Order Code RL33298
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and
Other International Activities;
Additional Katrina Hurricane Relief
March 3, 2006
Paul M. Irwin, Coordinator
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Larry Nowels, Coordinator
Specialist in Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service { The Library of Congress

---

FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other
International Activities; Additional Katrina Hurricane
Relief
Summary
On February 16, 2006, the Administration submitted two separate FY2006
supplemental appropriations requests. The first, totaling $72.4 billion, would fund
ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan ($67.9 billion), non-DOD
intelligence operations ($0.3 billion), State Department operations in Iraq and various
foreign aid programs, including additional assistance for Iraq ($4.2 billion), and other
counter-terrorism funding for other agencies ($12 million). The other supplemental
would provide $19.8 billion for recovery and reconstruction activities in hurricane-
affected Gulf Coast areas. Thus, Congress is to consider during the early months of
2006 a combined spending proposal of $92.2 billion.
For the military component of the supplemental, several potential issues may
arise in Congress, including whether DOD’s funding requests for training Afghan and
Iraqi security forces are necessary in light of the pace of implementation, how to
make transparent the DOD assumptions about military personnel levels for active-
duty and reserve forces that underlie the request, whether DOD could better contain
increases in operating costs, and whether DOD’s investment request finances
peacetime as well as wartime needs.
The supplemental proposal for international matters covers a range of activities
that were either not addressed in the regular FY2006 appropriations, address
circumstances that have changed since passage of the regular spending measures, or,
like military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, have been largely funded through
supplementals rather than incorporated into the “base” of annual, on-going
diplomatic and aid operations. The request of $1.6 billion in Iraq stabilization
assistance would be the first sizable aid package for Baghdad since Congress
approved $18.45 billion in the FY2004 emergency supplemental measure. Other
foreign policy elements include funding for U.S. diplomatic costs in Iraq and
Afghanistan, reconstruction aid for Afghanistan, democracy promotion programs for
Iran, Darfur humanitarian relief and peace implementation aid in Sudan, Pakistan
earthquake reconstruction, Liberia refugee repatriation, and food aid for Africa.
For hurricane recovery, half the funds — $9.9 billion — are designated for the
Department of Homeland Security, mostly for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). The Department of Housing and Urban Development would
receive $4.4 billion, most of which would be used for community planning and
development. The Department of Defense would receive $1.8 billion and the Army
Corps of Engineers $1.5 billion, primarily to be used for flood control and coastal
emergencies, procurement, and construction. The Small Business Administration
would receive $1.3 billion for loans to homeowners, renters, and businesses. The
Department of Veterans Affairs would receive $600 million to replace the VA
medical center in New Orleans. The Department of the Interior would receive $216
million, primarily for the Fish and Wildlife Service.
This report will be updated to reflect congressional action.

---

Key CRS Policy Staff
Subject
Name
Telephone
E-Mail
Iraq Military Operations & International
Affairs Supplemental:
Coordinator for Iraq Military Operations &
Larry Nowels
7-7645
lnowels@crs.loc.gov
International Affairs Supplemental
Department of Defense
Amy Belasco
7-7627
abelasco@crs.loc.gov
Iraq State Department Operations
Susan Epstein
7-6678
sepstein@crs.loc.gov
Iraq Reconstruction
Curt Tarnoff
7-7656
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
Afghanistan
Kenneth Katzman
7-7612
kkatzman@crs.loc.gov
Iran
Kenneth Katzman
7-7612
kkatzman@crs.loc.gov
Sudan/Darfur
Ted Dagne
7-7646
tdagne@crs.loc.gov
Pakistan
Alan Kronstadt
7-5415
akronstadt@crs.loc.gov
Hurricane Recovery Supplemental:
Coordinator for Hurricane Recovery
Paul Irwin
7-7573
pirwin@crs.loc.gov
Supplemental
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Keith Bea
7-8672
kbea@crs.loc.gov
(FEMA), Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS)
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG),
Eugene Boyd
7-8689
eboyd@crs.loc.gov
Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD)
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance, HUD
Maggie McCarty
7-2163
mmccarty@crs.loc.gov
Defense Operation and Maintenance, and
Amy Belasco
7-7627
abelasco@crs.loc.gov
Procurement, Department of Defense (DOD)
Military Construction, DOD
Daniel Else
7-4996
delse@crs.loc.gov
Army Corps of Engineers & Flood Control, DOD
Nicole Carter
7-0854
ncarter@crs.loc.gov
Disaster Loans Program, Small Business
Eric Weiss
7-6209
eweiss@crs.loc.gov
Administration (SBA)
Medical Center, New Orleans, Department of
Paul Graney
7-2290
pgraney@crs.loc.gov
Veterans Affairs (VA)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Lynne Corn
7-7267
lcorn@crs.loc.gov
Interior (DOI)

---

Contents
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Defense Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Potential Issues in DOD’s FY2006 Supplemental Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Afghan and Iraq Security Forces Funds: Obligations Slower
than Anticipated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Coalition Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Military Personnel Request and Visibility of Personnel Plans . . . . . . . 9
Operation and Maintenance Funding Rises Substantially in
FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Investment Funding Grows in FY2006 Without Clear Overall
Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Research and Development Emphasizes Improvised Explosive
Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Military Construction Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Flexibility Issues: Transfer Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
International Affairs Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
U.S. Diplomatic Mission Operations in Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Iraq Stabilization Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Sudan — Darfur and Other Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Darfur Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
The North-South Peace Agreement and Aid for non-Darfur Sudan . . 25
Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Other Foreign Assistance Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Hurricane Recovery Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Federal Emergency Management Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Other DHS Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Department of Housing and Urban Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Community Development Block Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Defense Department Supplemental for Repairs, Rebuilding, and
Help for Shipbuilders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Who Should Pay for Higher Costs Due to Delays in Shipbuilding . . . 33
Military Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Request for Increased Flexibility to Transfer Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Small Business Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Disaster Loans Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Department of Veterans Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Medical Center, New Orleans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

---

Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Other DOI Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Other Departments and Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Department of Agriculture (USDA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
General Services Administration (GSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Department of Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Department of Justice (DOJ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Armed Forces Retirement Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Appendix — Defense Department FY2006 Supplemental Request and Prior
Funding by Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of FY2006 Supplemental Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 2. Defense Department War and Occupation Appropriations,
FY2004 - FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 3. Average Monthly DOD Budget Authority for War and Occupation,
FY2005 Enacted - FY2006 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 4. Department of Defense FY2006 Bridge Supplemental and
FY2006 Supplemental Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 5. State Department and Foreign Aid Funds in FY2006
Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 6. Iraq Supplemental* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 7. Afghanistan Supplemental* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 8. Pakistan Supplemental* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 9. Summary of FY2006 Hurricane Recovery Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 10. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for DHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 11. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for HUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 12. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for DOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 13. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for the Army Corps of
Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 14. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for SBA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table 15. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table 16. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for DOI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 17. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental: Other Departments and
Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

---

FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq
and Other International Activities; Additional
Hurricane Katrina Relief
Overview
On February 16, 2006, the Administration submitted two separate FY2006
supplemental appropriations requests. The first, totaling $72.4 billion, would fund
ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan ($67.9 billion), non-DOD
intelligence operations ($0.3 billion), State Department operations in Iraq and various
foreign aid programs, including additional assistance for Iraq ($4.2 billion), and other
counter-terrorism funding for other agencies ($12 million). The other supplemental
would provide $19.8 billion for recovery and reconstruction activities in hurricane-
affected Gulf Coast areas. Thus, Congress is to consider during the early months of
2006 a combined spending proposal of $92.2 billion.
The request for Iraq and Afghanistan military operations continues the
Administration’s practice of funding these activities through supplementals rather
than in regular DOD appropriations. Congress, however, did approve a $50 billion
bridge fund for Iraq in P.L. 109-148, the Defense Department FY2006 appropriation,
to cover early FY2006 costs of military spending until a supplemental could be
considered by Congress and enacted. Thus, the total amount of existing and
proposed appropriations for military and intelligence operations in Iraq, Afghanistan
and other global war on terrorism for FY2006, is $117.9 billion. This compares to
about $99 billion approved for FY2005 and $67 billion for FY2004.
The supplemental proposal
Table 1. Summary of FY2006
for international matters covers
a range of activities that were
Supplemental Request
either not addressed in the
regular FY2006 Foreign
($s — billions)
O p e r a t i o n s a n d S t a t e
Military operations: Iraq, Afghanistan,
Department appropriation
$67.9
& Global War on Terror
measures (Darfur peacekeeping,
Pakistan earthquake relief),
Intelligence (non-DOD)
$0.3
where circumstances have
International activities
$4.2
changed since passage of the
regular spending measures (Iran
Hurricane relief and reconstruction
$19.8
democracy promotion and
TOTAL
$92.2
various refugee and food crisis),
or have been largely funded
through supplementals rather
than incorporated into the “base” of annual, on-going diplomatic and aid operations

---

CRS-2
(Iraq reconstruction and U.S. embassy needs in Iraq). The request of $1.6 billion in
stabilization assistance for Iraq would be the first sizable aid package for Baghdad
since Congress approved $18.45 billion in the FY2004 emergency supplemental
measure. Further, the Administration seeks about $750 million for Iraq in its regular
FY2007 Foreign Operations budget.
The $19.8 billion for recovery and reconstruction in the Gulf Coast region
follows enactment last year of two FY2005 supplementals of $10.5 billion (P.L. 109-
61) and $51.8 billion (P.L. 109-62) for hurricane relief.1
The President has requested that the entire amount of both supplementals be
considered “emergency” appropriations, a designation that would exempt the funds
from any limitations contained in the FY2006 Budget Resolution. Nevertheless, the
supplemental would add to the size of the U.S. budget deficit. The Administration
does not seek any off-sets from other previously approved spending that could have
the effect of reducing the supplemental’s impact on the deficit. Some Members
argue that some or all of the supplemental appropriation should be offset, and
although no specific proposals have emerged, the issue of rescinding existing
spending to pay for the additional costs of the supplemental could become part of the
congressional debate.2
Defense Supplemental3
To cover war costs, the FY2006 supplemental requests $67.9 billion for the
Department of Defense (DOD), an amount that is in addition to the $50 billion that
DOD already received in the FY2006 bridge fund included in DOD’s FY2006
Appropriations Act (P.L.109-148).4 If enacted, this would bring DOD’s total for Iraq
(Operation Iraqi Freedom or OIF) and Afghanistan/other global war on terrorism
activities (Operation Enduring Freedom or OEF) to $117.9 billion in FY2006.
If passed, DOD’s funding in FY2006 would be $19 billion more than the $99
billion received in FY2005 and $51 billion more than the $67 billion received in
FY2004 (Table 2).5 Based on this request, DOD’s war and occupation costs would
1 Additional resources for hurricane victims have been made available through the
Department of Homeland Security Disaster Relief Fund and through assumed tax savings
for people affected by the disaster. See below for further discussion of complete hurricane
recovery measures and funding.
2 See, for example, “House Conservatives Renew Bid for Offsets for War and Hurricane
Spending,” CQ Today, February 28, 2006, p. 4.
3 Prepared by Amy Belasco, Specialist in National Defense. Military construction section
prepared by Daniel Else, Specialist in National Defense.
4 In FY2005 and FY2006, Congress included “additional appropriations” for war costs in
Title IX of DOD’s regular appropriations act to ensure that DOD would have sufficient
funds to cover war costs until a supplemental was passed.
5 The $99 billion total for FY2005 includes $75.9 billion in the FY2005 Supplemental (P.L.
(continued...)

---

CRS-3
increase from $67 billion in FY2004 to $118 billion in FY2006 — an increase of
76% in two years.
In FY2003, the year of the invasion of Iraq, the Defense Department’s war costs
totaled between $69 billion and $76.2 billion depending on whether $7.1 billion in
funds provided in DOD’s FY2003 regular appropriations are included.6
Table 2. Defense Department War and Occupation
Appropriations, FY2004 - FY2006
($s — billion)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006 Bridge:
FY2006
Department
FY2006
Total with
of Defense
P.L.108-106;
P.L.108-287;
Supp.
P.L.108-148
Supp.
P.L.108-287a
P.L.109-13b
Total
$66.8
$98.8
$50.0
$67.9
$117.9
Annual
NA
$32.0
NA
NA
$19.1
Change
$ Change
NA
$32.0
NA
NA
$51.0
Since FY04
% Change
NA
48%
NA
NA
76%
Since FY04
Notes and Sources: CRS calculations based on public laws.
a. Total for P.L.108-106 excludes $3.5 billion rescission of FY2003 funds; includes $1.9 billion of
funds in the FY2004/FY2005 bridge fund that was obligated in FY2004 (Title IX, P.L.108-287).
b. Total for FY2005 includes funds available for FY2005 from the FY2004/FY2005 bridge fund and
funds appropriated in the FY2005 supplemental (P.L.109-13) excluding funds for Tsunami relief and
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
According to DOD’s justification materials, the FY2006 supplemental request
assumes that monthly deployment levels will average about 138,000 troops in Iraq
and 18,000 troops in Afghanistan, with temporary fluctuations during troop rotations.
DOD does not provide a breakdown of how the $67.9 billion request would be
allocated between Iraq and Afghanistan. DOD’s justification materials state that
monthly military personnel and operation and maintenance costs — the expenditures
most closely tied to military operations — averaged $4.5 billion in Iraq and $0.8
5 (...continued)
109-13) and $23.1 billion of the $25 billion appropriated to DOD in the FY2005 bridge
supplemental (Title IX, P.L.108-287). Congress provided that the FY2005 bridge funds
were available upon enactment and DOD obligated $1.9 billion in FY2004, leaving $23.9
billion available for FY2005.
6 See CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and Enhanced Security Since
9/11 by Amy Belasco.

