities both within Afghanistan and Iraq and in surrounding
countries.
Procurement and Modularity Requests. The $16.1 billion in
procurement is for the following purposes: $1.3 billion to replace battle losses; $5.1
billion to provide additional equipment for deploying and returning forces; $2.7
billion for additional force protection equipment; $4.1 billion for Army modularity
equipment; and $250 million for Marine Corps Force Structure Review Group
Initiative, a similar reorganizing initiative.
A major issue that has already been raised is the funding requested for the
Army’s modularity initiative that was originally announced by Chief of Staff General
Schoomaker in August 2003 as part of the Army’s transformation. Some Members
have already questioned whether this expense passes the test of emergency
supplementals where funding is requested for urgent and unanticipated requirements.
43 Congressional Record, March 15, p.H1491-95.
44 This does not include classified programs funded in procurement for which no details are
available.
CRS-29
The Army appears to have accelerated its conversion plans announced last February,
intending now to reorganize not only three active brigades but also convert five rather
than one brigade and three National Guard brigades. This may explain part of the
increase in funding from the $2.8 billion in the February 2004 plan to the $5.0 billion
in the new supplemental. DOD has announced that it plans to fund the Army’s
modularity initiative in supplementals in both FY2005 and FY2006, and then transfer
that funding to the Army’s regular budget starting in FY2007.
Critics have suggested that modularity expenses are more appropriately
considered a regular expenditure because they are a predictable, organizational
change announced over a year and a half ago. Therefore, these costs, according to
some analysts, should be included in DOD’s regular appropriations where they would
compete with other programs. The Army argues that the modularity initiative is
intended not only to transform Army units to be more lethal and more transportable,
but that the additional units will decrease the stress on Army forces by providing
more units to deploy.
The Army is also requesting many procurement items that would be used to
upgrade equipment or provide additional equipment for both deploying units and
returning units who are leaving their equipment behind. This type of expense is not
normally considered an incremental cost of contingencies as defined in DOD’s
financial regulations. DOD, in its justification material, argues that the additional
capabilities are necessary to deal with the dangers posed by the ongoing insurgency.
Some $2.7 billion of the procurement is for additional force protection equipment,
including not only additional armored Humvees, and add-on kits for other tactical
vehicles, but also a wide variety of other equipment for soldiers, such as night vision
goggles, and other devices intended to improve the military’s capability to deal with
improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
Military Construction Request.
The new request also includes $1.3
billion for military construction, about $1 billion overseas and about $0.3 billion
associated with the Army’s modularity initiative (e.g. providing additional barracks
for newly-formed units). The military construction in and around Iraq and
Afghanistan could prove controversial because it could be perceived to signal a long-
term U.S. presence, for example, replacing temporary tents with concrete barracks.
Facilities may also be constructed at a time when the U.S. has not negotiated bilateral
agreements with a permanent Iraqi government as is customarily the case for
overseas U.S. military construction projects. The justification for some projects —
for example, constructing a supply road in Iraq to link to a new Kuwaiti route that
avoids urban areas — may be less convincing than other projects, such as concrete
billets, which are justified on safety grounds or force protection.45
Congressional Action — Approach to Procurement Differs. Unlike
the House, the Senate appropriators cut rather than added funds for procurement,
The cuts were primarily to classified programs so details are not available. The
House bill adds $2.1 billion in procurement to DOD’s request, raising the total from
45 For a discussion of these construction issues, see CRS Memo, “Military Construction in
Support of Afghanistan and Iraq,” by Amy Belasco, April 11, 2005, available from author.
CRS-30
$16.1 billion to $18.2 billion. The House increases of $1.6 billion for the Army and
$622 million for the Marine Corps would accelerate purchases of trucks, upgrades
to Abrams tanks, additional uparmored HMWVVs, other force protection, and other
equipment, much of which would otherwise be funded in the FY2006 regular DOD
appropriations bill. If funding is provided in the FY2005 supplemental, cuts could
be made to the FY2006 regular appropriations bill.
In its report, H. Rept.109-16, the HAC states that these additions are intended
to fulfill “emergent requirements in force protection, force restructuring and
recapitalization ...” and to “accelerate programs for which funding has been
requested.”46 Although some would argue that these additions are justified because
they would be required later, others would argue that these items are not
appropriately categorized as emergency requirements.
Examples of increases include:
! an addition of $401 million for medium trucks and $207 million for
heavy trucks (amounts matching DOD’s FY2006 regular request);
! $283 million for uparmored HMMWVs and add-on armor, $75
million for SAPI body armor, and almost $400 million for night
vision equipment, radio systems and jammers, all in addition to the
$2.7 billion for force protection already in the supplemental
request.47
Full Funding of Army Modularity Request. Both the full House and the
Senate Appropriations Committee fully fund the Army’s $5 billion request for
modularity, with the rationale that the funds are “needed to mitigate stress on the
current active duty combat force by creating at least 10 additional combat brigades,”
and that supplemental funds would ensure that equipment would be available prior
to deployment for units “that will deploy to either Iraq or Afghanistan in the next two
troop rotations scheduled for later this year and in 2006.”48
Congressional Action — Military Construction Concerns. Like the
House, the Senate appropriators state concerns about the Administration’s $1.0
billion request for overseas military construction. In their evaluation of individual
projects, the Senate panel looked at whether the spending was “truly of an emergency
nature,” and whether “the construction of permanent facilities (where proposed),
46 House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 109-16, Making Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes,
March 11, 2005, p. 24.
47 House Appropriations Committee, Press Release, Full Committee Unanimously reports
War Supplemental, March 8, 2005; [http://appropriations.house.gov/]; and DOD, FY2005
Justification, February 2005. [http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2005_supp.pdf]
48 House Appropriations Committee, Press release, “Highlights of the War Supplemental,”
March 3, 2005; [http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Press
Releases.Detail&PressRelease_id=446].
CRS-31
rather than those of a more expeditionary nature, is appropriate.”49 The SAC noted
that it was more difficult for construction projects to meet the emergency test of a
supplemental because of the duration of the “global war on terror” and the long lead
times typical for construction.
The “expeditionary” nature of the U.S. presence suggests that temporary
facilities “should be the rule rather than the exception”in the committee’s view.50 In
those cases where there may be a case for an “enduring presence in the region,” that
should be part of a long-term plan, emergency appropriations would make emergency
funding less appropriate, the committee argues. The panel concluded that projects
which have that character “should be requested in the normal budget process, in
which both authorization and appropriations committees have an opportunity to
carefully consider the request.”51
In light of these concerns, the Senate panel cut three military construction
projects — a $57 million fuel tank farm and a $32 million prime power generation
plant at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, a $75 million aerial port in Kuwait, and a
$66 million project to improve the Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates.52
Although the House bill funds all of DOD’s request for military construction
except for $60 million for the Army and $15 million for the Navy, the appropriators
prohibited obligation of some of the funds until DOD submits the comprehensive
Master Plan for overseas infrastructure required because the Committee believed the
plan “is vital to understanding how the construction projects requested in the
supplemental are integrated with the Department’s long-term strategy for the basing
of U.S. forces in the Centra Command Area of Responsibility.”53 DOD submitted
the plan in mid-March 2005 but reportedly it does not address Iraq.
New Flexible Accounts to Train and Equip Afghan and Iraqi
Security Forces
The FY2005 supplemental proposes to establish two new accounts to train
Afghan and Iraqi security forces ranging from Army to police forces:
! $1.3 billion in the Afghan Security Forces Fund; and
! $5.7 billion in the Iraq Security Forces Fund.