---

CRS-4
billion in Afghanistan and other global war on terrorism activities, or a total of $5.3
billion monthly for both operations in FY2005.7
If one defines “military operations costs” as the total costs of military personnel
and operation and maintenance and applies this approach to the enacted bridge fund
and DOD’s new supplemental FY2006 request, average military operations costs per
month would increase from $5.4 billion in FY2005 to $6.4 billion per month in
FY2006, a 19% increase (see Table 3). These average monthly costs include only
those costs that would be obligated in FY2006 but not all of DOD war and
occupation costs that are associated with operations. For example, this definition of
“military operations costs” does not include additional funds spent for defense health,
higher fuel costs, national intelligence (cost not tracked by DOD), or training of
Afghan and Iraq security forces, now a substantial expense. Nor do military
operations costs — as defined by DOD — include DOD’s substantial investment
costs for additional equipment for deployed forces that DOD believes needs to be
ordered in FY2006 to meet its military needs.8
If all these costs are included, full monthly war and occupation costs would
average $8.2 billion in FY2005, and would increase to $9.8 billion in FY2006 if
DOD’s request is enacted. Table 3 shows the average monthly increases for each of
these categories, which range from decreases for military personnel and Afghan and
Iraq training funds to increases in O&M and investments.
Potential Issues in DOD’s FY2006 Supplemental Request
In its FY2006 supplemental request, the Department of Defense is requesting
$67.9 billion to provide special pays for military personnel, activate reserves, support
military operations, repair equipment, house and provide for troops, buy additional
military equipment, conduct research and development, construct military facilities,
train Afghan and Iraqi security forces, and reimburse coalition allies.9 Table 4 lists
7 Department of Defense, FY 2006 Supplemental Request For Operation Iraqi Freedom
(OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), February 2006;
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/FY06_GWOT_Supplemental_Request_-
_FINAL.pdf], p. 3.
8 DOD requests that its procurement funds be available for three years to take into account
the one to three years that it takes to contract, order, produce and receive military parts and
equipment.
9 Office of Management and Budget, Estimate No. 3, OMB, FY2006 Supplemental Request,
Estimate No. 3, FY2006 Emergency Appropriations (various agencies), Ongoing Military,
Diplomatic and Intelligence Operations in the Global War on Terror, Stabilization and
Counterinsurgency Activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Humanitarian Assistance,
2 - 1 6 - 0 6 ; [ h t t p : / / w w w . w h i t e h o u s e . g o v / o m b / b u d g e t / a m e n d m e n t s
/supplemental2_2_16_06.pdf];
Department of Defense, FY 2006 Supplemental Request For Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)
and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), February 2006;
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/FY06_GWOT_Supplemental_Request_-
_FINAL.pdf]
(continued...)

---

CRS-5
the major elements of the new request by title, the amount in the FY2006 bridge fund
(Title IX, P.L.109-148) and the total for FY2006 as requested and approved to date.
For a breakdown by appropriation account, see table appended to this report.
Table 3. Average Monthly DOD Budget Authority for War and
Occupation, FY2005 Enacted - FY2006 Request
($s — billions)
FY2006:
FY06 +/- FY05
FY2005:
Bridge &
Title
Bridge &
Supp
Suppa
$s %
Requestb
Military Personnel
$18.4
$15.8
($2.6)
-14%
Operation &
$46.0
$61.3
$15.3
33%
Maintenance(O&M)
Military Operations Total
$64.4
$77.1
$12.4
20%
Monthly Average:
$5.4
$6.4
$1.0
20%
Military Operations (BA)
Otherc
$7.0
$9.2
$2.2
31%
Afghan and Iraq Training
$7.0
$5.9
($1.1)
-16%
Forces Fund
Intelligenced
[5.1]d
[5.6]
[.5]d
[10%]d
Investment
$20.5
$25.7
$5.2
25%
Total Costs
$98.9
$117.9
$19.0
19%
Monthly Average,Total
$8.2
$9.8
$1.6
19%
Budget Authority
Notes and Sources: Numbers may not add due to rounding. CRS calculations based
on public laws, conference reports, DOD, FY2006 Supplemental Justification
Materials, February 2006. Numbers are rounded.
a. Includes remaining funds in FY2005 bridge (P.L.108-287) and FY2005
Supplemental (P.L.109-13) excluding funds for Tsunami relief and office of the
Director of National Intelligence.
b. Includes $50 billion in P.L.109-148, FY2006 DOD Appropriations Act and $67.9
billion in FY2006 supplemental request.
c. “Other” includes defense health, working capital funds, Iraq Freedom Fund.
9 (...continued)

---

CRS-6
d. Funding of $1.8 billion for intelligence was included in the Iraq Freedom Fund in
P.L.108-287, and $3.3 billion in P.L.109-13 for a total of $5.1 billion for FY2005.
Funding of $3 billion was included in the Iraq Freedom Fund in the FY2006 bridge
(P.L.109-148), and the FY2006 request includes an additional $2.6 billion for a total
of $5.6 billion; see DOD, FY2006 Justification - War, Feb. 2006, p. 1.
Several potential issues about the new FY2006 supplemental request may arise
in Congress, including whether DOD’s funding requests for training Afghan and Iraqi
security forces are necessary in light of the pace of implementation, how to make
transparent the DOD assumptions about military personnel levels for active-duty and
reserve forces that underlie the request, whether DOD could better contain increases
in operating costs, and whether DOD’s investment request finances peacetime as well
as wartime needs.
Table 4. Department of Defense FY2006 Bridge Supplemental
and FY2006 Supplemental Request
(billions of dollars)

Title IX,
FY2006 Supp
FY2006 Total
Title
P.L.109-148
Request
with Request
Iraq Freedom Funda
$4.66
$0.10
$4.76
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
$0.00
$2.20
$2.20
Iraq Security Forces Fund
$0.00
$3.70
$3.70
Military Personnel
$6.21
$9.59
$15.80
Operation and Maintenance
$28.56
$32.74
$61.29
Procurement
$7.98
$16.40
$24.38
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation
$0.05
$0.78
$0.83
Military Construction
$0.00
$0.49
$0.49
Revolving & Management Funds
$2.52
$0.52
$3.03
Other Defenseb
$0.03
$1.35
$1.38
TOTAL
$50.00
$67.87
$117.87
Notes and Sources:
a. Iraq Freedom Fund includes $3 billion for intelligence in the FY2006 bridge fund (Title IX,
P.L.109-148), and $100 million in the FY2006 request for two-year money for commanders’ “near-
term urgent operational needs;” see OMB, Estimate No. 3, 2-16-06; also includes $100 million for the
Coast Guard.
b. “Other” includes Defense Health, Drug Interdiction and the Office of the Inspector General.
Department of Defense, FY 2006 Supplemental Request For Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), February 2006;
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/FY06_GWOT_Supplemental_Request_-_FIN
AL.pdf]
Afghan and Iraq Security Forces Funds: Obligations Slower than
Anticipated. In its FY2006 supplemental, DOD requests $2.2 billion for the
Afghan Security Forces Fund and $3.7 billion for the Iraq Security Forces Fund to
train and equip Afghan and Iraqi security forces. These funds are in addition to $500
million that DOD may use in the FY2006 bridge for either country.10 Altogether,
10 Section 9005, P.L.109-148 sets a ceiling of $500 million from funds within Title IX.

---

CRS-7
DOD would have available $6.4 billion in FY2006 and FY2007 for training and
equipping in addition to funds already appropriated.11
For Iraqi security forces, the request includes:
! $787 million to equip Iraq’s brigades by purchasing aircraft, patrol
boats, equipment, and ammunition, $751 million for basing and
infrastructure;
! $712 million for police equipment, $696 million for basing, $250
million for training, $296 million to maintain buildings; and $65
million for other police needs; and
! $73 million to train and equip Iraqi security guards for detainee
operations or contract for those services.
For Afghan security forces, the request includes:
! $585 million for police training, $346 million for police
infrastructure, $235 million to maintain equipment and pay police
salaries and $195 million for equipment;
! $225 million to operate and support Afghan military forces, $221
million for military equipment, $138 million for training, and $240
million for military infrastructure; and
! $14 million for detainee operations.12
Although training and equipping Afghan and Iraqi security forces is clearly a
high priority for the Administration, it appears that DOD is obligating these funds
more slowly than originally anticipated so that funding requested for FY2006 could
be greater than currently required. The $5.9 billion requested in the FY2006 bridge
supplemental would be in addition to the $7 billion — $1.3 billion for Afghanistan
and $5.7 billion for Iraqi security forces — already received by DOD in FY2005, and
the $6.9 billion previously provided in the FY2004 supplemental.
As of January 2006, the Administration had obligated almost all of the $5
billion provided for training Iraqi forces in the FY2004 supplemental; obligations
data for Afghanistan are not available.13 Of the $7 billion in FY2005 funds, however,
11 As in previous proposals, the monies are requested to be available for two years or until
September 30, 2007; see FY2006 Emergency Appropriations (various agencies), Ongoing
Military, Diplomatic and Intelligence Operations in the Global War on Terror,
Stabilization and Counterinsurgency Activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other
Humanitarian Assistance, 2-16-06
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/supplemental2_2_16_06.pdf].
12 Department of Defense, FY 2006 Supplemental Request For Operation Iraqi Freedom
(OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), February 2006, p. 60-p.63;
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/FY06_GWOT_Supplemental_Request_-
_FINAL.pdf]
13 The FY2004 funds were received and administered by the State Department though DOD
provided the services; Section 2207 Report to Congress Pursuant to P.L.108-106, January
(continued...)

---

CRS-8
only $290 million had been obligated for Afghanistan and $220 million for Iraq as
of the end of FY2005, leaving some $6.5 billion available for FY2006, substantially
more than anticipated.14
Potential Training Funding Issues. With the current rate of spending,
some observers could question whether the full $5.9 billion requested to train and
equip Afghan and Iraqi forces is needed at this time. Last year, DOD anticipated that
training funds appropriated in FY2004 would run out in June 2005 for Iraq and in
October 2005 for Afghanistan. That has not been proven to be the case.15 On the
other hand, the requested funding would be available for two years and could also be
used in FY2007.
Another potential issue is whether Congress might want advance notification
of DOD’s overall plans for the types of equipment to be provided to Afghan and Iraqi
security forces. While the current and proposed statutory language requires DOD to
provide five-day advance notification of individual transfers from the account, this
does not give Congress an overall sense of DOD plans for the amounts and types of
equipment to be provided. Nor is it clear whether DOD plans to transfer or leave
behind any U.S. equipment and how that would factor into such plans.
Coalition Support. As in previous years, DOD is requesting funds to make
payments to “key cooperating nations” that provide logistical and military support for
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the FY2006 supplemental, DOD requests $1.5
billion for coalition support and $550 million for “lift and sustain funds” — to assist
Iraq and Afghanistan and other nearby friendly nations in their efforts to combat
terrorism — in addition to the $195 million in coalition support bridge funds. This
would bring the total to $2.2 billion for support of coalition partners.
In FY2005, DOD received $1.2 billion for coalition support. DOD does not
provide a rationale for the increased funding for coalition support requested. If
history is a guide, much of the funds will go to Pakistan, with the remainder to
Jordan, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Poland, and other coalition allies.16
Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP). DOD is also
requesting $423 million for the Commander’s Emergency Response Program
(CERP), a program where military commanders can fund local projects for
humanitarian relief and reconstruction. The FY2005 Supplemental set an upward
13 (...continued)
2006; see [http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/2207.]
14 See entries for these accounts in Standard Form (SF)133, Report on Budget Execution and
Budgetary Resources, October 2005;
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/reports/sf133/FY_2005_SF_133s_w_Revis.pdf].
15 DOD, “Iraq/Afghanistan Security Forces: DOD’s FY05 Supplemental Request,” March
2005.
16 Office of the Secretary of Defense, Coalition Support Fund Tracker, FY2002-FY2005,
February 2006.

---

CRS-9
limit of $854 million in FY2005, $500 million above DOD’s request.17 Congress
may again want to raise the DOD request based on its assessment of the program’s
effectiveness.
Military Personnel Request and Visibility of Personnel Plans. The
Defense Department is requesting $9.6 billion for military personnel in the FY2006
supplemental, which would bring total funding for the year — including the bridge
supplemental — to $15.8 billion. This is $2.9 billion less than received by DOD for
FY2005.18 It is not clear why the level is almost $3 billion lower this year.
Additional War-related Military Personnel Benefits . In the FY2006
supplemental request, $3.2 billion is slated to pay for additional war-related military
personnel benefits including:
! $1.4 billion for special pays for active-duty forces including hostile
fire pay, family separation allowances, hardship duty;19
! $341 million for additional recruiting and retention bonuses to
sustain wartime forces levels;
! $59 million for higher foreign language proficiency pay;
! $544 million for death gratuities;
! $400 million for additional life insurance claims above peacetime
levels;20
! $474 million for catch-up benefits for service members who suffered
traumatic injuries who would qualify under the new benefit enacted
in the FY2006 National Defense Authorization Act;21 and
! $22 million for insurance premiums for OIF/OEF personnel.22
With the $800 million already received in the FY2006 bridge fund, the total for war-
related special pay and benefits in FY2006 would be about $4 billion.23 Since the
17 See Sec. 1006, P.L.109-13, which raised the limit set in the FY2005 National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L.108-375).
18 DOD’s reported war-related obligations for military personnel are $15.9 billion according
to the September 30, 2005 report of the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS),
Supplemental & Cost of War Execution Report. These reports, however, appear not to
capture about $2.95 billion in military personnel obligations as recorded by the SF-133, the
government’s standard financial reporting system.
19 Congress has authorized monthly levels of $225 for imminent danger pay, $250 for family
separation allowance and $100 for hardship duty location pay for those deployed less than
12 months and $300 for those deployed more than 12 months.
20 Payments go to the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay claims.
21 Payments go to the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay claims.
22 Department of Defense, FY 2006 Supplemental Request For Operation Iraqi Freedom
(OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), February 2006, p. 4;
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/FY06_GWOT_Supplemental_Request_-
_FINAL.pdf]
23 CRS calculations based on H.Rept. 109-359, p.471.

---

CRS-10
launch of military operations in Iraq, Congress has raised and added war-related
personnel benefits and may again consider whether these benefits are sufficient.
Sustaining Force Levels. The FY2006 supplemental request includes $6.2
billion to sustain current force levels, including $653 million to support active-duty
force levels above normal peacetime levels, known as “overstrength,” and about $5.5
billion to pay activated reservists.24 In DOD’s plan, Army troop levels will be 16,300
above and Marine Corps levels will be 6,000 above peacetime strength levels in
FY2006. DOD has already received $420 million to cover overstrength costs, which
would bring the total base for the Army and 175,000 for the Marine Corps.
DOD’s FY2006 request also includes $5.5 billion to pay activated national
guard and reserve forces, in addition to $4.6 billion included in the FY2006 bridge
fund for “incremental” war costs for military personnel. That would bring the total
to about $10.1 billion, or about $1.5 billion less than requested in FY2006.25 DOD’s
wartime financial reporting system reports $8.4 billion to activate reserve forces in
FY2005 but this figure appears to be understated.26
DOD’s FY2006 supplemental justification does not include any information
about the mix of active-duty and reserve forces anticipated in FY2006 that would be
funded with these monies. And because of the discrepancies in the figures, it is
impossible to say whether DOD’s estimated funding in FY2006 is similar to or
different from last year. In general, the more that DOD relies on reservists, the
higher are war-related military personnel costs. That is because DOD’s incremental
war costs for active-duty forces include only special pays because their regular pay
is included in DOD’s regular appropriations whereas the additional full-time pay for
activated reservists is a wartime expense.
According to a DOD data base, about 36% of the 270,00 forces deployed in
support of the global war on terror were activated reservists and about 64% were
active-duty in FY2005, figures similar to those cited by DOD spokesperson.27
According to DOD, the FY2006 funding request supports overall force levels in
FY2006 that are similar to those in FY2005 — about 138,000 in Iraq and 18,000 in
Afghanistan. These figures do not appear to include other forces in the region or
elsewhere supporting the global war on terrorism.
24 This includes some $933 million for basic allowance for housing for dependents of
activated reservists.
25 See H.Rept. 109-359, p. 471.
26 DFAS, Supplemental & Cost of War Execution Report, September 2005; the FY2007
budget shows almost all military personnel funds as obligated; see OMB, FY2007 Budget
Appendix: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/appendix/mil.pdf]. CRS
compared appropriated levels to those reported in DFAS reports and those reported in the
FY2007 budget to identify a discrepancy of about $3 billion.
27 CRS calculations based on Defense Manpower Data Center, Contingency Tracking
System, Deployed Military Personel by Country and Component, November 2005 run.

---

CRS-11
In light of concerns about stress and sustaining both active-duty and reserve
forces, Congress may want to know the DOD planning assumptions that underlie its
FY2006 supplemental request for military personnel, including not only personnel
in-country but all those paid for by bridge and supplemental funds. That information
is not provided in DOD’s justification material.
Operation and Maintenance Funding Rises Substantially in FY2006.
The Defense Department is requesting $32.7 billion in Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) funds in the FY2006 supplemental. These funds would be in addition to the
$28.6 billion received in the FY2006 bridge fund, and would bring total funding in
FY2006 to $61.3 billion. That amount is $15.5 billion or about one-third higher than
the $45.8 billion appropriated in FY2005.
O&M funding pays for activities and services ranging from personnel support
for troops (e.g., subsistence, body armor, morale, welfare and recreation activities)
to the cost of operating forces and billeting troops. Major elements in the $32.7
billion in the FY2006 supplemental — all in addition to FY2006 Title IX bridge
funds — include
! $12 billion for operating support (fuel, spare parts, and related
expenses);
! $1.9 billion in personnel support (e.g., subsistence, body armor and
other protective gear);
! $2.4 billion for billeting of soldiers, base camp facilities, staging
areas, airfields;
! $500 million for command, control, communications and tactical
intelligence;
! $9.5 billion for transportation personnel and equipment both to and
within the theater;
! $3.2 billion for equipment maintenance in-theater and depot
maintenance at home; and
! $2.8 billion in other unspecified support costs.28
It is difficult to explain the increases in FY2006 because DOD did not show the
funding already received in the bridge supplemental in its justification materials.
Since DOD did not request the bridge funds — though it did not oppose them —
there was no formal request or justification material. It appears that about half of the
$15.3 billion increase in FY2006 for O&M can be explained by higher transportation,
maintenance, and fuel costs.
Depot Maintenance and Transportation Slated for Large Increases.
If the FY2006 request is approved, DOD’s total depot maintenance bill for FY2006
would be $7.3 billion — about $2.1 billion, or almost 40% higher than the FY2005
28 Department of Defense, FY 2006 Supplemental Request For Operation Iraqi Freedom
(OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), February 2006;
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/FY06_GWOT_Supplemental_Request_-
_FINAL.pdf]; ‘other’ calculated from total for O&M less items listed in DOD’s justification
material.

---

CRS-12
level.29 According to DOD’s justification material, the additional depot maintenance
requirements reflect the harsh desert environment and wartime conditions, which
have increased the wear and tear on equipment.
Another area programmed for large increases is transportation of personnel and
equipment to and within theater for which DOD is requesting $9.5 billion. Including
FY2006 bridge funds brings the FY2006 total to $10.8 billion, or about $4 billion,
or almost 60% higher than the $6.8 billion in FY2005. DOD attributes about $1.8
billion of the increase to higher fuel costs in FY2006. Excluding those costs, the
total would still be almost one-third higher than the previous year.
DOD does not provide a breakdown between its use of more expensive airlift
vs. sealift to transport goods but notes that the “Department is working to reduce the
proportion of air transport used and to lower the costs . . . but . . . will continue to
need air transport for the most critical items and shipment,” a commitment also
included in DOD’s justification material for FY2005.30 It is not clear why in the
fourth year of operations, DOD is still heavily relying on air transport of supplies.
Higher fuel prices may also account for increases in operating tempo costs that
include fuel, spare parts, and other costs of deployed units. DOD’s request is
predicated on the assumption that the average price of fuel — with service charges
— rises from $62 to $84 per barrel.31 DOD estimates that higher fuel costs in
FY2006 account for $2.6 billion in higher costs, including $2.2 billion financed in
the bridge fund and $423 million in the new supplemental.32
The FY2006 O&M supplemental also includes $539 million for body armor
plus an additional $140 million in the bridge supplemental for a total of $680 million.
This appears to be comparable to the $650 million appropriated for body armor in
FY2005.33
These three areas — equipment maintenance, transportation, and higher fuel
costs would account for about $8.7 billion, or roughly half of the $15 billion increase
in O&M in FY2006. From DOD’s justification material, the source or rationale for
other funding increases or for continuation of FY2005 levels for other areas is not
apparent.
29 DOD obligated $5.2 billion for depot costs in FY2005; see DFAS, Supplemental & Cost
of War Execution Report, September 2005. Department of Defense, FY2006 Supplemental
Request For Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF),
February 2006, p. 11;
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/FY06_GWOT_Supplemental_Request_-
_FINAL.pdf] (hereinafter DOD, FY2006 Supplemental Request)
30 DOD, FY2006 Supplemental Request, p. 10.
31 DOD, FY2006 Supplemental Request, p. 12
32 DOD, FY2006 Supplemental Request, p. 10 and p. 12;
33 CRS calculations based on H.Rept. 108-622, p. 380 and H.Rept.109-72, p.103-p. 105.

---

CRS-13
Investment Funding Grows in FY2006 Without Clear Overall
Rationale. In the FY2006 supplemental, DOD requests $16.4 billion in new
procurement monies, in addition to the $8 billion included in the bridge
supplemental. If enacted, FY2006 war-related procurement would total $24.4 billion
compared to $18.8 billion appropriated in FY2005.34 The FY2006 supplemental
includes the following:
! $3.1 billion for Army modularity equipment;
! $7.2 billion to reconstitute equipment;
! $2.6 billion for force protection items;
! $500 million for classified items;
! $1.2 billion for ammunition; and
! $692 million for SINCGARS radios for “transition teams supporting
OEF/OIF.”35
The supplemental also includes substantial funding for tactical vehicles, such
as High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles ($410 million for Army
HMMWVs and $271 million for those of the Marine Corps), night vision devices
($173 million for the Army and $259 million for the Marine Corps), target devices
such as lightweight laser designator rangefinder ($95 million and $113 million for
Knight Family fire support and target designators for the Army), and additional
communication aids. Modification kits for aircraft (e.g., AH-64 helicopters in the
Army and AV-8s in the Navy) are also requested. Similar items were included in the
bridge fund, including, for example, over $1 billion for radios of various types.36
Rationales for Procurement Request Unclear. Although DOD’s request
includes descriptions of individual procurement items, it does not give any rationale
or explain whether funding requests for various items reflect battlefield losses,
washout rates for worn equipment, equipment provided for state-side units whose
equipment remains overseas, or additional gear for deployed units. This makes it
difficult to assess whether funding levels are too high, too low or about right. Nor
is it clear whether the Army and Marine Corps, in particular, have additional
unfunded requirements that will come due in later years or whether some of these
items were originally budgeted in the baseline budget but transferred to the
supplemental.
Carryover of FY2005 Procurement Monies. About $6 billion of
procurement monies appropriated in FY2005 remain to be obligated in FY2006. In
addition, much of the $8 billion for procurement in the FY2006 bridge fund is
34 CRS calculations based on DOD, FY 2006 Supplemental Request, p. 2; H.Rept. 109-148,
p. 468, and H.Rept. 109-72, p.114. DOD also transferred an additional $2.2 billion from its
baseline budget to war-related procurement in FY2005, for a total of $20.9 billion; see
Table A1.
35 DOD, FY 2006 Supplemental Request, p. 26.
36 DOD, FY 2006 Supplemental Request, p. 2; H.Rept. 109-148, p. 468,H.Rept. 109-72, p.2,
p. 14-16, 26, passim; see H.Rept. 109-359, p. 477-p. 482 for FY2006 bridge.

---

CRS-14
probably still available.37 If DOD receives an additional $16.4 billion in the FY2006
supplemental, DOD would have as much as $30 billion in procurement monies to
spend in FY2006 in addition to its baseline budget.
As part of its budget review, DOD set a goal that all supplemental procurement
funds should be obligated by the fourth quarter of the fiscal year. In light of the large
amount of funds and the fact that monies are not likely to be available until the third
quarter, it appears unlikely that DOD would reach that goal. Although procurement
monies are generally available for three years, it could be argued that a shorter period
of time would be appropriate for urgently required procurement funds, and would
improve oversight.
Research and Development Emphasizes Improvised Explosive
Devices. The FY2006 supplemental requests $782 million in addition to the $50
million in bridge funds. About half — or $357 million — is for DOD’s efforts to
counter the effects of all forms of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), reflecting
the high priority placed on finding ways to counter these devices. The remaining
RDT&E projects appear directed primarily at enhancing the effectiveness of current
systems. The FY2005 supplemental included $587 million for RDT&E projects. It
is unusual for RDT&E funds to be provided in emergency supplementals because of
the long-term nature of the work.
Military Construction Request. The FY2006 supplemental requests $485
million for military construction projects including
! $348 million for Iraq;
! $80 million for Afghanistan;
! $22 million for planning and design; and
! $35 million for construction to support classified activities in the
United Kingdom.
According to the Defense Department, about $238 million is for force protection, $36
million for airfield improvements, $28 million for fuel facilities, $42 million for
power, water and roads, and $83 million for support facilities.38 Congress is likely
to scrutinize these individual projects closely because of concerns about the United
States establishing an “enduring presence” in the region.
Flexibility Issues: Transfer Limits. In the new supplemental, DOD
requests transfer authority that would allow the department to move funds between
37 CRS calculation of unobligated balances is from comparing amounts appropriated in
FY2005 with obligations in DFAS, Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS),
Supplemental & Cost of War Execution Report, September 30, 2005; later reports not
available.
38 FY 2006 Supplemental Request For Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation
Enduring Freedom (OEF), February 2006, p. 2; H.Rept. 109-148, p. 468, H.Rept. 109-72,
p.2, p. 14-16, 26, passim. [http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007
/FY06_GWOT_Supplemental_Request_-_FINAL.pdf/] Request For Operation Iraqi
Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), February 2006, p. 65 - p. 71.