For both funds, language of the request would allow the Secretary of Defense to use
the funds until funds are expended “notwithstanding any other provision of law ... to
provide assistance to the security forces of [Afghanistan or Iraq] including the
provision of equipment, supplies, services, training, facility and infrastructure repair,
49 S.Rept. 109-52, p. 31.
50 S. Rept.109-52, p. 31.
51 S. Rept.109-52, p. 31.
52 S. Rept.109-52, p. 34 and p. 35.
53 See H.Rept. 108-342, p. 17 and H.Rept. 109-16 on FY2005 Supplemental, p.32.
CRS-32
renovation, and construction, and funding.”54 This language would exempt DOD
from any restrictions applying to current training of foreign military forces and would
allow the Secretary of Defense or his designee to use these funds for any purpose and
for any type of security force — Army, national guard, or police. Nevertheless, the
Administration states that it does not intend to use these funds for training
Afghanistan police forces, and has requested $400 million elsewhere in the
supplemental for the State Department’s International Narcotics Control and Law
Enforcement office to support such police training.
The train and equip provision would effectively transfer policy and funding
authority from the Secretary of State, where authority for training foreign military
forces is currently lodged, to the Secretary of Defense. In recent testimony, Secretary
of State Rice supported this transfer and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld argued that
the authority reflects the current wartime situation. This transfer would remove this
traditional foreign policy tool from the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State.
The authority requested, and the DOD justification material provided, is broader
than currently available to the Secretary of State. DOD has provided only an
illustrative breakdown of the funds but no details about the number and types of
personnel, the rate of training anticipated, the types of equipment to be purchased,
or the specific uses of the funds. The State Department, especially within its
quarterly report on the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, provides substantial
details regarding how it has used and plans to use in the future funds to train and
equip foreign military forces.
According to DOD, the $5.7 billion for Iraqi security forces that would cover
costs through July 2006, may be distributed to:
! $3.1 billion for front line security forces including up to two
mechanized divisions;
! $809 million for support forces;
! $1.5 billion for police and other forces;
! $180 million for “quick response” funding; and
! $104 million for institutional training.55
These funds would be in addition to the $5 billion already provided in Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction Funding that was provided to the State Department in the FY2004
Supplemental, and $210 million in “train and equip” funds provided through DOD.
There has been considerable debate in Congress about the effectiveness of
training of Iraqi security forces thus far. In testimony on February 16, 2005, before
the Senate Appropriations Committee, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld reported that
136,000 Iraqi forces had been trained thus far, including 57,000 Ministry of Defense
Forces (army, national guard, intervention forces, special operations, air force and
54 Office of Management and Budget, FY2005 Emergency Supplemental Request, February
14, 2005.
55 Department of Defense, “Iraq/Afghanistan Security Forces: DoD’s FY05 Supplemental
Request,” February 2005; and DOD, FY2005 Justification, February 2005, p. 78-79.
CRS-33
navy) 79,000 Ministry of Interior forces (police, civil intervention, emergency
response forces, border enforcement, highway patrols, dignitary protection, special
police commandos).56 DOD’s justification material states that thus far, Iraq’s
transitional government has fielded over 90 battalions but that “All but one of these
battalions, however, are lightly equipped and armed, and have very limited mobility
and sustainment capabilities.”57
Congressional Action — House and Senate Bills Add Oversight
Mechanisms. Both the SAC and the House approve DOD request for $1.3 billion
to train and equip Afghan security forces and $5.7 billion to train and equip Iraqi
security forces but add several reporting requirements. Although the proposed
language would still provide the funds to the Secretary of Defense “notwithstanding
any other provision of law,” the funds would be available until the end of FY2006
rather than until expended.
In addition, DOD would need to have the concurrence of the Secretary of State
on the use of the money and to notify congressional defense committees in writing
five days in advance of transfers from the funds, and report on transfers quarterly.
The original DOD language did not include any notification or reporting
requirements. DOD would still have the prerogative to distribute these funds to any
activities related to training and to any type of security forces from the Army to
police as well as being able to receive contributions from other nations for these
purposes.
Flexible Funds to Provide Support to Allies
In addition to its requests for $7.0 billion in flexible funds for Iraq and
Afghanistan security forces, the Administration requests $2.9 billion in other types
of support for allies in the “global war on terrorism.” Those funds include:
! $1.37 billion for coalition support to “key cooperating nations,” who
provide logistical and military support;
! $627 million for “Lift and Sustain” funds for security forces in Iraq,
Afghanistan and other nearby nations;
! $825 million for the Commander’s Emergency Response Program
(CERP) in which military commanders fund local projects;
! $250 million to reimburse the services for providing equipment to
the Afghan Army;
! $99 million to set up a new Special Operations Training Center in
Jordan; and
! $257 million for DOD’s counternarcotics program.58
56 Senate Appropriations Committee, transcript, Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2005
Emergency Supplemental, February 16, 2005, p. 30-31.
57 Department of Defense, FY2005 Supplemental request for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF),
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), and Operation Unified Assistance, February 2005 (hereinafter,
DOD, FY2005 Justification), p. 78;
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2005_supp.pdf].
58 Department of Defense, FY2005 Justification, p. 80-81.
(continued...)
CRS-34
Since the 9/11 attacks, DOD has received substantial funds in these flexible accounts
that may be distributed to U.S. allies in and around Iraq and Afghanistan to reimburse
them or provide logistical support for their participation in the “global war on terror.”
Although the DOD request would require concurrence of the Secretary of State and
15-day advance notification to congressional committees reporting for coalition
support — as was included in previous supplementals — the request includes no
reporting for funds provided for “lift and sustain,” for the Commanders Emergency
Support Program, or for DOD’s counternarcotics programs. The State Department
also receives counternarcotics funds (see below).
Congressional Action — House Cuts and Senate Supports Request.
The House bill cuts DOD’s request for several types of coalition support for allies
working with the United States while the Senate-reported bill largely supports the
DOD request. For example:
! the House bill provides $300 million and the Senate provides the
request for $627 million for “lift and sustain,” an additional source
of funds for Afghan, Iraq, and neighboring security forces while the
Senate-reported bill;
! the House cuts and the Senate retains the $1.4 billion request for
“coalition support” for Pakistan, Jordan, and other cooperating
nations in the “global war on terror;” and
! both bills support the $854 million request for the Commanders
Emergency Response Program (CERP), a program where unit
commanders dispense funds locally. 59
DOD Request for FY2005 by Appropriation Account
Table 6 below shows DOD’s estimate and Congressional action of the FY2005
Supplemental request. To provide context, the table shows total DOD needs for
FY2005 including both the amount provided in Title IX and the current FY2005
Emergency Supplemental Request, as well as DOD’s obligations, or contractual costs
in FY2004 based on accounting reports. In FY2004, DOD obligated all of the funds
appropriated.
The lion’s share of the request is for the Army, a reflection of the predominant
role of ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The greatest difference between
FY2004 and FY2005’s estimate is the amounts requested for investment accounts —
procurement, RDT&E, and military construction — and DOD’s request for $7.0
billion to train and equip Afghan and Iraqi forces.
The House adds $1.8 billion to the Army and $630 million to the Marine Corps,
whose forces play the major role in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House decreases the
58 (...continued)
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2005_supp.pdf].
59 House Appropriations Committee, H. Rept.109-18, p. 12 and p. 14.
CRS-35
Navy’s total by $373 million, the Defense-wide total by $300 million and adds $178
million to the Air Force request. In the Senate-reported bill, funding levels are close
to amounts requested by the Defense Department (see Table 6 below).
CRS-36
Table 6. Defense Department FY2005 Supplemental Request and Prior Funding
(billions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2004
Title IX,
House
Service/Account
Total Based on
FY2005 Request
Senate Markup
Conference
Obligations
P.L. 108-287
Passed
Request
SPECIAL ACCOUNTS SUBTOTAL
NA
3.800
10.785
6.985
6.985
6.985
Iraq Freedom Fund
NA
3.800
3.800
0.000
0.000
0.000
Afghan Security Forces Fund
NA
NA
1.285
1.285
1.285
1.285
Iraq Security Forces Fund
NA
NA
5.700
5.700
5.700
5.700
ARMY SUBTOTAL
43.382
15.381
56.597
41.217
42.938
40.934
Mil. Pers. :Defense SubComm. (SC)
11.972
0.916
14.215
11.757
11.780
13.609
Mil.Pers.: Quality of Life SubComm (QOL SC)
NA
NA
1.542
1.542
1.542
Included above
Reserve Pers, Army
0.000
0.000
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.040
National Guard Personnel, Army
0.000
0.000
0.429
0.429
0.429
0.291
O&M, Army: Defense SC
29.908
13.550
30.817
17.201
17.366
16.768
O&M, Army: QOL SC
NA
NA
0.066
0.066
0.066
Included above
O&M, Army Reserve
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.021
O&M, Army Nat’l Gd
0.000
0.000
0.189
0.189
0.189
0.327
Aircraft Proc, Army
0.000
0.000
0.459
0.459
0.459
0.459
Missile Proc, Army, 05/07
0.000
0.000
0.294
0.294
0.341
0.280
Proc, Wpns & Combat Tracked Vehicles
0.457
0.050
2.475
2.425
2.679
2.406
Procurement, Ammo
0.000
0.110
0.585
0.475
0.533
0.475
Other Proc, Army
0.954
0.755
6.071
5.316
6.549
5.323
CRS-37
FY2005
FY2004
Title IX,
House
Service/Account
Total Based on
FY2005 Request
Senate Markup
Conference
Obligations
P.L. 108-287
Passed
Request
RDT&E, Army
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.037
Mil Con, Army
0.090
0.000
0.990
0.990
0.930
0.897
NAVY SUBTOTAL
3.818
0.504
5.438
4.935
4.562
4.939
Military Personnel, Navy
0.857
0.028
0.553
0.525
0.534
0.535
Reserve Personnel, Navy
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.009
0.011
0.009
Operation and Maintenance
2.555
0.367
3.791
3.424
3.031
3.431
O&M, Navy, Tsunami
0.000
0.000
0.124
0.124
0.124
0.124
O&M, Navy Reserve
0.000
0.000
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Aircraft Proc, Navy
0.211
0.000
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
Weapons Proc, Navy
0.000
0.000
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.066
Proc Ammo, Navy & MC
0.000
0.079
0.213
0.134
0.142
0.134
Other Proc, Navy
0.189
0.030
0.116
0.086
0.078
0.078
RDT&E, Navy
0.007
0.000
0.179
0.179
0.202
0.179
Mil Con, Navy
0.000
0.000
0.107
0.107
0.093
0.107
MARINE CORPS SUBTOTAL
2.846
2.057
7.279
5.222
5.855
5.289
Military Personnel, MC
0.918
0.242
1.488
1.246
1.252
1.358
Reserve Personnel, MC
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
Operation and Maintenance, MC
1.567
1.665
2.635
0.970
0.982
0.970
O&M, MC, Tsunami
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
O&M, MC Reserve
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
CRS-38
FY2005
FY2004
Title IX,
House
Service/Account
Total Based on
FY2005 Request
Senate Markup
Conference
Obligations
P.L. 108-287
Passed
Request
Procurement, Marine Corps
0.360
0.150
3.124
2.974
3.588
2.929
AIR FORCE SUBTOTAL
9.765
0.594
11.586
10.463
10.641
10.447
Military Personnel, AF
3.272
0.065
1.381
1.317
1.473
1.685
Reserve Personnel, AF
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
National Guard Personnel, AF
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
Operation and Maintenance, AF
6.131
0.419
6.550
5.602
5.769
5.529
O&M, AF, Tsunami
0.000
0.000
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
Aircraft Procurement, AF
0.053
0.000
0.269
0.269
0.279
0.269
Proc Ammo, AF
0.021
0.000
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
Other Proc, AF
0.286
0.110
2.944
2.834
2.659
2.654
RDT&E, AF
0.001
0.000
0.103
0.103
0.122
0.133
Mil Con, AF
0.000
0.000
0.302
0.302
0.301
0.141
DEF.-WIDE/OTHER SUBTOTAL
5.824
2.565
8.686
6.121
5.834
5.968
O&M, Defensewide
2.108
0.404
3.925
3.521
3.061
3.308
O&M, Defensewide, Tsunami
0.000
0.000
0.029
0.029
0.029
0.029
Office of Inspector General
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Drug Interdiction (for transfer)
NA
0.000
0.257
0.257
0.257
0.227
Defense Health: HAC QOL & SAC Defense
0.888
0.683
0.859
0.176
0.176
0.226
Defense Health, Tsunami
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
Overseas Humanitarian
NA
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.000
CRS-39
FY2005
FY2004
Title IX,
House
Service/Account
Total Based on
FY2005 Request
Senate Markup
Conference
Obligations
P.L. 108-287
Passed
Request
Overseas Humanitarian, Tsunami
0.000
0.000
0.036
0.036
0.036
0.036
Procurement, Defense-wide
0.199
0.050
0.641
0.591
0.646
0.591
National Gd & Reserve Equipment
0.039
0.050
0.050
0.000
0.000
0.000
RDT&E, Defense-wide
0.062
0.000
0.154
0.154
0.160
0.204
Defense Working Capital Fund
0.002
1.478
2.789
1.311
1.411
1.311
Working Capital Fund, Navy
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
National Defense Sealift Fund
0.000
0.000
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.032
Def. Agencies, Special Ops & Other
2.584
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Transferred to Coast Guard
0.000
-0.100
-0.100
0.000
0.000
0.000
GENERAL PROVISIONS
[3.000]
[5.000]
[12.500]
[11.00]
[7.500]
[7.685]
General Transfer Authority: FY05 Supp
[3.000]
[1.500]
[6.500]
[5.000]
[2.000]
[2.000]
General Transfer Authority: FY05 DOD
[NA]
[3.500]
[6.000]
[6.000]
[5.500]
[5.685]
Appropriations
Defense Cooperation Transfer Account
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.012
0.012
0.000
TOTAL DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
65.635
24.900
99.944
74.953
76.815
74.563
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
0.000
0.000
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.089
MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT
TOTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNCTION
65.697
24.900
100.194
75.203
77.065
74.652
(050)
Sources: CRS calculations based on Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Consolidated Department of Defense (DoD) Terrorist Response Cost Report (Revised), FY2004
Supplemental Appropriation As of September 30, 2004; P.L. 108-287; Department of Defense, FY 2005 Supplemental Request for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring
Freedom J(OEF), and Operation Unified Assistance, February 2005; and H.Rept.109-18, Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2005, March 11, 2005.
CRS-40
Foreign Policy Supplemental Request and
Congressional Review
The President seeks $6.3 billion in FY2005 supplemental funding supporting
a broad range of foreign policy activities:
! U.S. diplomatic costs in Iraq
! Afghanistan reconstruction and counternarcotics programs
! Darfur humanitarian relief and peace implementation aid in Sudan
! War on Terrorism assistance, including funds for Jordan and
Pakistan
! Palestinian aid
! Ukraine assistance
! U.N. peacekeeping contributions
! Broadcasting programs in the Middle East
! Tsunami recovery and reconstruction
If enacted as proposed, FY2005 total spending for foreign policy programs would
be roughly 50% higher than the international affairs budget immediately prior to the
9/11 attacks (see Table 7).
Table 7. Foreign Policy Budget, FY2001-FY2006
(billions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005
FY2006
Supp
Total
Total
Total
Total
Enacted
Total
Request
Request
$24.409
$25.455
$33.490
$49.618
$29.727
$6.294
$36.021
$33.635
Sources: OMB, Department of State, CRS calculations.
House and Senate Action — Summary
H.R. 1268, as passed by the House on March 16, approves $4.92 billion for
foreign policy programs. This level is $1.37 billion less than requested. During
House Appropriations Committee markup on March 8, the panel excluded items that
it felt were not well justified, could be funded by other international donors, or did
not require immediate funding and could be considered as part of the regular FY2006
appropriation. The House Committee further redesignated $995 million as non-
emergency spending and offset these costs by rescinding $1 billion in unspent
economic aid appropriated in FY2003 for Turkey.60 During House floor debate,
60 Congress appropriated $1 billion in the FY2003 Emergency Supplemental (P.L. 108-11)
that could be used by Turkey to guarantee loans of about $8.5 billion to bolster its ailing
(continued...)