---

CRS-15
appropriation accounts after enactment of up to $4 billion of the $67.9 billion
requested — with the notification and approval of the defense committees. This level
is $1 billion higher than the $3 billion level set for the $75.6 billion in the FY2005
supplemental.
The Department can also transfer up to $2.5 billion of the $50 billion in the
FY2006 bridge fund. The supplemental request also asks Congress to raise the
current transfer limit of $3.75 billion in the regular FY2006 DOD appropriations Act
to $5 billion to allow DOD to respond to unanticipated needs in the global war on
terror.39 Congress may wish to consider how much flexibility is prudent although
Congress has approved higher transfer levels in recent years.
International Affairs Supplemental
The President seeks $4.2 billion in FY2006 supplemental funding supporting
a broad range of foreign policy activities:
! U.S. diplomatic costs in Iraq and Afghanistan
! Additional U.S. stabilization assistance to Iraq
! Additional Afghanistan reconstruction aid
! Public diplomacy and democracy promotion programs for Iran
! Darfur humanitarian relief and peace implementation aid in Sudan
! Pakistan earthquake reconstruction
! Liberia refugee repatriation
! Food assistance for east and central Africa
If enacted as proposed, FY2006 total spending for international affairs programs will
have increased by nearly 50% over levels approved for the international affairs
budget immediately prior to the 9/11 attacks.
39 Office of Management and Budget, Estimate No. 3, OMB, FY2006 Supplemental Request,
Estimate No. 3, FY2006 Emergency Appropriations (various agencies), Ongoing Military,
Diplomatic and Intelligence Operations in the Global War on Terror, Stabilization and
Counterinsurgency Activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Humanitarian Assistance,
2-16-06, see general provisions.
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/supplemental2_2_16_06.pdf];

---

CRS-16
Table 5. State Department and Foreign Aid Funds in FY2006
Supplemental
($s — millions)
Activity (account)*
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Iraq:a
U.S. mission operations (DCP)
$1,097.5
Provincial reconstruction teams support (DCP)
$400.0
Special Inspector General & State IGb
$25.3
USAID security and operations (OE)
$119.6
Subtotal, Iraq mission security and support
$1,642.4
Provincial reconstruction teams/employment (ESF)
$675.0
Infrastructure security (ESF)
$287.0
Infrastructure sustainment (ESF)
$355.0
Nat’l capacity building — democracy & rule of law
$172.0
Prison construction/Protection of judges (INCLE)
$107.7
Financial integration & security promotion (IFTA)
$13.0
Subtotal, Iraq stabilization assistance
$1,609.7
Total, Iraq
$3,252.1
Afghanistan:c
U.S. mission security (DCP)
$50.1
USAID security (OE)
$16.0
Subtotal, Afghanistan mission security
$66.1
Power sector projects (ESF)
$32.0
Debt cancellation
$11.0
Afghan refugees returning from Pakistan (MRA)
$3.4
Subtotal, Afghanistan assistance
$46.4
Total, Afghanistan
$112.5

Iran:
Public diplomacy/independent TV & radio (DCP)
$5.0
Iranian student fellowships/visitor programs (ECEP)
$5.0
Broadcasting (ESF)
$50.0
Democracy programs (ESF)
$15.0
Total, Iran
$75.0
Sudan/Darfur:
USAID mission in Juba (OE)
$6.0
Refugees returning to southern Sudan
$12.3
Food aid for southern Sudan (PL 480)
$75.0

---

CRS-17
Activity (account)*
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
UN peacekeeping mission in souther Sudan (CIPA)
$31.7
Subtotal, southern Sudan
$125.0
Humanitarian relief in Darfur (IDFA)
$66.3
Refugees/conflict victims in Darfur & Chad (MRA)
$11.7
Food aid for Darfur (PL480)
$150.0
African Union peacekeeping mission, Darfur (PKO)
$123.0
UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur (CIPA)
$38.1
Subtotal, Darfur
$389.1
Total, Sudan/Darfur
$514.1
Pakistan earthquake reconstruction (various)d
$126.3
Liberia refugee repatriation (MRA)
$13.8
Food aid, East and Central Africa (PL480)
$125.0
Food aid for refugees through WFP (MRA)
$10.0
TOTAL, State Dept. & Foreign Aid Funds
$4,228.8
Source: Department of State.
* State Department appropriation account acronyms: CIPA = Contributions for International
Peacekeeping Activities; DCP = Diplomatic and Consular Programs; ECEP = Educational and
Cultural Exchange Program.
Foreign Operations appropriation account acronyms: ESF = Economic Support Fund; IDFA =
International Disaster and Famine Assistance; IFTA = Treasury Dept’s International Affairs Technical
Assistance; INCLE = International Narcotics Control & Law Enforcement; MRA = Migration and
Refugee Assistance; OE = US Agency for International Development Operating Expenses; PKO =
Peacekeeping Operations.
a. In addition to these figures for Iraq, the Defense Department portion of the supplemental includes
$3.7 billion for training and equipping Iraq security forces. The FBI also seeks $32.5 million for
operations and support in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Department of Justice’s United States Attorneys
Office and the U.S. Marshals Service requests $5.5 million in legal support for Iraq’s criminal justice
system, the Bureau for Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives proposes $5 million for firearms
trafficking, explosives, and arson operations in Iraq, and the Treasury Department seeks $1.8 million
for its participation in the Iraq Finance Cell and to place a Deputy Treasury Attache in Iraq.
b. Of the $25.3 million request, $1.3 million supports the work of the State Department’s IG in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
c. In addition to these figures for Afghanistan, the Defense Department portion of the supplemental
includes $2.2 billion for training and equipping Afghan security forces and $192.8 million for counter-
drug activities in Afghanistan and the Central Asia area. The FBI also seeks $32.5 million for
operations and support in Iraq and Afghanistan.
d. Funds would reimburse several USAID accounts — Development Aid, Child Survival,
International Disaster & Famine Assistance, and ESF — for previously re-programmed money, plus
support ongoing reconstruction projects.

---

CRS-18
U.S. Diplomatic Mission Operations in Iraq40
Currently, the U.S. Embassy in Iraq has over 1,000 American and locally
engaged staff representing about 12 agencies. Of this total, 156 U.S. direct hires and
155 locally engaged staff represent the Department of State (DOS) in the U.S.
Mission. The Bush Administration is requesting an FY2006 supplemental of $1.497
billion within State’s Diplomatic and Consular Programs budget account to cover
Iraq operations and security.
Available FY2006 funds for the U.S. Mission in Iraq’s regular operations
consist of $632.7 million in carryover funds from FY2005. While about $65 million
was requested for FY2006 regular operations for the U.S. Mission in Iraq, the
Department of State says much of that was lost due to rescissions. Therefore, the
Administration is seeking $997.5 million to cover ongoing operation and security
costs for the U.S. Mission in Iraq, $100 million for overhead protection of personnel
in facilities other than the Embassy, and $400 million for movement security of the
Provincial Reconstruction Team. State intends for the carryover and supplemental
total of $1.630 billion to cover costs for the remainder of FY2006 and the first half
of FY2007.
The Department of State estimates the FY2006 total program funding
requirement for Mission operations and security in Iraq to be $1.1 billion. This
includes $192.7 million for logistic support which includes trailer camps, food
service, maintenance of transportation facilities and equipment, and laundry; $70 .8
million for basic operations and logistics for the DOS American direct hires and local
hires; $81.8 million for operational costs for the four regional embassy offices in
Mosul, Kirkuk, Hillah, and Basrah, Provincial Reconstruction Teams and state
embedded teams, as well as contractor support for the Iraq Reconstruction
Management Office, offshore support, public diplomacy, education, and outreach
programs. According to DOS, FY2006 security budget needs total $735.4 million
and include $55 million for guards at facilities in Iraq, $617.9 million for high threat
protection provided to personnel whenever they travel outside of the protected
compound, and $62.5 million for equipment such as armored vehicles, as well as
physical and technical security measures. Additionally, $19.9 million is needed for
information technology operations for a country-wide emergency radio program for
the embassy, the State Department estimates.
Iraq Stabilization Assistance41
Of the total requested for non-DOD Iraq funding, roughly half — $1.6 billion
— is intended for so-called “stabilization” assistance. By entitling its effort
“stabilization” instead of “reconstruction,” the Administration appears to be
emphasizing that the new funds are not going to be used for actual construction of
economic infrastructure, as nearly 40% of reconstruction funds from all spigots have
been employed previously. For all intents and purposes, however, these funds would
40 Prepared by Susan Epstein, Specialist in Foreign Policy and Trade.
41 Prepared by Curt Tarnoff, Specialist in Foreign Affairs.

---

CRS-19
bolster many of the existing economic infrastructure programs currently being
conducted under the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF). They would also
provide continued support to the democratization and governance programs that,
along with health, education, and private sector assistance, currently account for
about 22% of all aid to Iraq. In the FY2007 Foreign Operations appropriations
request, the Administration has already proposed an additional $749 million, mostly
for similar democratization and rule of law programs. The training and equipping of
security forces, once funded under the IRRF, and currently accounting for about 38%
of total aid to Iraq, are now supported under the DOD-managed Iraq Security Forces
Fund (ISFF).
The supplemental funding request chiefly appears to address three major issues
of current concern to those implementing the reconstruction program:
! Security. Reconstruction progress has been severely undermined by
the insurgency which has directly targeted key infrastructure for
destruction. The supplemental provides $287 million to help secure
oil, electricity, and water infrastructure.
! Sustainability. As more large-scale construction projects have been
completed with U.S. assistance, there has been increasing concern
regarding the financial and technical capacity of Iraqis to maintain
them in the long run. The supplemental provides $355 million to
assist the Iraqis to operate, maintain, and sustain these projects. In
the past, this has been accomplished largely by providing training
and replacement parts.

---

CRS-20
Table 6. Iraq Supplemental*
($s — millions)
Activity
FY2006
FY07
(appropriation account)a
Supp.
Request
Provincial reconstruction teams/employment (ESF)
$675.0
-.-
Infrastructure security (ESF)
$287.0
-.-
Infrastructure sustainment (ESF)
$355.0
$154.0
Nat’l capacity building - democracy & rule of law (ESF)
$172.0
$112.3
Prison construction/Protection of judges (INCLE)
$107.7
$1.0
Ministry of Finance technical assistance (IATA)
$13.0
-.-
U.S. mission operations/Provincial reconstruction teams (DCP)
$1,497.5
$65.0
Special Inspector General & State IG
$25.3
-.-
USAID mission security and operations (USAID/OE)
$119.6
-.-
Subtotal, Aid and State Department Operations
$3,252.1
$332.3
Criminal Justice System Legal Support (DOJ)
$5.5
-.-
Firearms Trafficking, explosives, arson ops (BATFE)
$5.0
-.-
Iraq Threat Finance Cell and Treasury Attache (DOT)
$1.8
-.-
TOTAL, Iraq
$3,264.4
$332.3
* Data in this table reflect ongoing and FY2007 proposed funding for programs the same as or similar
to those requested in the FY2006 supplemental. The TOTAL line does not represent total aid or
mission operations for Iraq.
a. See Table 5 for listing of appropriation account acronyms.
! Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). Following the example
established in Afghanistan, the State Department is seeking to set-up
at least eight PRTs throughout Iraq, up from the three established in
the past few months. PRTs consist of officials from USAID, State,
the military, and other agencies who work with Iraqi local
government committees to identify economic and political
development projects that can be implemented with U.S. financing.
While enabling aid workers to escape the isolation of the “green
zone” and expand outreach to the provinces, they are also viewed as
a way to improve coordination of aid, especially of DOD-CERP
funds and State-controlled funding. Reported concerns regarding the
availability of sufficient “volunteers” to staff the PRTs as well as
questions regarding the willingness of the U.S. military to divert
personnel to provide adequate security may hinder their planned
development. The Administration is proposing an appropriation of
$675 million to be disbursed by the PRTs (a separate request of $400
million in PRT operational costs is discussed above).

---

CRS-21
Like the FY2007 request, the FY2006 supplemental also would provide
significant funding to governance, democratization and rule of law programs at all
levels of government in Iraq. These efforts would include $125 million to help the
Iraqi ministries to improve their ability to operate, $37 million to assist the Iraqi
Special Tribunal that is investigating and trying Saddam Hussein and others, $100
million to construct correctional facilities, and $10 million for broad democracy
activities such as parliamentary and civil society development.
The proposed legislation would also amend the FY2004 supplemental to alter
the allocation of $18.4 billion that had been approved by Congress for each major
reconstruction sector — most recently by statute in September 2004. Periodically,
the allocations had been changed to the extent allowed by law without need for
further legislation. The amendment proposed would give the Administration greater
flexibility by aligning the legislated allocations with current needs, by making
remaining funds available for four years from the current expiration date of end of
FY2006, and by allowing any obligated funds to be re-obligated regardless of sectoral
allocation restrictions.
Afghanistan42
The FY2006 supplemental request has several provisions intended to continue
U.S. efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and continue security and economic
reconstruction efforts. The supplemental would be in addition to about $877 million
in total foreign aid previously appropriated for Afghanistan in FY2006. The
supplemental request further follows the Administration proposal for about $1.1
billion in FY2007 aid funds. Key elements of the supplemental request are:
! $16 million for FY2007 security requirements for USAID operations
in Afghanistan;
! $50 million for the State Department for security costs of protecting
U.S. facilities and personnel. This would more than double the
amount already appropriated in regular FY2006 appropriations;
! $3.4 million in refugee assistance to support shelter and ensure food
supplies to Afghan refugees returning from Pakistan. UNHCR
expects that about 730,000 Afghans will return in FY2006, nearly
twice as many as previously estimated. This will augment $36.8
million already allocated to help repatriate Afghan refugees this
year;
! $11 million as a subsidy appropriation that will cover the costs of
cancelling roughly $110 million in debt owed by Afghanistan to the
United States. If not provided in the supplemental spending
measure, the Administration says that it would be necessary to re-
allocate existing foreign aid funds for Afghanistan in order to
provide the debt relief; and
42 Prepared by Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs.