CRS-41
Members approved an amendment by Representative Jackson adding $100 million
in humanitarian relief for the Darfur region in Sudan. The Jackson amendment
brought the $4.82 billion Committee-reported bill to the House-passed total of $4.92
billion.
Table 8. Foreign Policy Amendments: House Floor
Sponsor
Purpose/Congressional Record page reference
Status
Adds $100 million in disaster and refugee aid for the Darfur
Approved
Jackson
region of Sudan. (p. H1467)
(voice)
Increases by $3 million the Tsunami Relief and Recovery
Approved
Maloney
Fund, and to decrease by $3 million ESF funds. (p. H1467)
(voice)
Prohibits the use of funds in the bill for embassy security,
Approved
Upton
construction, and maintenance. (p. H1482, H1486)
(258-170)
Prohibits the use of funds in the bill for tsunami relief. (p.
Rejected
Tancredo
H1479)
(voice)
Prohibits the use of funds in the bill for aid to Saudi Arabia.
Rejected
Weiner
(p. H1484, H1487)
(196-231)
Prohibits the use of funds in the bill for the Palestinian
Rejected
Weiner
Authority and for West Bank and Gaza projects. (p.
(voice)
H1497)
Prohibits funds for aid to the Nigerian government. (p.
Kelly
Withdrawn
H1489)
The Senate Appropriations Committee, on April 6, approved a modified version
of H.R. 1268, providing $5.98 billion in new appropriations for foreign policy
activities, a level about $315 million less than the President’s request, but over $1
billion more than passed by the House. Like the House, the Senate reported version
of H.R. 1268 offsets the foreign policy total by rescinding $1 billion in FY2003-
enacted economic aid for Turkey, bringing the net amount down to $4.98 billion. But
unlike the House, the Senate measure designates the entire foreign policy portion as
an “emergency” appropriation. During the first four days of Senate debate,
lawmakers altered the Committee-reported bill in several ways, including
amendments to: 1) direct funds in the Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction Fund
to be used to address the avian flu virus in Asia (McConnell and Leahy/Obama); 2)
fully fund the request for the State Department’s Office of the Coordinator for
Reconstruction and Stabilization and for the ready-response corps, offset by a
reduction for the Global War on Terrorism Partners Fund (Lugar/Biden); and 3) add
60 (...continued)
economy. With substantial economic recovery during the past two years, Turkey has not
drawn on the $1 billion loan guarantee funds.
CRS-42
$5 million for democracy programs in Lebanon, offset by a further reduction in the
Partners Fund (Salazar).
Major recommendations included in H.R. 1268 as passed by the House and
reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee include:
! Afghanistan reconstruction and police training — $1.4 billion in the
House bill, roughly two-thirds of the President’s request. Cuts are
proposed for selected reconstruction projects. The Senate measure
approves the full $2.05 billion request, although with some changes
in counter-narcotics and police training allocations.
! Darfur humanitarian aid — $342.4 million in the House bill, $100
million higher than proposed, for refugee, food, and disaster
programs. The Committee voted 32-31 to restore $150 million in
food assistance that had not been included in the Chairman’s mark,
and the full House added the extra $100 million. The Senate
Committee version approves $242.4 million, as requested.
! Sudan peace implementation aid — $37 million in the House
measure, deleting the $63 million in rehabilitation and
reconstruction funding. The Senate bill includes the entire $100
million request.
! Palestinian aid — $200 million in the House bill, as requested. The
Senate measure also provides $200 million supporting the
Palestinians, with $50 million set aside for Israel to help facilitate
the movement of Palestinian people and goods in and out of Israel.
! Pakistan military aid — $150 million, as requested, in both bills.
! Jordan economic and military aid — $200 million, as requested in
both House and Senate measures.
! Iraq embassy — $592 million, $66 million below the request,
provided in both bills. The House measure, however includes an
amendment that bars the use of the funds for construction of the
embassy.
! Peacekeeping — $580 million in the House bill, and $680 million
in the Senate measure, each below the $780 million proposal.
! Tsunami relief and prevention — $659 million for relief and $22.6
million for prevention in the House bill. The Senate measure
includes $656 million and $25.4 million, respectively. The House
bill denies $45 million proposed for debt reduction; the Senate-
reported measure had recommended the same, but a floor
amendment restored authority to use up to $45 million to cancel debt
owed by tsunami-affected countries.
CRS-43
! Partners Fund and Solidarity Fund — $225.5 million in the Senate
measure, as reduced by amendments during full Senate debate, for
the two contingency funds. The Administration proposed $200
million for each fund. The House includes no funds for these
purposes.
! Ukraine aid — $33.7 million in the House bill. The Senate measure
provides the full $60 million request, plus an additional $10 million
for other regional aid requirements in Belarus and the North
Caucusas.
Each of these elements and others are discussed in more detail below. Table 8
(below) summarizes the spending request.
U.S. Diplomatic and USAID Operations in Iraq
The supplemental request includes a total of $1.37 billion for U.S. Mission
operations in Baghdad ($690 million), the construction of a new embassy compound
($658 million), USAID operating expenses in Iraq ($24 million) and USAID
Inspector General costs in Iraq ($2.5 million).
For U.S. Mission operations and embassy construction, the supplemental funds
are intended to cover costs for the balance of FY2005 and most expenses in FY2006.
Previously, Congress appropriated in several spending measures $991 million for
Mission operations for FY2004 and FY2005, of which $769 million remained for this
year. The Administration estimates that the State Department will need $1.06 billion
in FY2005 to manage activities of about 1,000 American personnel located in
Bagdad and four regional offices. The State Department is seeking $290 million for
Mission operations, including logistics and security, for the rest of FY2005, and $400
million for “extraordinary” security and logistical expenses in FY2006. The regular
FY2006 budget, submitted to Congress on February 7, 2005, includes $65 million
that will serve as a “funding base for basic embassy operations” and assumes that the
U.S. Mission in Baghdad will reach a “basic operations” status at some point in the
future.61
The State Department plans to build the new embassy over the next 24 months
and argues that it needs the entire funding now so Mission staff can move out of
temporary facilities as quickly as possible as promised to the new Iraqi government.
The $658 million sought represents the entire estimated construction costs, plus
“reasonable” contingency amounts to manage possible risks of the project.
According to the Department, planning for the new embassy will be completed by
March 15, 2005, with an anticipated contract award date of mid-May 2005, subject
to passage of the supplemental. Under this time schedule, the project would be
61 Department of State, FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations Financial Plan, February
2005, pp. 21-22; and remarks of Joe Bowab and Eric Hembree, Deputy Assistant Secretaries
of State for Resource Management, during a State Department news briefing, February 14,
2005.
CRS-44
completed in May 2007.62 Critics note, however, that Congress has already
appropriated about $20 million in previous supplementals specifically for
construction of the embassy. Moreover, they say, plans for a new facility were far
enough along in calendar 2004 that the Administration should have amended its
FY2005 regular appropriation request to accommodate the sizable funding additions
needed for embassy construction. To them, the proposal does not meet the test of an
“emergency” requirement.63
Congressional Action. H.R. 1268, as passed by the House, fully funds the
Administration requests for Mission operations and USAID operating and IG costs.
Funding for construction of a new embassy in Baghdad, however, is denied.
Initially, the House Appropriations Committee recommended a reduction of $66
million for embassy construction, stating that even with this cut, remaining funds
would be sufficient for the compound to be constructed within the Administration’s
two-year schedule. During floor debate, however, the House adopted (258-170) an
amendment by Representative Upton, prohibiting the use of any funds in the bill for
embassy security, construction, or maintenance. Supporters of the amendment argue
that since planning for a new Baghdad facility has been underway for at least a year,
this should not be funded as an emergency requirement. Instead, the Administration
should have submitted a proposal for consideration in the regular FY2005
appropriation or requested funds in the regular FY2006 spending measure. Before
adoption of the Upton amendment, the White House had expressed concern over the
Committee’s $66 million cut for embassy construction. Officials argued that full
funding of the $658 million request was important for a “secure work and living
environment for Americans serving in Baghdad,” and that construction postponement
would delay the movement of U.S. staff into “more safe, secure, and functional
facilities.”64
In the Senate, the Appropriations Committee supports State Department
construction plans for a graduated design that can be scaled back as requirements in
Baghdad change. The $592 million provided by the Committee — $66 million less
than the request — is, in the Committee’s view, sufficient given reduced mission
staffing levels. H.R. 1268, as reported in the Senate, fully funds other State
Department and USAID operating costs in Iraq and Afghanistan at requested levels.
Afghanistan Reconstruction, Counternarcotics, Police
Training, and Other Activities
The supplemental proposes $2.046 billion for Afghanistan out of foreign policy
budget accounts.65 By comparison, enacted FY2005 appropriations for economic,
62 FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations Financial Plan, pp. 25-29.
63 For further information, see CRS Report RS21867, U.S. Embassy in Iraq.
64 OMB, Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1268. March 15, 2005, p. 2.
65 Elsewhere, in the DOD portion of the supplemental, the Administration seeks $1.285
billion to assist Afghan security forces and an additional $257 million for drug interdiction
(continued...)
CRS-45
law enforcement, and security assistance to Afghanistan total about $1 billion, and
between $1 billion and $1.1 billion is proposed for FY2006. The Administration
argues that the supplemental is necessary in order to support the newly elected Karzai
government plan for the upcoming Parliamentary elections and to complete high
impact projects that could be done in the near term.66 The supplemental funds for
Afghanistan are divided into several components.
! U.S. Mission operations and security — $60 million.
! Infrastructure and economic development — $795.8 million. These
funds would be used to continue ESF-funded secondary road
construction ($125 million), power transmission and generation
capacity ($300 million), health sector reforms and services ($69
million), school construction and teacher training ($68 million),
Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) infrastructure ($75
million), clean water and agriculture projects ($82 million), and
other reconstruction activities.
! Capacity-building of the Afghan government, including
strengthening democratic institutions — $265 million. This would
cover government salaries, infrastructure, support for parliamentary
elections, and other rule of law and democracy promotion activities.
Included is $25 million to complete the Kabul airport.
! Anti-terrorism training and protection — $17.1 million for providing
security for President Karzai. Congress approved $18.8 million in
the regular FY2005 Foreign Operations appropriations for similar
programs funded under the Non-Proliferation, Anti-Terrorism,
Demining, and Related Programs (NADR) account for Afghanistan.
For FY2006, the State Department seeks an additional $18.4 million
for NADR account activities.
! Police training — $400 million. These funds are intended to
accelerate on-going efforts that will be expanded further by FY2006
requested appropriations. Activities include Task Force Police
training ($285 million), police equipment ($74 million), and salary
payments ($40 million).
! Counternarcotics (eradication and interdiction) — $260 million. Of
this total, $95 million would cover costs already incurred to begin
crop eradication, establish a National Interdiction Unit, and support
public information programs. The balance of $165 million would
expand efforts for eradication ($89 million), interdiction ($51
65 (...continued)
and counter-drug activities in Afghanistan and Central Asia. Furthermore, there is $7.6
million requested for Drug Enforcement Agency participation in U.S. counternarcotics
activities in Afghanistan.
66 FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations Financial Plan, p. 1.
CRS-46
million), law enforcement ($22 million), and public information ($3
million). Authority is also sought to transfer up to $46 million of the
amount to ESF programs, presumably in support of alternative
livelihood activities.
! Counternarcotics (alternative livelihood programs) — $248.5
million. A portion ($139 million) of this amount would replenish
reconstruction and development aid accounts that had been drawn on
previously to address alternative livelihood activities. The balance
($110 million) would be used to expand programs into a total of
seven provinces.
In total, including Defense Department and DEA accounts, the FY2005 supplemental
seeks $773 million for counternarcotics in Afghanistan and Central Asia.
Congressional Action. The House-passed bill supports $1.4 billion of the
total $2 billion supplemental request for Afghanistan, with full funding provided for
police training. H.R. 1268, however, rejects $46 million for aerial eradication efforts
and denies funding for a number of reconstruction projects, including money for the
Kabul Airport, a new law school in Kabul, a power plant, industrial parks, a
courthouse, and a community housing project. Some of the projects will be reviewed
by the House Appropriations Committee during consideration of the regular FY2006
Foreign Operations appropriations. In its report on H.R. 1268, the Committee noted
that it expected that some of these projects could be financed by other countries, the
Asian Development Bank, and the World Bank.
In the Senate, H.R. 1268 provides the full $2.05 billion proposed by the
Administration. The Committee-reported measure, however, shifts $46.5 million of
the request from operation and maintenance (O & M) of a helicopter fleet to eradicate
illicit crops to a pilot program to train local Afghan police forces. The Committee
noted in its report that an earlier reprogramming proposal for procuring the
helicopters had been denied, making the O & M funds unnecessary. The Senate
measure further specifies $5 million for assisting Afghan internally displaced persons
and recommends $7 million for programs conducted by the Voice for Humanity in
support of parliamentary elections.
Sudan North-South Peace Support
The Administration requests $100 million for immediate support of the January
9, 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the government in Khartoum and
the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement in the south. In justifying the request, the
State Department notes that when FY2005 appropriation decisions were finalized,
a peace accord was uncertain. The supplemental programs, officials say, will help
ensure that the peace agreement is effectively implemented.67
Most of the supplemental proposal targets needs in southern Sudan. The
proposal includes $22 million for assisting the National Commissions required under
67 FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations Financial Plan, p. 6.
CRS-47
the peace accords and supporting governance and political party development, $10
million for security sector reform in southern Sudan, $63 million for rehabilitation
and reconstruction, primarily in southern Sudan, and $5 million for UNHCR,
International Organization for Migration, and NGO repatriation programs for
Sudanese refugees. The $100 million total supplemental request for Sudan compares
with about $200 million allocated for all activities in FY2005 and $112 million
proposed for FY2006.
The supplemental proposal for Sudan also reflects a new initiative proposed
more broadly in the regular FY2006 budget request for post-conflict, fragile
countries. The Administration recommends shifting assistance that has traditionally
been channeled through USAID’s Development Assistance account to the Transition
Initiative (TI) account. TI funds are available under more flexible programming
authorities than regular development assistance, and according to the Administration,
will permit more effective and better targeted types of support that post-conflict
states require in the near-term. Four countries — Sudan, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and
Haiti — are scheduled for this funding transfer in the FY2006 request. Included in
the $100 million, the supplemental proposal also seeks $63 million for Sudan
rehabilitation and reconstruction under the TI account.
Congressional Action. While fully supporting the requests for security,
governance, and refugee repatriation programs, the House bill does not include $63
million for reconstruction programs in southern Sudan. The Senate-reported measure
provides the full $100 million requested for programs related to the Comprehensive
Peace Agreement.68
Darfur Region and Eastern Chad
The supplemental seeks $242 million for emergency humanitarian relief for the
Darfur region of Sudan and for eastern Chad. These funds would add to the roughly
$375 million currently allocated or planned for emergency programs with existing
FY2005 funds. As the crisis worsened throughout 2004, the demands for a broader
U.S. response exceeded those assumed in the FY2005 budget request, according to
the Administration. The supplemental request includes $48.4 million in refugee aid,
$44 million for both replenishing previously expended disaster relief funds and
meeting new emergency shelter, clean water, and medical requirements in the region,
and $150 million in food aid. The food aid request is intended to relieve some of the
current pressure on the enacted FY2005 food assistance budget in meeting not only
the needs in Darfur, but in a number of crisis situations around the world.
Congressional Action. The House-passed supplemental adds $100 million
— for a total of $342.4 million — to the Administration’s request for humanitarian
assistance to the Darfur region. The initial House Committee draft bill had provided
$92.4 million. During Appropriations Committee markup, the House panel voted 32-
31 to approve an amendment by Representative Jackson to restore $150 million in
68 The Senate bill, however, directs that $2.5 million of the $63 million in Transition
Initiative funds be used for the management of criminal cases, case tracking, and the
reduction of pre-trial detention in Haiti.