---

CRS-22
! $32 million in ESF for emergency power sector projects needed for
a larger “Northeast Transmission Project” which will supply
electricity to Kabul and other northern cities and reduce
Afghanistan’s need to import diesel fuel.
Table 7. Afghanistan Supplemental*
($s — millions)
Activity
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY07
(appropriation account)a
Actual
Enacted
Supp.
Request
Infrastructure aid (ESF)
$379.2
$145.0
$32.0
$230.0
Debt relief
-.-
-.-
$11.0
-.-
Afghan refugees (MRA)
$47.1
$36.8
$3.4
$38.0
U.S. mission security (DCP)
$90.5
$47.0
$50.1
$82.0
USAID mission security (USAID/OE)
$37.3
$9.7
$16.0
$13.3
TOTAL
$554.1
$238.5
$112.5
$363.3
* Data in this table reflect ongoing and FY2007 proposed funding for programs the same as or similar
to those requested in the FY2006 supplemental. The TOTAL line does not represent total aid or
mission operations for Afghanistan.
a. See Table 5 for listing of appropriation account acronyms.
In addition to proposed foreign aid and diplomatic/security resources, the
Administration further seeks substantial amounts of Defense Department funds for
security force training and counter-narcotics activities. The DOD portion of the
supplemental includes $2.2 billion for an “Afghan Security Forces Fund” to continue
the effort to equip and train the 35,000-member Afghan National Army (ANA) and
55,000-person Afghan National Police (ANP). The ANP is near its target size, but
the building of the ANA has progressed more slowly than expected and it is about
half its target size. In addition, $192.8 million would support U.S. military
assistance to U.S. and Afghan counter-narcotics efforts in Afghanistan. The Defense
Department supports the effort by transporting U.S. and Afghan counter-narcotics
teams, providing search and rescue for them, and other support. Prior to FY2005,
both the security force assistance and counter-narcotics programs were funded out
of the State Department’s budget, not DOD.
Iran43
The FY2006 supplemental request would significantly increase funding for pro-
democracy activists in Iran. Although characterized as support for “democracy
promotion,” the funding increase appears to some to reflect a step towards pursuing
a “regime change” option in U.S. policy toward Iran. The request appears to indicate
that the Administration believes that international diplomacy with Iran to curb its
43 Prepared by Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs.

---

CRS-23
nuclear program is faltering, and that the risks of angering Iran’s government have
been reduced.
The United States began funding Iranian pro-democracy groups in FY2004. The
Foreign Operations appropriation for FY2004 (P.L. 108-199) earmarked up to $1.5
million for “grants to educational, humanitarian and non-governmental organizations
and individuals inside Iran to support the advancement of democracy and human
rights in Iran.” The State Department’s Bureau of Democracy and Labor (DRL) gave
$1 million of those funds to a U.S.-based organization, the Iran Human Rights
Documentation Center, to document abuses in Iran, using contacts with Iranians in
Iran. The FY2005 Foreign Operations appropriation (P.L. 108-447) provided an
additional $3 million for similar democracy promotion efforts in Iran. State’s DRL
says it did not publicly announce winning grantees on security grounds, but that
priority areas were political party development, media development, labor rights,
civil society promotion, and promotion of respect for human rights. The FY2006
Foreign Operations appropriation (P.L. 109-102) expands the program further,
appropriating up to $10 million in democracy promotion funds for use in Iran, drawn
from a “Democracy Fund” and the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI).
On February 15, 2006, Secretary Rice testified before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee that the Administration plans to seek supplemental FY2006
funds totaling $75 million, to be controlled by the State Department, for democracy
promotion in Iran. According to the supplemental request:
! $15 million is to be used to support civic education in Iran and help
organize Iranian labor unions and political organizations (through
such U.S. organizations as the International Republican Institute,
National Democratic Institute, and National Endowment for
Democracy.
! $5 million is to go to Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs
to sponsor Iranian students to visit the United States
! $5 million would be for Internet and other media efforts to reach the
Iranian public.
! $50 million would be used for increased U.S. broadcasting to Iran.
Although these funds are requested under the Economic Support
Fund account, and not through the independent (non-State
Department) Broadcasting Board of Governors, which normally
manages U.S. broadcasting operations, the request seeks authority
to transfer the funds “if necessary,” to Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty (RFE/RL)-operated broadcasting services into Iran that
began in October 1998.44 As of December 2002, the radio service
has been called Radio Farda (“Tomorrow” in Farsi), which now
44 The service began when Congress funded it ($4 million) in the FY1998 Commerce,
Justice, and State Departments appropriation (P.L. 105-119). It was to be called “Radio
Free Iran.”

---

CRS-24
broadcasts 24 hours per day. A U.S.-sponsored television broadcast
service to Iran, run by the Voice of America (VOA), began
operations on July 3, 2003, and now broadcasts three hours a day.
However, the Administration says that some of the funding might be
used for U.S.-based exile-controlled media broadcasting.
Sudan — Darfur and Other Sudan45
The Administration seeks a total of $514 million in supplemental funds for
Sudan, divided between humanitarian and peacekeeping support in the Darfur region
($389 million) and other parts of Sudan, mainly in support of the North-South Peace
Agreement ($125 million).
Darfur Crisis. The crisis in Darfur began in February 2003, when two rebel
groups emerged to challenge the National Islamic Front (NIF) government in Darfur.
The Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM)
claim that the government of Sudan discriminates against Muslim African ethnic
groups in Darfur and has systematically targeted these ethnic groups since the early
1990s. The government of Sudan dismisses the SLA and JEM as terrorists. The
conflict in Darfur burgeoned when the government of Sudan and its allied militia
began a campaign of terror against civilians in an effort to crush the rebellion and to
punish the core constituencies of the rebels. Since 2003, an estimated 300,000-
400,000 civilians have been killed, more than two million have been displaced and
currently live in camps, and more than half of the population have been affected
directly and are dependent on international support. The atrocities against civilians
continue in Darfur, according to U.N. reports, U.S. officials, and human rights
groups. Congress and the Bush Administration have called the atrocities genocide.
The African Union has deployed an estimated 7,700 peacekeeping troops, including
military observers and civilian police.
The $389 million supplemental request comes on top of over $500 million in
humanitarian relief provided by the United States to Darfur in FY2005 and roughly
$280 million currently available from FY2006 appropriations. Major elements of the
supplemental request include:
! $66 million for immediate, life-saving needs of victims of the Darfur
crisis, including health care, access to water and sanitation, and
shelter;
! $150 million for additional food assistance, an amount that would
meet about 50% of food needs in Darfur and eastern Chad, up from
the roughly 27% level currently;
! $11.7 million in refugee relief in Darfur and eastern Chad;
! $123 million in support of the African Union Mission in Sudan
(AMIS). Although AMIS funding was not requested by the
45 Prepared by Ted Dagne, Specialist in International Relations.

---

CRS-25
Administration in the regular FY2006 appropriation cycle, in late
2005 as Congress concluded debate on the Foreign Operations
spending measure, Secretary of State Rice asked that funds be added
to the final bill. While no additional funds were approved, through
re-allocations and re-programmings from other peacekeeping funds,
the State Department has made $33 million available for AMIS thus
far in FY2006; and
! $38.1 million to support the transition of the current African Union
peacekeeping mission in Darfur to a possible UN peacekeeping
operation.
The North-South Peace Agreement and Aid for non-Darfur Sudan.
On January 9, 2005, the government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation
Movement (SPLM), after two and half years of negotiations, signed the Sudan
Comprehensive Peace Agreement at a ceremony in Nairobi, Kenya. The signing of
this agreement effectively ended the 21-year old civil war and triggered a six-year
Interim Period. At the end of the Interim Period, southern Sudanese will hold a
referendum to decide their political future. Full and timely implementation of the
peace agreement, however, has been slow, raising concerns about potential conflict
between the two sides. Some important provisions of the agreement have not been
implemented, including commissions, withdrawal of troops, transfer of funds to
South Sudan, and the marginalization of some ministries by the National Congress
Party. Moreover, on July 30, 2005, First Vice President and Chairman of the Sudan
People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), Dr. John Garang, was killed in a plane crash
in southern Sudan (discussed below). His death triggered violence between
government security forces and southerners in Khartoum and Juba. More than 100
people were killed. In early August 2005, the SPLM Leadership Council appointed
Salva Kiir as Chairman of the SPLM and First Vice President of Sudan. The United
Nations has deployed an estimated 5,500 peacekeeping troops in support of the peace
agreement and the number is expected to increase to 10,715. The United States has
been a key player in the negotiations process and remains active.
The FY2006 supplemental request includes $125 million for southern Sudan
and other areas of the country outside of Darfur:
! $12.3 million to assist in a higher-than-expected level of the return
to southern Sudan of refugees and internally displaced persons. This
would be on top of $28 million planned in the FY2007 refugee aid
budget proposal when another 150,000 refugees are expected to
return.
! $75 million in food aid to support about three million internally
displaced persons and returning refugees throughout Sudan. As in
the case of Darfur, the supplemental package is expected to meet
50% of the food aid needs, compared to existing levels that will
reach only 29% of the target.
! $6 million for opening USAID offices in the capital of South Sudan,
Juba, and Khartoum.

---

CRS-26
! $31.7 million to increase U.S. support for the U.N. peacekeeping
mission in Sudan (UNMIS). Separately, the Administration seeks
$442 million for UNMIS in its FY2007 regular appropriation
request.
Pakistan
On October 8, 2005, an earthquake of magnitude 7.6 struck Pakistan, India, and
Afghanistan. Over 73,000 died in Pakistan and 2.8 million became homeless. At a
donors conference in November, the United States pledged a total of $510 million for
earthquake relief and reconstruction, of which $300 million would come from U.S.
economic and humanitarian assistance programs.46
Without additional funds added to the regular FY2006 Foreign Operations
spending measure for earthquake relief, USAID has been drawing on contingency
funds and re-allocating existing appropriations to meet emergency requirements for
earthquake victims. The $126.3 million supplemental proposal would replenish
some of these diverted funds, plus provide resources for continuing reconstruction
efforts. The Administration says because of the sizable drawdown — estimated to
be $70 million — from the International Disaster and Famine Assistance account, the
ability of the United States to respond to other global disasters in FY2006 would be
seriously undermined. The $70 million allocation for Pakistan earthquake relief
represents about 17% of USAID’s worldwide emergency disaster budget.
Table 8. Pakistan Supplemental*
($s — millions)
Appropriation Account)
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY07
Actual
Enacted
Supp.
Request
Int’l Disaster & Famine Assistance
-.-
-.-
$70.0
-.-
Economic Support Fund
$297.6
$297.0
$40.5
$350.0
Child Survival and Health
$21.0
$26.9
$5.3
$21.7
Development Assistance
$29.0
$30.1
$10.5
$29.0
TOTAL
$347.6
$354.0
$126.3
$400.7
* Data in this table reflect ongoing and FY2007 proposed funding for programs the same as or similar
to those requested in the FY2006 supplemental. The TOTAL line does not represent total aid for
Pakistan.
Other Foreign Assistance Proposals
Beyond the proposed aid packages for Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Pakistan, the
Administration also seeks several other foreign assistance items:
46 The balance of the pledge was made up of Defense Department in-kind support for relief
operations ($110 million) and assumed U.S. private donations ($100 million).

---

CRS-27
! $13.8 million in refugee assistance for the return and reintegration
of Liberian refugees and internally displaced persons. With
elections in November 2005 and the inauguration of a new
government in January 2006, the pace of voluntary refugee returns
has accelerated, with 120,000 expected to return in 2006. The
Administration says that the $13.8 million supplemental would
provide the U.S. “fair share” contribution to U.N. High
Commissioner for Refugees and International Committee for the
Red Cross appeals.
! $125 million in additional PL480 food assistance for FY2006,
primarily to address emerging crises in East and Central Africa.
! $10 million from the refugee account for the World Food Program
in order to avert potential pipeline breaks in refugee feeding
programs in Africa.
Hurricane Recovery Supplemental
Overview
On February 16, 2006, the President proposed an FY2006 emergency
supplemental appropriations of $19.8 billion for continuing federal recovery and
reconstruction activities in response to the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes, primarily
Hurricane Katrina. These appropriations would be in addition to those supplemental
appropriations already enacted in response to the 2005 hurricanes, including two
FY2005 supplementals — $10.5 billion from P.L. 109-61 (September 2, 2005) and
$51.8 billion from P.L. 109-62 (September 8, 2005). In addition, Division B of P.L.
109-148, the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to
Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006
(December 30, 2005), provided $28.6 billion for hurricane relief, of which $23.4
billion was offset by a reallocation from the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). Also, the President has estimated that $8 billion
has been approved for tax relief for persons of the Gulf Coast. According to the
Administration, existing funding is estimated to allow the continuation of hurricane
recovery activities through March 2006.47
Of the $19.8 billion requested, most of the funds are proposed for six
departments and agencies, as shown in Table 9. Under the request, nearly half the
funds — $9.9 billion — are designated for the Department of Homeland Security,
and almost all of those funds would be allocated for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). The Department of Housing and Urban Development
47 For an overview of supplemental appropriations in response to the 2005 hurricanes, see
CRS Report RS22239, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricane Katrina
Relief, by Keith Bea. For a summary of emergency supplemental funding in prior years,
please see CRS Report RL33226, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Legislation for
Disaster Assistance: Summary Data FY1989 to FY2005, by Justin Murray.