CRS-48
food assistance that had been requested but not made part of the Chairman’s draft
bill. Earlier, however, the Committee had rejected (29-30) a more expansive
amendment by Representative Jackson that would have provided the additional food
aid, plus $100 million for more refugee and disaster relief in the Darfur region.
Subsequently, during debate on March 15, the House adopted by voice vote an
amendment by Representative Jackson adding the same $100 million for Darfur that
had been rejected in Committee.
H.R. 1268, as reported in the Senate, provides $242.4 million for humanitarian
aid for the Darfur region and eastern Chad, the same as the request.
Global War on Terrorism-Related Programs
The Administration proposes $750 million in direct aid for Jordan, Pakistan, and
other coalition partners in the war on terrorism, some of which may be challenged for
not meeting the criteria of an emergency supplemental requirement or as open-ended
contingency resources that lack sufficient controls and congressional oversight.
! Jordan economic and military aid — $200 million. These funds,
which would be evenly split between economic and military aid, are
justified as necessary to help Jordan offset the costs of hosting Iraq
training initiatives, address increasing threats from Iraqi insurgents
and problems on the Syrian and Saudi borders, and high oil prices.69
The supplemental package would come on top of $452 million
already appropriated for Jordan in the regular FY2005 appropriation
and $456 million requested for FY2006.
! Pakistan military aid — $150 million. As part of a multi-year, $3
billion Presidential aid pledge to Pakistan, the Administration
requested in the regular FY2005 appropriation $700 million for
Pakistan, $300 million of which would support military activities.
Congress directly appropriated $148.8 million (post rescission) of
the military aid request and authorized the President to draw an
additional $150 million from prior-year unobligated appropriations.
The Administration thus far has not acted on the transfer authority,
arguing that it does not want to adversely affect other key aid
programs. Instead, the President seeks an additional direct
appropriation of $150 million that he did not receive in the FY2005
enacted spending measure. The Administration’s Pakistan aid
request for FY2006 again totals $700 million, with $300 million
proposed for military aid.
! Solidarity Fund — $200 million. The supplemental proposes $200
million in military and security assistance for countries that have
deployed troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to meet “extraordinary”
defense costs of such operations. According to State Department
officials, the funds would not be used to directly reimburse these
69 FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations Financial Plan, p. 4.
CRS-49
countries for costs sustained in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such
reimbursements are provided through DOD’s Coalition Support
Fund. Rather, the Solidarity Fund would help partners address
general budget problems related to their presence in both countries
by repairing or replacing defense articles and supporting a number
of countries currently or about to deploy forces.70
! Global War on Terrorism Partners Fund — $200 million. This new
account would provide economic aid to countries supporting the
U.S. in the Global War on Terror. It would be constructed as a
contingency fund, exempt from restrictions and conditions in any
other provision of law, from which the Secretary of State could
transfer resources to any Federal agency in support of the objectives
of the Fund. Secretary of State Rice told the Senate Appropriations
Committee on February 17, 2005, that the need for such a Fund
became clear after the regular FY2005 appropriation had been
submitted. She noted that a number of countries, although not
deploying troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, had taken steps, such as
securing their borders from terrorist infiltration, to take pressure off
U.S. forces.71
These proposals to support coalition partners have raised a number of concerns
among Members of Congress. Some question whether circumstances have changed
to justify additional aid to Jordan and Pakistan, especially given the large aid
packages approved for both countries in the regular FY2005 appropriation and
congressional approval of a transfer authority to accommodate $150 million in
military aid for Pakistan. Others also ask why financial support for countries with
troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan was not part of the FY2005 regular
request or proposed for FY2006. Another concern relates to possible redundancy
between the proposals outlined above and the roughly $2.2 billion in the DOD
portion of the supplemental for similar support to coalition partners.
The request for creation of the Global War on Terrorism Partners Fund has
drawn particular challenges from several Members due to its broad flexibility and
70 State Department news briefing, February 14. Examples of countries that might benefit,
according to these officials, would include Fiji, Poland, Ukraine, El Salvador, Bulgaria, and
Romania. During testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee on February 17,
Secretary of State Rice stated, for example, that Poland had spent nearly $500 million in
troop deployment costs.
71 Selected examples of the types of aid that would be provided under the Partners Fund
include basic development assistance for Yemen, which is uprooting Al Qaeda members in
its country; election and governance support for the Krygyz Republic which hosts a coalition
airbase; development, governance, and border control aid for Morocco, a close U.S. ally;
poverty-focused assistance for El Salvador, a country that has deployed troops to Iraq;
judicial reform, anti-corruption, and law enforcement support for Mongolia, another
coalition member supplying troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; and development assistance for
Djibouti, a nation providing the United States with the only military base in sub-Saharan
Africa. (FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations Financial Plan, February 2005, pp. 17-19.)
CRS-50
lack of specificity for how the funds would be directed.72 This request follows recent
efforts by the Administration to gain congressional approval of a flexible contingency
fund that could be drawn on to respond to complex foreign emergencies. Congress
has rejected these types of requests four times in the past three years. The
Administration seeks $100 million for a Conflict Response Fund for FY2006,
although the focus of that account would be on post-conflict and weak states, not
partners in the War on Terror.
Congressional Action. H.R. 1268, as passed by the House and reported in
the Senate, fully supports the additional assistance for Pakistan and Jordan. The
House measure, however, denies the $400 million requested for the Partners Fund
and the Solidarity Fund, while the Senate bill provides partial funding. The Senate
measure includes the full $200 million in peacekeeping resources for the Solidarity
Fund, recommending the assistance be provided to Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, El
Salvador, Ukraine, Mongolia, Georgia, Lithuania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and
Albania. The Senate-reported bill provided $40 million for the Partners Fund, urging
support for Yemen, the Krygyz Republic, Morocco, El Salvador, Mongolia, and
Djibouti. During floor debate, however, the total for the Partners Fund was reduced
to $26.5 million in order to increase amounts for the State Department’s Office of the
Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization and to add $5 million for
democracy programs in Lebanon.
U.N. Peacekeeping Operations
The Administration seeks $780 million to support a number of existing, recently
established, and prospective U.N. peacekeeping missions. According to officials, in
addition to the $484 million FY2005 enacted peacekeeping appropriation, there
remains a $780 million “gap” in current funding requirements. This, officials say,
occurred because new U.N. operations — in Cote d’Ivoire, Burundi, and Haiti — and
an anticipated operation in Sudan arose after the FY2005 budget was submitted in
early 2004. The Administration, however, did not seek a budget amendment during
congressional consideration of the regular FY2005 appropriation. The conference
committee on the Commerce, Justice, and State Department funding measure noted
its concern that the U.S. had voted to support the expansion or the creation of new
U.N. operations without submitting a plan for covering the costs of such
commitments. The Administration’s FY2006 request is $1.035 billion, an amount
that reflects these new and expanded U.N. peacekeeping operations.
Congressional Action. The House-passed supplemental provides $580
million of the $780 million requested for international peacekeeping. Included in the
total are funds for creating a U.N. mission in Sudan and permission to use up to $55
million for the establishment of a Sudan war crimes tribunal. H.R. 1268, as reported
in the Senate, includes $680 million, $100 million below the request, but offers the
Administration the flexibility to reprogram funds or use the appropriation through the
first quarter of FY2006 for any peacekeeping mission created after enactment of the
72 See remarks raised by several Representatives and Senators during hearings with
Secretary of State Rice on February 16 and 17, 2005, before the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees.
CRS-51
bill. Unlike the House, however, the Senate measure denies funds for a Sudan war
crimes tribunal.
Palestinian Aid
In his State of the Union address on February 2, 2005, the President announced
a $350 million aid package for the West Bank and Gaza, $200 million of which is
proposed in the FY2005 supplemental. The FY2006 request includes the balance of
$150 million. The funds would be available, notwithstanding any provision of law,
and the Administration says that some of the funds would be channeled directly to
the Palestinian Authority (PA), including support for training and equipping civilian
security services. Existing law includes several restrictions and conditions on aiding
the PA related to concerns over accountability, transparency, and corruption.