---

CRS-28
(HUD) would receive $4.4 billion, most of which would be used for community
planning and development. The Department of Defense (DOD) would receive $3.3
billion, with these funds primarily to be used for flood control and coastal
emergencies, procurement, and construction. The Small Business Administration
(SBA) would receive $1.3 billion for loans to homeowners, renters, and businesses.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) would receive $600 million to replace the
VA medical center in New Orleans. The Department of the Interior (DOI) would
receive $216 million, primarily for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Table 9. Summary of FY2006 Hurricane Recovery Supplemental
($s — millions)
Department or Agency
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
$9,875.0
—
—
—
Department of Housing and Urban
$4,402.0
—
—
—
Development (HUD)
Department of Defense (DOD)
$1,809.4
—
—
—
Army Corps of Engineers
$1,460.0
—
—
—
Small Business Administration (SBA)
$1,254.0
—
—
—
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
$600.0
—
—
—
Department of the Interior (DOI)
$216.0
—
—
—
Other Departments and Agenciesa
$203.5
—
—
—
Total, Hurricane Recovery
$19,819.9
—
—
—
Source: CRS calculations based on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) transmittal to
Congress of February 16, 2006.
a. See Table 17 for a listing of other departments and agencies.
Department of Homeland Security
The President’s FY2006 supplemental request for DHS is $9.9 billion, as shown
in Table 10. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred the
functions, relevant funding, and most of the personnel of 22 agencies and offices to
the DHS, which was created by the act. The FEMA and the United States Coast
Guard (USCG) were among the agencies transferred to DHS.48
48 For information on regular FY2006 funding for DHS, see CRS Report RL32863,
Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations, by Jennifer E. Lake and Blas
Nunez-Neto.

---

CRS-29
Table 10. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for DHS
($ in millions)
DHS Agency
Request
House
Senate
Conference
FEMA, Disaster Relief Fund (DRF)
$9,400.0
—
—
—
FEMA, Other
376.0
United States Coast Guard
69.5
—
—
—
Customs and Border Protection
16.0
—
—
—
Office of the Inspector General
13.5
—
—
—
DHS Total
$9,875.0
—
—
—
Source: CRS calculations based on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) transmittal to
Congress of February 16, 2006.
Federal Emergency Management Agency.49 A supplemental
appropriation of $9.9 billion is requested for all DHS activities; of this amount, $9.8
billion is proposed for FEMA. The DHS exercises broad authority to address
catastrophes resulting from terrorist attacks as well as natural disasters. Within DHS,
FEMA is specifically charged to prepare for, respond to, recover from, and lessen the
effects of, emergencies, regardless of cause. The FEMA total includes $9.4 billion
for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), $301 million for the Disaster Assistance Direct
Loan Program Account, and $75 million for other FEMA activities related to the
2005 hurricanes. The DRF is the account to which Congress traditionally
appropriates funds to provide assistance authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, popularly known as the Stafford Act.
Funds appropriated to the DRF are used to provide assistance to individuals,
families, state and local governments, and certain nonprofit organizations. DRF
funds are used for all major disasters and emergencies that are the subject of
presidential Stafford Act declarations; in recent years the number of declarations
issued each year falls in the range of 40 to 70 incidents. As a general rule, the
President requests, and Congress appropriates, DRF funding to meet annual historical
averages (currently approximately $2 billion) for outlays. For example, the President
requested almost $2 billion for the DRF in the FY2007 budget submission.
Annual appropriations are not always sufficient, however, when catastrophes
such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, or Hurricane Katrina and the
other 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes, occur. Many precedents exist for the enactment
of supplemental appropriations after catastrophes occur. For example, for FY2005,
Congress appropriated $2 billion to the DRF during the annual appropriation process
and later provided an additional $6.5 billion in supplemental disaster relief funding
(P.L. 108-324) after Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne struck in the
summer of 2004. Due to the wide range of assistance authorized by the Stafford Act
— from life saving response to long-term recovery and rebuilding — Congress
generally appropriates a large share of the funds in emergency supplemental
49 Prepared by Keith Bea, Specialist in American National Government.

---

CRS-30
legislation to the DRF. Expenditures by FEMA for Stafford Act assistance occur on
an “as-needed-and-approved” basis from the DRF and are available on a “no-year”
basis, which means that they remain available until used.
Other DHS Activities. The request includes $69.5 million for the United
States Coast Guard (USCG), $16 million for Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
and $13.5 million for the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The USCG would
be provided $62.2 million for major repair and reconstruction of facilities damaged
by the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes, and $7.3 million for related cleanup and repair
needs. The CBP funds would be used to rebuild hurricane-damaged CBP facilities
and structures in New Orleans. The OIG funds would be transferred from DHS to
other federal OIG offices to support, investigate, and audit other federal recovery
activities related to the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
The President’s FY2006 supplemental request for HUD is $4.4 billion, as shown
in Table 11.50
Table 11. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for HUD
($s — millions)
HUD Program
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Community Development Block Grant
$4,200.0
—
—
—
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
$202.0
—
—
—
HUD Total
$4,402.0
—
—
—
Source: CRS calculations based on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) transmittal to
Congress of February 16, 2006.
Community Development Block Grants.51 Congress included $11.5
billion of FY2006 supplemental appropriations for disaster-recovery assistance under
the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) in P.L. 109-148, to assist the five
states (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and Florida) impacted by the 2005
Gulf Coast hurricanes. Of this amount, $6.2 billion was allocated to Louisiana.
Among other provisions, (1) affected states were authorized to use up to 5% of their
allocation for administrative costs; (2) HUD was authorized to grant waivers of
program requirements (except those relating to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor
standards, and the environment); and (3) Mississippi and Louisiana were authorized
to use up to $20 million for Local Initiative Support Corporation and Enterprise
Foundation-supported local community development corporations. The HUD
income targeting requirement for activities benefitting low- and moderate-income
persons was decreased from 70% to 50% of the state’s allocation.
50 For information on regular FY2006 funding for HUD, please see CRS Report RL32869,
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): FY2006 Budget, by Maggie
McCarty, et al.
51 Prepared by Eugene Boyd, Analyst in American National Government.

---

CRS-31
The President’s FY2006 supplemental request includes $4.2 billion for CDBG
disaster relief to the state of Louisiana. These funds would be used for expenses
related to the consequences of the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes, except that none of
the funds could be used for activities reimbursable by FEMA, SBA, or the Army
Corps of Engineers. Funds would be targeted to flood mitigation activities which
could include infrastructure improvements, real property acquisition or relocation,
and other activities designed to reduce the risk of future damage. As a condition of
receipt of the funds, the state would be subject to an administrative expense ceiling
of 5%, and the state would be allowed to seek waivers of program requirements
except those related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and
environmental review.
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance.52 In October 2005, FEMA engaged
HUD to provide rental assistance to families that were unlikely to qualify for
standard FEMA assistance — specifically, families that were receiving HUD rental
assistance or were homeless when the storms struck. In December 2005, P.L.109-
148 transferred $390 million to HUD from FEMA to provide this rental assistance
directly. HUD has responded to its mission assignment by implementing the Disaster
Voucher Program (DVP). The DVP is largely governed by Section 8 voucher
program rules,53 although the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development was
given the authority to waive income eligibility and rent determination rules.
The President’s FY2006 supplemental request includes $202 million to HUD
for tenant-based rental assistance. It is meant to pay for the last five months of the
18-month period in which the estimated 44,000 eligible families are qualified to
receive DVP assistance. The request also includes proposed programmatic changes
that were not included in the earlier supplemental. These changes would expand
eligibility to several categories of HUD-assisted families that were eligible for
assistance under HUD’s mission assignment from FEMA, but are not currently
eligible for DVP. Language in the supplemental request would also waive a portion
of current Section 8 voucher law that requires lease terms to last no less than one
year. Finally, it would permit owners of project-based rental assistance units in
certain parishes in Louisiana — after first offering a right of first return to displaced
families — to offer vacant units to city or parish employees for up to one year.
Defense Department Supplemental for Repairs, Rebuilding,
and Help for Shipbuilders54
The Administration’s FY2006 supplemental requests $1.8 billion for the
Department of Defense (DOD), an amount that would be in addition to the $7.7
billion that DOD received in two previous hurricane relief supplementals and the
52 Prepared by Maggie McCarty, Analyst in Social Legislation.
53 Section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, as amended, provides tenant-based vouchers
for low-income people.
54 Prepared by Amy Belasco and Daniel Else, Specialists in National Defense.

---

CRS-32
reallocation enacted in the FY2006 DOD Appropriations Act.55 As in the previous
hurricane-related supplementals, this request would direct additional funds to repair
and replace equipment, rebuild facilities and infrastructure on bases damaged by the
hurricanes, provide benefits to displaced military personnel, and give the Navy more
money to pay estimated increased shipbuilding costs associated with labor delays and
disruption of operations at damaged shipyards in New Orleans and Pascagoula. The
current request does not include more funds to activate reservists or support active-
duty personnel who were deployed to provide initial rescue and recovery efforts, or
for evacuation of DOD personnel.56
Table 12. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for DOD
($s — millions)
DOD Activity
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Military Personnel
$69.0
—
—
—
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)a
$157.5
—
—
—
Procurement & Natl Defense Sealift Fundb
$1,137.4
—
—
—
Research, Development, Test, Evaluation
$19.0
—
—
—
Working Capital Fund & Trust Fundsc
$21.7
—
—
—
Military Construction
$404.8
—
—
—
DOD Total
$1,809.4
—
—
—
Notes and Source: CRS calculations based on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
transmittal to Congress of February 16, 2006.
a. Includes $12 million in O&M and $34 million for Defense Health.
b. Includes $1.02 billion in procurement and $11 million in National Defense Sealift funds primarily
to reimburse shipbuilders for higher costs due to “business disruption.”
c. Includes funds to repair and rebuild commissaries.
The main elements in the current request are:
! $1.02 billion for higher shipbuilding costs in addition to the $1.7
billion already provided;
! $115 million for military benefits, including higher Basic Allowance
for Housing for military personnel in the affected areas, health care
support, commissary rebuilding, and personal claims;
55 DOD received $1.9 billion in P.L.109-61 and P.L.109-62 and $5.8 billion in the
reallocation (P.L.109-148) for a total of $7.7 billion.
56 See DOD, Department of Defense FY2006 Hurricane Katrina & Rita Budget Reallocation
Request and Rescissions, November 2005; CRS Report RL33197, Reallocation of Hurricane
Katrina Emergency Appropriations: Defense and Other Issues coordinated by Amy Belasco.
See also Table 2C in CRS Report RL32924, Defense: FY2006 Authorization and
Appropriations by Stephen Daggett for an appropriation account breakdown of DOD’s
reallocation request.

---

CRS-33
! $202 million for additional repair and replacement of equipment in
addition to the $550 million already received;
! $63 million to restore facilities in addition to $660 million in
previously appropriated funds; and
! $405 million for military construction in addition to the $1.4 billion
already received.57
Who Should Pay for Higher Costs Due to Delays in Shipbuilding.
In the earlier reallocation (P.L. 109-148), Congress provided $1.7 billion to
reimburse shipbuilders (primarily Northrop-Grumman) for estimated increased costs
for ships under construction at Ingalls Shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi, and
Avondale shipyard in New Orleans. At the time, however, House and Senate
Appropriations Committees raised concerns about Navy reimbursement plans
primarily because of the difficulties in segregating the costs that should be borne by
the contractor’s insurance vs. the costs to be borne by the government. The
contractor carries insurance to protect its profits against “business interruption” and
therefore its insurance company may be liable for higher costs incurred because of
downtime and lower productivity of the shipyard workforce, additional overhead
charges and higher inflation costs due to delays. All of these circumstances —
associated with the damage to the two shipyards — could cut into contractor profits
if the government did not reimburse related costs.
To ensure oversight, the Appropriations Committees required that the Navy (or
Army) Secretary submit a report certifying that the higher shipbuilding costs are:
! required to be incurred for hurricane relief;
! not subject to reimbursement by any third party (e.g., FEMA or
private insurer); and
! directly allocable to the program for which funds are being
provided.58
Although there does not appear to be any standard definition of what is required for
a defense official to certify to these conditions, the following questions might need
to be answered to demonstrate that the Navy is turning to the government as a last
resort to reimburse these higher costs.
1) Has the contractor submitted and received rejections from insurers for its claims
for reimbursement for business interruption? If so, has the contractor challenged the
rejection in court and what has been the outcome of the challenge?
2) What types of expenses does “business interruption” insurance cover and what
types of expenses does it not cover? How do these criteria relate to the expenses
incurred at the shipyard?
57 CRS calculations based on DOD, FY2006 Supplemental Request for Hurricane Katrina
and Other Hurricanes of the 2005 Season, February 2006, passim;
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/FY06-Hurricane-Supp.pdf]
58 H.Rept. 109-359 in Congressional Record, December 18, 2005, p. H. 12630 p p. H12631.
See CRS Report RL33197 for a complete discussion of this oversight issue.

---

CRS-34
3) Can the Navy demonstrate that delays incurred are associated with Gulf Coast
hurricanes rather than other problems with a shipbuilding program by showing work
plans before and after the hurricane?
4) Can the Navy demonstrate that the expenses were unavoidable, i.e. that the
contractor has made maximum efforts to avoid delays and disruption by
subcontracting work to other locations or relocating personnel?
Congress may want to clarify the standards required for the Navy to certify that
such additional expenses were unavoidable, directly associated with the Gulf Coast
hurricanes , and not payable by a third party and apply such criteria both to the $1
billion in this new request and the $1.7 billion appropriated in the earlier reallocation
(P.L.109-148). Congress may also want to ask the Navy to refine its initial estimate
— made in the third week of September 2005 — only three weeks after Hurricane
Katrina struck. The $1 billion supplemental request, together with the $1.7 billion
already enacted, is identical to that original estimate.59
Military Construction. The President’s FY2006 supplemental request
proposes $405 million to replace military facilities destroyed by the 2005 Gulf Coast
hurricanes. DOD already received $1.4 billion in the Hurricane Katrina reallocation
in P.L. 108-148. Not all of the $405 million is new funds. The Administration
proposes to extend the availability through FY2010 of $234 million that was
previously appropriated in the Hurricane Katrina reallocation but was only available
through FY2006. Presumably, DOD wants to increase the life of these monies to
replace Naval Reserve and Army National Guard facilities because it does not expect
to obligate the funds this year and the funds would therefore lapse.
The $405 million requested is for:
! $53 million to replace and relocate facilities at Navy centers at
Gulfport and Bay St. Louis, Mississippi (fitness and recreation
centers, exchange, and barracks for international students);
! $111 million to construct Air Force facilities at Keesler Air Force
Base, Mississippi (fire/rescue center, exchange, base library, aircraft
maintenance hanger);
! $24 million to construct Naval Reserve facilities in New Orleans,
Louisiana (consolidated public works center, hardened command
and control center, and crash/rescue center);
! $210 million to replace Army National Guard facilities in Louisiana
(Joint Force Headquarters, Readiness Center, and aviation support
facility); and
! $6 million to replace Air National Guard facilities in Mississippi
(storm water system and medical training center).
As was the case in the Hurricane Katrina reallocation, the appropriators are likely to
scrutinize these military construction requests to ensure that there is no overlap with
59 Assistant Secretary of the Navy, John J. Young, Memorandum for Deputy Secretary of
Defense (Acting), “Hurricane Katrina,” September 21, 2005.

---

CRS-35
funds already received in the Hurricane Katrina reallocation (e.g., the $53 million for
Keesler and the $212 million for Gulfport) or with plans for base closures and
consolidations (e.g., consolidated Naval Reserve public works center that would
support both the Naval Air Station in New Orleans and the Naval Support Activity
slated for realignment).
Request for Increased Flexibility to Transfer Funds. DOD is
requesting broader authority than is typically permitted by Congress to transfer funds
between appropriations accounts after enactment. The supplemental proposes that
DOD be allowed to transfer funds among all accounts — including military
construction — both for funds in the current request and those in the previous
Hurricane Katrina reallocation. Last year, Congress permitted transfers among all
accounts except for military construction, where funds are typically designated at the
project level. DOD is proposing a transfer limit of $300 million for the current
request and retaining the $500 million transfer limit adopted in Hurricane Katrina
reallocation funds.
Army Corps of Engineers60
The Army Corps of Engineers typically receives indirect funding through FEMA
for its public works and engineering mission assignments (e.g., debris removal and
demolition) under the National Response Plan. In addition, Congress appropriates
funds directly to the Corps for some emergency response and repair activities.
Table 13. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for the Army Corps
of Engineers
($s — millions)
Army Corps Activity
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
$1,360.0
—
—
—
Construction
$100.0
—
—
—
Army Corps Total
$1,460.0
—
—
—
Source: CRS calculations based on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) transmittal to
Congress of February 16, 2006.
Through the supplemental appropriations and reallocation efforts in response
to the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes, Congress already has appropriated $3.3 billion
directly to the Corps. The President’s FY2006 request includes $1.46 billion for the
Army Corps of Engineers — $1.36 billion for hurricane protection improvements,
and $100 million for wetlands restoration of areas affected by navigation channels.
The request designates how the $1.36 billion would be distributed across various
storm protection activities:
60 Prepared by Nicole Carter, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy. The Army Corps of
Engineers is under the budget category, Department of Defense, Civil.

---

CRS-36
! $530 million for modification, closure, and pumping improvement
of the canals in downtown New Orleans;
! $250 million for improved protection at interior pumps in the area;
! $170 million for fortifying critical elements of New Orleans’ levees
and floodwalls;
! $350 million to improve hurricane protection along the Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal that cuts through from the Mississippi River to
Lake Pontchartrain; and
! $60 million to incorporate the local levees in Plaquemines Parish
into the federal levee system, which would transfer responsibility for
storm damage repairs from the local levee districts to the federal
government.
Congress has directed the Corps how to use much of the $3.3 billion already
provided. Of the $3.3 billion, $980 million is for repairing existing hurricane
protection, flood control, and navigation infrastructure, and $1.59 billion is for
restoring the existing hurricane protection infrastructure to its design level of
protection, that is, protection from a fast-moving Category 3 hurricane. The agency
was also directed to use $540 million for completing authorized hurricane protection
projects in Louisiana that were yet to be completed when the 2005 hurricanes struck,
and $70 million for investing in natural disaster preparedness and mitigation
activities. Also, $55 million was allocated for various Corps studies, including
investigations of restoring Louisiana’s coastal wetlands, increasing the level of
hurricane protection for coastal Louisiana, and addressing Mississippi’s water
resource needs. These studies may conclude with recommendations for additional
investment of federal resources in the affected Gulf States.
The FY2006 supplemental request would provide $100 million for wetlands
restoration. This amount would augment the $75 million of reallocated FY2005
hurricane supplemental appropriations directed to Corps activities to help preserve,
protect, and enhance Gulf Coast wetlands, as well as the $11 million in FY2005
supplemental reallocation appropriations and $10 million in Corps FY2006
appropriations (P.L. 109-103) for a study of restoring coastal Louisiana’s wetlands.
This study likely will borrow elements from earlier studies conducted by a variety of
federal, state, and local entities that had recommended federal investments in Gulf
Coast wetlands protection and restoration; these earlier studies have recommended
investment packages to respond to coastal wetlands loss that range from $2 billion
for near-term actions, to $14 billion for a more comprehensive approach.
Small Business Administration
The President’s FY2006 supplemental request for the SBA is $1.25 billion, as
shown in Table 14.61
61 For information on regular FY2006 funding for the SBA, see CRS Report RL32885,
Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies (House)/Commerce, Justice,
Science and Related Agencies (Senate): FY2006 Appropriations, by Ian F. Fergusson and
Susan B. Epstein. For further information about SBA disaster loans, see CRS Report
(continued...)

---

CRS-37
Table 14. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for SBA
($s — millions)
SBA Account
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Disaster Loans Program
$1,254.0
—
—
—
Source: CRS calculations based on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) transmittal to
Congress of February 16, 2006.
Disaster Loans Program.62 The supplemental request includes $1.25 billion
for the SBA credit subsidy and administrative funds to make loans to homeowners,
renters, and businesses for recovery costs related to the 2005 hurricanes. As the mid-
February 2006, the SBA had received 380,000 applications from individuals and
businesses for disaster loans. It had approved more than 66,000 of these valued at
nearly $5 billion. In addition, the request would authorize the SBA to reimburse
FEMA for any funds previously transferred from the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund to
the SBA Disaster Loans Program Account.
Department of Veterans Affairs
The President’s FY2006 supplemental request for the VA is $600 million, as
shown in Table 15.63
Table 15. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for VA
($s — in millions)
VA Project
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Medical Center, New Orleans
$600.0
—
—
—
Source: CRS calculations based on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) transmittal to
Congress of February 16, 2006.
Medical Center, New Orleans.64 The $600 million requested for the VA
is designated for the Construction, Major Projects account to be used for rebuilding
the VA medical center in New Orleans. Proposed funding for this project was
previously included in the October 28, 2005 request, but Congress provided only $75
million for advance planning and design in P.L. 109-148. The conference committee
did not include the full amount of funding because it felt that there was insufficient
information to determine the actual cost of the project. In the FY2006 conference
61 (...continued)
RL33243, Small Business Administration: A Primer on Programs by Eric Weiss.
62 Prepared by Eric Weiss, Analyst in Financial Institutions.
63 For information on regular and supplemental FY2006 funding for VA medical activities,
see CRS Report RL32975, Veterans’ Medical Care: FY2006 Appropriations, by Sidath
Viranga Panangala.
64 Prepared by Paul Graney, Analyst in Social Legislation.

---

CRS-38
report, H.Rept. 109-359, VA was directed to report to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress by February 28, 2006, on the long term
plans for the replacement hospital construction. This report was submitted on time.
The supplemental further includes a general provision to enable the VA to use
$122 million of the $225 million included for the Medical Services account in P.L.
109-148 for activation of the new hospital in New Orleans. VA would be allowed
to transfer this money among the appropriate accounts for the purpose of funding
these activation costs.
Department of the Interior
The President’s FY2006 supplemental request for DOI is $216 million, as
shown in Table 16.65
Table 16. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for DOI
($ in millions)
DOI Agency
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
$132.4
—
—
—
National Park Service (NPS)
$58.4
—
—
—
Minerals Management Service (MMS)
$15.0
—
—
—
United States Geological Survey
$10.2
—
—
—
(USGS)
DOI Total
$216.0
—
—
—
Source: CRS calculations based on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) transmittal to
Congress of February 16, 2006.
Fish and Wildlife Service.66 The FWS would receive $132.4 million under
the request out of a total of $216 million for DOI. Funds would be available for
cleanup and repair of 61 national wildlife refuges in the Southeast that were damaged
by the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. According to a December 2, 2005 memorandum
from FWS, the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes caused $147.9 million in damages and
recovery costs to National Wildlife Refuges, National Fish Hatcheries, and agency
offices in two agency regions. Of the total, $12.5 million was due to the costs of
initial response and recovery. Of the remaining $135.4 million, $61 million was for
priority damages. The FY2007 FWS Budget Justification (p. 154) would cut total
Refuge Operations and Maintenance by $5.7 million, a figure that does not include
the FY2006 supplemental construction funding for refuges. The FY2007
Construction request (p. 389-432) for FWS proposes a decrease in funding from
$45.9 million to $19.7 million. Moreover, the regular Construction request includes
65 For information on regular FY2006 funding for DOI, see CRS Report RL32893, Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations, Carol Hardy Vincent and
Susan Boren.
66 Prepared by Lynne Corn, Specialist in Natural Resources.

---

CRS-39
no proposals for the Gulf Coast states most heavily affected by the three hurricanes,
though funds are specified for projects in other regions or states. The data suggest
that the February 16, 2006 emergency supplemental request may be viewed as a
partial replacement for funds that would normally be requested in the regular budget
process.
Other DOI Activities. The request includes $58.4 million for the National
Park Service (NPS), $15 million for the Minerals Management Service (MMS), and
$10.2 million for the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The NPS funds
would include $55.4 million for cleanup and repair of 12 national parks damaged by
the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes, and $3 million for the Historic Preservation Fund for
assistance to states in the Southeast for the repair and restoration of historic
structures. The MMS funds would be used for relocation expenses related to the
temporary move of the MMS regional office from Louisiana to Texas. The USGS
funds would be for additional facility and equipment repair at USGS sites located in
the Southeast that were damaged by the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes.
Other Departments and Agencies
The President’s FY2006 supplemental request for other departments and
agencies is $203.5 million, as shown in Table 17.
Table 17. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental: Other Departments
and Agencies
($s — millions)
Department or Agency
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Agriculture
$55.0
—
—
—
General Services Administration
$37.0
—
—
—
Commerce
$32.8
—
—
—
Environmental Protection Agency
$13.0
—
—
—
Justice
$9.7
—
—
—
Armed Forces Retirement Home
$56.0
—
—
—
Other Department/Agency Total
$203.5
—
—
—
Source: CRS calculations based on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) transmittal to
Congress of February 16, 2006.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). The request includes $55 million in
supplemental funds for the USDA. Through the USDA Working Capital Fund, $25
million would be for the National Finance Center for the repair of damaged facilities
in New Orleans and alternate worksites and equipment. USDA Buildings and
Facilities would receive $20 million for the restoration of the Southern Regional
Research Center in New Orleans. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Center would receive $10 million for the purpose of preventing future losses through
the purchase of floodplain easements. For information on regular FY2006 funding

---

CRS-40
for the USDA, please see CRS Report RL32904, Agriculture and Related Agencies:
FY2006 Appropriations, by Jim Monke.
General Services Administration (GSA). The request includes $37
million in supplemental funds for the GSA Federal Buildings Fund. These funds
would be used to cleanup and repair the multiple federal buildings that received wind
and water damage from the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. Funds would be used to
make both short- and long-run repairs and alterations.67
Department of Commerce. The request includes $32.8 million in
supplemental funds for the Department of Commerce for two activities at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) — $21 million for
Operations, Research, and Facilities, and $11.8 million for Procurement, Acquisition,
and Construction. The larger amount would be used for the assessment of fishery
resources, mapping of fishing grounds for debris removal, rehabilitation of oyster
beds, and promotion of economically sustainable fisheries. The smaller amount
would be for the repair and reconstruction of a damaged NOAA science center that
provides scientific support for Gulf Coast fishery management.68
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The request includes $13
million in supplemental funds for the EPA. Of this amount, $7 million would be
allocated for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program for assessments and
corrective actions related to leaking storage tanks. The remaining $6 million would
be provided for EPA Environmental Programs and Management for environmental
monitoring, assessment, and analysis necessary to protect public health during
reconstruction and recovery.69
Department of Justice (DOJ). The request includes $9.7 million in
supplemental funds for the DOJ United States Attorneys for salaries and expenses
related to the significantly increased caseload for prosecutions and investigations of
cases stemming from the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes.70
67 For information on regular FY2006 funding for the GSA, see CRS Report RL32905,
Transportation, the Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District
of Columbia, the Executive Office of the President, and Independent Agencies: FY2006
Appropriations, by David Randall Peterman and John Frittelli.
68 For information on regular FY2006 funding for the Department of Commerce, see CRS
Report RL32885, Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies
(House)/Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies (Senate): FY2006
Appropriations, by Ian F. Fergusson and Susan B. Epstein.
69 For information on regular FY2006 funding for the EPA, see CRS Report RL32893,
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations, Carol Hardy
Vincent and Susan Boren.
70 For information on regular FY2006 funding for DOJ, see CRS Report RL32885, Science,
State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies (House)/Commerce, Justice, Science and
Related Agencies (Senate): FY2006 Appropriations, by Ian F. Fergusson and Susan B.
Epstein.