Secretary of State Rice defended the proposal, including the need for direct PA
funding, arguing that the U.S. needs to move quickly to help the Palestinians prepare
for governing Gaza following Israeli withdrawal.73 Regular U.S. assistance for the
West Bank and Gaza has averaged about $75 million annually and generally channels
aid through non-governmental organizations. The President, however, waived
restrictions on direct aid to the PA in December 2004 and July 2003 in order to
permit a portion of U.S. assistance to support Palestinian Authority costs.
Congressional Action. H.R. 1268, as passed by the House, fully funds the
$200 million Palestinian aid request, but adds the requirement for the GAO’s
Comptroller General to conduct an audit and investigation into the treatment,
handling, and uses of West Bank and Gaza assistance provided in FY2005. During
Committee markup, Members adopted an amendment offered by Representative
Kolbe adding a requirement that the President report to Congress within two months
after enactment of the supplemental appropriation regarding several issues, including
efforts taken to purge individuals with terrorist ties from Palestinian security services,
PA steps to dismantle terrorist infrastructure, PA efforts to promote peace with Israel,
PA efforts to strengthen good governance, PA cooperation in U.S. investigations of
Yassar Arafat’s finances, and how much aid the PA receives from other donors. The
amendment further bars the transfer of any supplemental cash aid to the PA and
denies the President the use of national security waiver authorities to directly aid the
PA with supplemental funds. This restriction, however, would not apply to $75
million provided in the regular FY2005 Foreign Operations for the West Bank and
Gaza, allowing the President, with the appropriate determinations and waivers, to
transfer direct assistance to the PA. During House consideration, Members defeated
(voice vote) an amendment by Representative Weiner to delete the Palestinian aid
proposal.
The Senate-reported bill also approves $200 million, but with somewhat
different allocations, restrictions, and reporting requirements than the House. Of the
$200 million total, $50 million is allocated to Israel to help facilitate the movement
of Palestinian people and goods in and out of Israel. The measure further
recommends $3.5 million for the Holy Family Hospital in Bethlehem.
73 Testimony before the House Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, February
16, 2005.
CRS-52
While the Senate Appropriations Committee report notes and supports the
Administration plan not to provide any direct assistance to the PA, the bill does not
include the House restriction barring any funds in the measure for the PA. The
Committee, however, reminded the Administration of existing conditions on West
Bank/Gaza aid and PA restrictions included in the FY2005 Foreign Operations
appropriations (P.L. 108-467), and that they would apply to supplemental funds as
well. Unlike the House-passed measure, however, the Senate provision would allow
the President to use the national security waiver authority provided in P.L. 108-467
for direct aid to the PA with supplemental funds if he made such a determination in
the future. The Senate bill also requires a report within 30 days of enactment
regarding threats posed to civilian aircraft by reported smuggled missiles, and how
the PA has dealt with reducing such threats.
Ukraine Aid
Following the recent elections in Ukraine, the Administration proposes $60
million in supplemental economic support for Kiev. The additional resources would
support anti-corruption and rule of law programs ($19 million), economic reforms
($13 million), civil society outreach ($10 million), HIV/AIDS activities ($4.5
million), nuclear safety ($5.5 million), parliamentary election assistance ($5 million),
and political transition aid for the new government ($3 million). These amounts
would come on top of the $79 million regular appropriation for FY2005. The State
Department proposes $88 million for FY2006.
Congressional Action. The House-passed measure includes $33.7 million
for Ukraine, a little more than half the level requested. In its report on H.R. 1268, the
House Appropriations Committee stated its intent that the funds be used for programs
that will demonstrate quickly U.S. support for the Yushenko government and assist
in the upcoming parliamentary elections. The Senate bill provides the full $60
million, recommending an increase of $3.65 million in planned support for Ukrainian
civil society organizations. The measure further adds $10 million for democracy
programs in Belarus and for humanitarian and conflict mitigation needs in Chechnya,
Ingushetia, and elsewhere in the North Caucasus.
Broadcasting to Arab and Muslim Audiences
The supplemental includes $4.8 million for the Voice of America, the Middle
East Broadcasting Networks, and the International Broadcasting Bureau supporting
programming in the Middle East, South Asia, and Europe, especially in countries
with significant Muslim and Arab populations. An additional $2.5 million would
support an upgrade of transmitting systems located in Tajikistan and boost
broadcasting signals to Pakistan and Central Asia.
Congressional Action. The House supplemental includes the $4.8 million
for broadcasting activities, but rejects the request for transmitting systems upgrades.
The Senate measure fully supports both items.
CRS-53
Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization
In mid-2004, the State Department created a new Office of the Coordinator for
Reconstruction and Stabilization (O/CRS), an entity designed to strengthen U.S.
capacity to prepare for and respond to post-conflict reconstruction situations and to
help weak states. The supplemental includes $9.4 million for start-up personnel costs
of the Office that was not budgeted in the regular FY2005 appropriation. The request
for FY2006 proposes about $24 million to expand the O/CRS by 57 positions. The
supplemental request further includes $7.8 million to development an initial corps
of civilian staff to create a ready-response capacity within the State Department.
Congressional Action. H.R. 1268, as passed by the House, provides $3
million for the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, about
one-third the amount sought, and deletes $7.8 million proposed for the ready-
response corps. The Senate-reported bill included $7.7 million for the Coordinator’s
Office, with the expectation that funds will be used for personnel in Washington and
Sudan. Like the House bill, the Senate-reported measure included no funds for the
ready-response corps. During floor debate, however, the Senate adopted an
amendment by Senator Lugar to add $9.5 million for the Coordinator’s Office,
thereby fully funding the request for the Office and for the ready-response corps. The
Lugar amendment offset the additional costs by reducing appropriations for the
Global War on Terrorism Partners Fund.
Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction
The tragedy of the December 26, 2004 tsunami that took the lives of perhaps as
many as 200,000 people in 12 southeast Asian, South Asian, and east African nations
has elicited over $12 billion in aid pledges and commitments from governments,
multilateral institutions, and private individuals. The United States made an early
pledge of $350 million for immediate relief efforts, but the Administration has
increased this amount by seeking $600 million in its request for a $950 million
FY2005 supplemental. Of this total, $120 million would replenish USAID
emergency aid accounts that had been drawn in support of the initial American
government response. Likewise, the supplemental also proposes $226 million to
make similar reimbursements to Defense Department accounts that were used in the
immediate aftermath of the tsunami.
The largest portion of the Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction supplemental
account — $581 million — would be used for small transition and longer term large
infrastructure activities. Of this amount, up to $45 million could be used to provide
debt relief to the affected countries if their governments request such debt reduction.
An additional $22.6 million would support creation of tsunami warning systems in
the region, activities carried out by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey. Out of the total $950 million
request, $701 million falls under international affairs budget accounts managed by
USAID and the State Department.
Congressional Action. The House-passed measure provides funds for all
items proposed under the Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction Fund, except for the
CRS-54
$45 million proposed for debt reduction. In approving the tsunami relief money, the
House Appropriations Committee noted its support for education and women and
children programs, and recommended that $10 million be used for training and
equipment for women-led NGOs in tsunami- affected countries.
In the Senate, H.R. 1268 also provides full funding for the Tsunami Relief and
Recovery Fund, minus $45 million. Initially, as reported by the Committee, the
measure denied use of funds for debt reduction. As the result of an amendment by
Senator McConnell, authority to use up to $45 million to cancel debt owed by
tsunami-affected nations is restored. The Senate Appropriations Committee further
notes several specific funding items: $5 million for environmental recovery activities;
$12 million for programs assisting disabled individuals; $1.5 million for trafficking
in persons prevention activities; and $3 million for teacher training programs in Aceh
and Sri Lanka where there has been a high death rate among teachers. The Senate
measure further increases NOAA funding by $2.8 million for additional expansion
of tsunami warning capacity.