---

CRS-41
Armed Forces Retirement Home.71 The request would consolidate $76
million of previously appropriated funds to implement the findings of a
congressionally-mandated study due in March 2006 to determine the rehousing of
displaced military retirees who lived at the Gulfport Armed Forces Retirement Home,
that was damaged by the Gulf Coast hurricanes.72 Residents of that facility were
relocated to the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Washington, D.C. The
Administration’s proposal would tap $56 million in funds already appropriated in the
Hurricane Katrina reallocation and $20 million in unobligated balances.73
71 Prepared by Amy Belasco, Specialist in National Defense. The Armed Forces Retirement
Home is part of the Department of Defense, Civil budget function.
72 H.Rept. 109-359, p.513.
73 See entries for “Armed Forces Retirement Home” in OMB, FY2005 Supplemental,
Estimate No. 12, Defense, Homeland Security, and Corps of Engineers (Disaster Relief
associated with Hurricane Katrina, 9-7-05;
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/supplemental_9_7_05.pdf]; and in
OMB, Estimate No. 2, FY2006 Emergency Supplemental (various agencies), Ongoing
Hurricane Recovery Efforts in the Gulf States, 2-16-06.
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/supplemental1_2_16_06.pdf]

---

erence
onf
C
Senate
House
c
11.22
0.33
0.26
0.91
0.12
1.29
0.01
1.65
0.00
0.00
15.79
39.40
0.15
0.36
4.60
0.24
0.00
3.46
2006 Total
Y
ith Request
F
w
t
6.51
0.10
0.13
0.76
0.11
0.83
0.01
1.15
0.00
0.00
9.60
18.05
0.10
0.18
2.79
0.24
0.00
1.62
2006 Supp.
Reques
Y
F
109-
L
42
2006
Y
148
4.71
0.23
0.14
0.14
0.01
0.46
0.00
0.51
0.00
0.00
6.20
21.35
0.05
0.18
1.81
0.01
0.00
1.83
F
CRS-
ccount
ridge, P
A
B
($s — billions)
b
2005
Y
14.52
0.29
0.20
0.54
0.01
1.36
0.00
2.01
0.00
0.00
18.93
31.36
0.03
0.33
3.46
0.08
0.07
2.61
Enacted
Total F
a
2004
Y
11.97
0.00
0.00
0.86
0.00
0.92
0.00
3.27
0.00
0.00
17.02
29.97
0.00
0.00
2.55
0.00
0.00
1.57
F
Obligations
y
av
e
ersonnel
ent, N
itle/account
T
y
Reserv
y
y
y

y
ppendix — Defense Department FY2006 Supplemental Request and Prior Funding by
A
M, Arm
M, AR
M, ARNG
M, Nav
M, NR
M, MC
Mil Pers, Arm
Mil Pers, ARNG
Mil Pers, AR
Mil Pers, Nav
Mil Pers, Nav
Mil Pers, MC
Mil Pers, MCR
Mil Pers, AF
Mil Pers, ANG
Mil Pers, AFR
Subtotal: Military P
O&
O&
O&
O&
O&
Facilities Sustainm
O&

---

erence
onf
C
Senate
House
c
0.08
8.57
0.02
0.04
4.36
61.28
4.76
-0.10
2.20
3.70
10.56
3.03
0.00
3.03
1.15
0.00
0.22
1.37
0.77
0.26
1.99
2006 Total
[1.500]
[.045]
Y
ith Request
F
w
t
0.06
6.09
0.02
0.03
3.56
[.045]
32.74
0.10
0.00
2.20
3.70
6.00
0.52
0.00
0.52
1.15
0.00
0.19
1.34
0.53
0.20
1.13
2006 Supp.
Reques
[1.500]
Y
F
109-
L
43
2006
Y
148
0.03
2.48
0.01
0.01
0.81
0.00
0.00
28.57
4.66
-0.10
0.00
0.00
4.56
2.52
0.00
2.52
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.23
0.06
0.86
F
CRS-
ridge, P
B
b
2005
Y
0.02
6.06
0.02
0.04
3.46
0.00
0.00
47.54
3.80
-0.10
1.29
5.70
10.69
2.02
0.03
2.05
0.89
0.00
0.24
1.13
0.47
0.35
2.87
Enacted
Total F
a
2004
Y
0.00
6.13
0.00
0.00
4.79
[1.15]
[0.00]
45.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.97
0.00
0.97
0.89
0.00
0.00
0.89
0.00
0.00
0.05
F
Obligations
ehicles,
Reduction
unds
rograms
bat V
reat
h
a
FF)
unds
ense P
ed Com
y
y
itle/account
FF to Coast Guard
rack
T
I
T
ide: Coalition Support
Fund (I
Forces Fund
spector Gen’l
n
efw
Capital Fund
terdiction
ing
n
I
M, MCR
M, AF
M, AFR
M, ANG
M, Defensewide
M, D
M, Defwide: Coop. T
han. Sec. Forces Fund
&
ransfer from
O&
O&
O&
O&
O&
O
O&
Subtotal:O&M
Iraq Freedom
T
Afg
Iraq Security
Subtotal: Special F
Work
Nat’l Def. Sealift Fd.
Subtotal: Revolving & Mgt F
Defense Health
Office of I
Drug
Subtotal: Other Def
Aircraft Proc, Arm
Missile Proc, Arm
Proc, Wpns &

---

erence
onf
C
Senate
House
c
1.10
10.84
0.41
0.37
0.21
0.22
4.61
0.03
1.53
0.51
0.02
0.51
1.00
24.38
0.44
0.14
0.08
0.17
0.83
0.41
0.04
0.04
0.49
2006 Total
Y
ith Request
F
w
t
0.83
7.66
0.27
0.33
0.10
0.17
2.90
0.03
1.52
0.39
0.00
0.33
0.00
16.39
0.43
0.14
0.07
0.15
0.79
0.41
0.04
0.04
0.49
2006 Supp.
Reques
Y
F
109-
L
44
2006
Y
148
0.27
3.17
0.14
0.04
0.12
0.05
1.71
0.00
0.02
0.12
0.02
0.18
1.00
7.99
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
F
CRS-
ridge, P
B
b
2005
Y
0.64
8.78
0.27
0.17
0.07
0.08
3.51
0.01
2.69
0.28
0.00
0.69
0.05
20.93
0.04
0.20
0.14
0.25
0.63
0.85
0.14
0.14
1.13
Enacted
Total F
a
2004
Y
0.11
3.21
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.53
0.00
0.31
0.05
0.00
0.25
0.00
4.80
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.03
0.05
0.11
0.00
0.26
0.37
F
Obligations
ent
e Equipm
mily Hsg
a
y
y
and Marine Corps
b
y
itle/account
y
y
y
T
Reserv
y

y
y
y
o, Arm
rocurement
o, Nav
o, AF
m
m
m
E, Arm
E, Nav
E, AF
E, Defensewide/b/
y
&
&
&
&
m
Ar
Proc, Am
Other Proc, Arm
Aircraft Proc, Nav
Proc Am
Wpns Proc, Nav
Other Proc, Nav
Proc, Marine Corps
Proc Am
Other Proc, AF
Aircraft Proc, AF
Missile Proc, AF
Proc, Defwide
Nat’l Guard &
Subtotal: P
RDT
RDT
RDT
RDT
Subtotal: RDT&E
Mil Con, Arm
Mil Con, Nav
Mil Con, AF
Subtotal: Mil.Con/F

---

s
t;
s
d
al
ts
n
ary
its
lect
n
287)
en
m
u
ation
me
im
ref
ement
d
erence
act
n
.108-
, Febru
.L
en
onf
itle IX f
C
pon
EF)
f T
r, Stabiliz
et/ame
DOD. L
g
y
e u
ro
d
(O
b
2006 Suppl
u
ber 30, 2004;
itle IX, P
labl
/b
FY
b
em
ai
DOD o
y
m
eedom
istered
tal (T
r on Ter
/o
Senate
Fr
in
ept
a
v
en
o
m
S
ere av
ers b
sf
ing
of
ee OMB,
se.g
s
u
as
pplem
ce, ad
u
287 w
o
en
e s
iteh
House
eport
.108-
lects tran
ion Endur
R
in the Global W
wh
at
tellig
c
n
P.L
ref
16, 2006;
tio
n
also
ary
ations
ecu
ed i
ru
://www.
id
/FY2005 bridg
cted
ttp
and Oper
tactical in
ov
a
Feb
h
d
2006 Total
[5.65 ]
117.73
[6.50]
IF)
an
t
Y
ith Request
s pr
; [
War Ex
t of
d
r en
O
o
6
F
en
w
n
es
FY2004
u
-0
st of
e
fu
tal f
q
6
ilitary
o
e
o
-1
actm
t
th
h
m
C
T
’s re
eedom (
d
, 2
Fr
sified.
]
ter en
13).
67.87
tal &
[4.00]
aqi
2006 Supp.
.pdf
Reques
[ 2.60]
en
istration
L
cies, an
ts af
n
Y
109-
in
en
are clas
u
F
em
r FY2005. T
ssistance
o
m
omatic and Intelligence Oper
ion Ir
A
ppl
d
at
u
s appropriated in

_FINA
ce ag
acco
109-
d
tal (P.L
e A
L
), S
n
u
y, Dipl
ian
en
een
S
en
Oper
ailable f
est_-
ts; details
n
45
2006
A
em
d th
etw
Y
148
tellig
[3.05]
49.92
[2.50]
ded f
av
t For
equ
b
F
ppl
clu
u
e in
CRS-
ridge, P
S
148) an
s accou
B
ice (DF
tal_R
th
erred
Humanitar
y
sf
erv
Reques
en
2005
b
ariou
b
acted in
.109-
al
2005
S
g
Y
v
$23.1 billion
.L
), Ongoing Militar
g
e tran
Y
in
e F
g
pplem
istered
on
b
th
in
ement
[5.10]
103.03
[4.50]
unt
in
o
n
ncies
_Su
Enacted
c
m
ed i
itle IX, P
OT
at can
Total F
age
Suppl
ted am
Ac
. FY2005 en
at
e
a
.
ce, ad
ill th
nc
tal (T
ious
stan, and Other
tribu
2006
en
b
na
reports
FY2004 leav
en
(var
FY
e dis
2004
Fi
s appropri
tellig
each
Y
5.30
74.41
[3.00]
se
d
terrorism
se,
s ar
in
F
ation
n
en
pplem
u
u
d
iations
en
al in
n
ith
Obligations
s f
2007/FY06_GW
n
u
u
ar on
e s
y
opr
Def
s w
atio
e f
d
se, Def
et/f
n
t of
n
d th
cies.
u
en
appropriated in
aq and Afghani
dg
en
th
f f
d DOD oblig
2005 pl
lobal w
bu
o
an
en
Y
m
t o
Def
e g
r b
n
s an
F
o
gency Appr
er ag
u
o
t of
of
r th
s f
s acts
g
o
FY2006 bridg
in Ir
d
th
en
in
f
d Depart
n
o
m
n
e $25 billion
of
u
blic law
tal am
in
m
ptroller/def
th
ram
u
an
e f
pu
s
];
d
ers to
of
e to
clu
sf
Depart
on
e beg
il/com
th
f
e prog
n
ed
th
lects
s in
appropriation
rom
of
. 3, FY2006 Emer
n
e tran
itle/account
d
its o
as
o
gency Activities
dod.m
et in
T
a f
s bas
.
e
ur
clu
s baselin
riatio
d
ts
p
s dat
ins
n
lation
labl
www.
ro
ai
s are s
ated $1.9 billion
r FY2006 ref
timate N
tal2_2_16_06.pdf
p
d
ence
er authority
io
o
n
tals ex
at
al cos
av
DOD’
en
u
e
calcu
ounter
ttp://
ress sets lim
al
ig
t, Es
S
ere
tal f
em
g
n
tellig
rom
tractu
R
w
o
In
Tot
Transf
C
at
d f
ppl
total f
. DOD ap
Notes and Sources:
a. Obl
con
b.
th
DOD oblig
an
c. T
Reques
and C
/su
2006; [h
d
on
e. DOD to
f. Co

---