Tsunami relief issues were also the subject of debate during House floor
consideration of H.R. 1268. The House defeated (voice vote) an amendment by
Representative Tancredo that would have barred the use of any funds in the bill for
tsunami relief. The amendment’s author believed that the more than $1 billion in
private donations for victims of the tsunami represent a significant outpouring of
American support for relief and recovery efforts, and that given existing budget
constraints and disaster needs in the U.S., further American taxpayer funds were not
warranted. Opponents noted that a portion of the request would repay foreign aid
accounts from which immediate tsunami relief assistance had been drawn, and would
disrupt these other aid activities if funds were not restored. Moreover, they argued,
the enormity of the tsunami destruction, extensive loss of life, and the long-term
reconstruction requirements justified the full U.S. government pledge.
In further debate, the House adopted (voice vote) an amendment offered by
Representative Maloney that increased the Tsunami Fund by $3 million. Although
not directly stated in the text of the amendment, the intent of its supporters is to
provide $3 million for a U.S. contribution to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA)
related to organization’s work in tsunami-affected countries. In order to cover the
additional costs of responding to unanticipated tsunami disaster needs, UNFPA
issued a $28 million “flash appeal” to which supporters of the amendment hope the
United States would respond with a $3 million contribution. Other Members note,
however, that the text of the amendment does not direct the Administration to use the
$3 million as a UNFPA contribution, but only to supplement the Tsunami Recovery
and Reconstruction Fund. The Maloney amendment offset the additional tsunami
funds by reducing the appropriation for programs funded under the Economic
Support Fund (ESF) account by $3 million. The effect of this reduction would be
to cut funds for either Afghanistan reconstruction activities, economic aid to Jordan,
or Sudan peace implementation programs, each that would receive assistance from
the supplemental’s ESF account. Aid to the Palestinians, which is also provided
through the ESF account, would not be effected because H.R. 1268 includes a
specific earmark for the Palestinians.
CRS-55
U.S. funding for UNFPA has been a controversial issue for some time because
of the organization’s continuing programs in China, where most agree that coercive
family planning and involuntary sterilization activities have been applied by the
government for many years. The Bush Administration determined in July 2002 that
UNFPA was in violation of U.S. law (the “Kemp-Kasten provision” in annual
Foreign Operations appropriations) banning contributions to organizations that are
involved in the management of coercive family planning programs. Executive
branch determinations have blocked U.S. transfers to UNFPA, FY2002-FY2004, and
a review of the FY2005 funding status is expected later this year.74
Table 9. Foreign Policy Funds in FY2005 Supplemental
(in millions of dollars)
House
Senate
Activity (account)*
Request
Conf.
Passed
Comm
Iraq:
U.S. Mission operations (DCP)
$690.0
$690.0
$690.0
—
New Embassy Compound in Baghdad
$658.0
$592.0a $592.0
—
(Embassy Security/Construction)
USAID operating expenses (USAID/OE)
$24.4
$24.4
$24.4
—
USAID Inspector General (USAID/OE/IG)
$2.5
$2.5
$2.5
—
Subtotal, Iraq
$1,374.9
$1,308.9
$1,308.9
—
Afghanistan:
U.S. Mission operations (DCP)
$60.0
$55.5
$60.0
—
Police training (INCLE)
$400.0
$400.0
$444.5
—
Counternarcotics (INCLE)
$260.0
$194.0
$215.5
—
Counternarcotics related activities (ESF)
$248.5
$248.5
$248.5
—
Reconstruction & Democratic
institutions/Government capacity building
$1,060.8
$490.7
$1,060.8
—
(ESF)
Anti-terrorism training and protection
$17.1
$17.1 $17.1
—
programs (NADR)
Subtotal, Afghanistan
$2,046.4
$1,405.8
$2,046.4
—
Sudan/Darfur:
Refugee relief for Darfur and Chad (MRA)
$48.4
$98.4
$48.4
—
Humanitarian relief for Darfur (IDFA)
$44.0
$94.0
$44.0
—
Emergency food aid for Darfur (PL 480)
$150.0
$150.0
$150.0
—
Peace implementation aid for southern Sudan
$22.0
$22.0 $22.0
—
(ESF)
74 For more information regarding UNFPA and U.S. contributions, see CRS Report
RL32703, The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate.
CRS-56
House
Senate
Activity (account)*
Request
Conf.
Passed
Comm
Security sector reform in southern Sudan
$10.0
$10.0 $10.0
—
(PKO)
Rehabilitation/reconstruction, mainly in
$63.0
$0.0 $63.0
—
southern Sudan (TI)
Repatriation of Sudanese refugees (MRA)
$5.0
$5.0
$5.0
—
Subtotal, Sudan/Darfur
$342.4
$379.4
$342.4
—
Other Global War on Terrorism Related:
Global War on Terrorism Partners Fund
$200.0
$0.0
$40.0
—
Security aid for coalition partners with
$200.0
$0.0
$200.0
—
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (PKO)
Jordan econ. & military (ESF & FMF)
$200.0
$200.0
$200.0
—
Pakistan military aid (FMF)
$150.0
$150.0 $150.0
—
Subtotal, Other Global War on Terrorism
$750.0
$350.0
$590.0
—
Other:
Palestinian economic aid (ESF)
$200.0
$200.0
$150.0
—
Israel (ESF)
—
—
$50.0
—
Ukraine economic assistance (FSA)
$60.0
$33.7
$60.0
—
Belarus/North Caucasus (FSA)
—
—
$10.0
—
Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction
$17.2
$3.0 $7.7
—
& Stabilization (DCP)
Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Fund
$15.0
$0.0
$15.0
—
classified (NADR)
Peacekeeping, mainly for operations in Haiti
$780.0
$580.0
$680.0
—
and Africa (CIPA)
Refugee admissions backlog
—
—
$25.9
—
Africa refugees needs
—
—
$29.1
—
Middle East Broadcasting (BBG)
$4.8
$4.8
$4.8
—
Broadcasting system upgrade (BBG)
$2.5
$0.0
$2.5
—
Reduction in ESF account
—
($3.0)
—
—
Subtotal, Other
$1,079.5
$818.5
$1,035.0
—
Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction:
Replenish USAID for immediate response &
$120.0
$120.0 $120.0
—
relief
Recovery and reconstruction, of which up to
$581.0
$539.0
$536.0
—
$45 million for debt reduction
Replenish DOD’s immediate response
$226.1
$226.1
$226.1
—
Tsunami warning system (NOAA and US
$22.6
$22.6
$25.4
—
Geological Survey)
CRS-57
House
Senate
Activity (account)*
Request
Conf.
Passed
Comm
Subtotal, Tsunami Recovery and
$949.7
$907.7
$907.5
—
Reconstruction
Less, non-Foreign Policy funds
($248.7)
($248.7)
($251.5)
—
Net, Foreign Policy Tsunami Recovery
$701.0
$659.0
$656.0
—
and Reconstruction
Rescission of FY2003 Turkey aid
—
$1,000.0
$1,000.0
TOTAL, Foreign Policy Funds
$6,294.2
$3,921.6
$4,978.7
—
* Account acronyms: BBG = Broadcasting Board of Governors; CIPA = Contributions for
International Peacekeeping Activities; DCP = Diplomatic and Consular Programs; ESF = Economic
Support Fund; FMF = Foreign Military Financing; FSA = Assistance for the Independent States of the
Former Soviet Union; IDFA = International Disaster and Famine Assistance; INCLE = International
Narcotics & Law Enforcement; MRA = Migration and Refugee Assistance; NADR = NOAA =
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and
Related Programs; PKO = Peacekeeping Operations; PL 480 = Food for Peace; TI = Transition
Initiative; USAID/OE/IG = US Agency for International Development Operating Expenses and
Inspector General.
a. H.R. 1268, as passed by the House, includes $592 million for a new U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
However, an amendment adopted by the House during floor debate prohibits the use of any
funds in bill for embassy security, construction, and maintenance.