FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and Other Activities

Congressional research reportMay 12, 2005

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq

and Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and Other

Activities

-name redactedSpecialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget

-name redacted-

May 12, 2005

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

RL32783

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Summary

On February 14, 2005, President Bush submitted an $81.9 billion supplemental appropriation

request for FY2005 (subsequently amended to total $82.04 billion) to provide funds for ongoing

military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the “global war on terror,” reconstruction in

Afghanistan, Tsunami relief and rehabilitation, and other activities. As the fifth supplemental of

the Bush Administration to focus on the “global war on terrorism” and homeland security, these

supplemental funds for FY2005 would be in addition to the $25.7 billion received in August 2004

as part of the FY2005 DOD Appropriations Act to cover war-related costs for the initial months

of the fiscal year (P.L. 108-287).

The Administration’s request included $74.96 billion for the Department of Defense, $5.6 billion

for reconstruction and other foreign aid, $950 million for Tsunami relief, and $770 million for

other activities. If enacted as an emergency appropriation, as requested, the funds would not be

subject to limits in annual budget resolutions but would add to the size of the U.S. budget deficit.

Taking into account the funds already provided, DOD’s request would bring its FY2005 total

appropriation to about $100 billion, which is over 45% higher than the amount provided in the

FY2004 supplemental (P.L. 108-106).

While OMB Director Joshua Bolten argued that the request was an emergency for “known and

urgent requirements,” that could not be met with existing funds, some Members questioned

whether this characterization fit some elements in the request. Some questioned whether the $5

billion requested by the Defense Department for the Army’s initiative to re-organize Army units

was an unanticipated emergency since it was announced in the fall of 2003; others argued that the

initiative was a war-related expense because it was expected to relieve war-induced stress on

Army forces. For foreign aid and Iraq diplomatic facilities, the issue was whether the requests

represented true emergencies or could wait for later consideration. If not dealt with in the FY2005

supplemental under an “emergency” designation, however, these foreign policy items could be

added to the pending FY2006 international affairs appropriation bills and would place additional

pressure on the Administration to defend an already sizable foreign policy increase proposed for

next year.

Another controversial issue was the Administration’s proposal to place policy authority and

control of funding with the Defense Department rather than the State Department to train and

equip Afghan and Iraqi security forces. The Administration also requested $400 million for

contingency funds related to the war on terror and $200 million in aid to the Palestinian

Authority, both of which raised concerns.

The conference agreement on H.R. 1268 passed the House on May 5 (368-58) and the Senate on

May 10, providing $82 billion in supplemental funding, the same overall amount requested, but

with many changes in program allocations and the additional of immigration legislation.

President Bush signed the measure on May 11, when it became P.L. 109-13.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Contents

Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1

Overview and Context of the FY2005 Supplemental ...................................................................1

Previous Funding for the “Global War on Terror”..................................................................2

Main Elements in the FY2005 Request..................................................................................4

Defense Request .............................................................................................................4

Foreign Policy Request ...................................................................................................4

Other Supplemental Requests..........................................................................................5

Immigration Provisions—Congressional Action ....................................................................5

Real ID Act .....................................................................................................................6

Mikulski Amendment......................................................................................................7

Additional Visas..............................................................................................................7

Additional Funds for Border Security and Immigration Control.......................................7

Craig Amendment, AgJOBS Bill .....................................................................................7

Chambliss Amendment ...................................................................................................8

Cross-Cutting Issues in the FY2005 Supplemental ......................................................................8

Iraq and Afghanistan Security Forces Fund ...........................................................................8

Congressional Action .................................................................................................... 10

Supplemental Requests that May Fail to Meet the “Emergency” Test................................... 10

Congressional Action .................................................................................................... 12

Defense Department Request and Congressional Review.......................................................... 13

Conference Action—Summary............................................................................................ 13

Resolution of Funding Differences ................................................................................ 14

Expanding Military Benefits ......................................................................................... 15

Actions Affecting Weapon System Plans ....................................................................... 15

Accountability Concerns ............................................................................................... 16

Senate and House Floor Amendments to Defense Request................................................... 16

Future Cost and Accountability Issues ................................................................................. 18

Congressional Action .................................................................................................... 19

Size and Composition of DOD Request............................................................................... 20

Congressional Action—Funds for Personnel and Operations ......................................... 23

Higher Survivor Benefits..................................................................................................... 23

Congressional Action—Conference Bill Increases Benefits ........................................... 24

Recapitalization, Modularity and Construction Costs Grow ................................................. 27

Procurement and Modularity Requests .......................................................................... 27

Military Construction Request....................................................................................... 28

Congressional Action—Approach to Procurement Differs ............................................. 28

Congressional Action—Military Construction Concerns................................................ 29

New Flexible Accounts for Afghan and Iraqi Security Forces .............................................. 30

Congressional Action—Conferees Oversight Concerns ................................................. 31

Flexible Funds to Provide Support to Allies......................................................................... 32

Congressional Action—Conferees Cut Support to Allies................................................ 32

DOD Request for FY2005 by Appropriation Account .......................................................... 33

Foreign Policy Supplemental Request and Congressional Review ............................................. 38

Congressional Action—Summary ....................................................................................... 38

Conference Consideration ............................................................................................. 38

House Consideration ..................................................................................................... 39

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Senate Consideration..................................................................................................... 40

Key Provisions in Conference, House, and Senate Bills................................................. 41

U.S. Diplomatic and USAID Operations in Iraq .................................................................. 43

Congressional Action .................................................................................................... 44

Afghanistan Reconstruction, Counternarcotics, Police Training, and Other Activities ........ 45

Congressional Action .................................................................................................... 46

Sudan North-South Peace Support....................................................................................... 46

Congressional Action .................................................................................................... 47

Darfur Region and Eastern Chad ......................................................................................... 47

Congressional Action .................................................................................................... 48

Global War on Terrorism-Related Programs ........................................................................ 48

Congressional Action .................................................................................................... 50

U.N. Peacekeeping Operations ............................................................................................ 50

Congressional Action .................................................................................................... 51

Palestinian Aid.................................................................................................................... 51

Congressional Action .................................................................................................... 51

Ukraine Aid ........................................................................................................................ 52

Congressional Action .................................................................................................... 52

Broadcasting to Arab and Muslim Audiences....................................................................... 52

Congressional Action .................................................................................................... 52

Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization................................................................. 53

Congressional Action .................................................................................................... 53

Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction................................................................................ 53

Congressional Action .................................................................................................... 53

Tables

Table 1. Main Elements in FY2005 Emergency Supplemental .....................................................2

Table 2. Defense-Related Amendments: Senate Floor ................................................................ 17

Table 3. Defense-Related Amendments: House Floor ................................................................ 18

Table 4. DOD Funding: FY2004 Enacted and FY2005 Request ................................................. 22

Table 5. Proposed Changes in Death Benefits for Active-Duty Servicemembers ........................ 26

Table 6. Defense Department FY2005 Supplemental Request and Prior Funding ....................... 34

Table 7. Foreign Policy Budget, FY2001-FY2006 ..................................................................... 38

Table 8. Foreign Policy Amendments: House Floor ................................................................... 39

Table 9. Foreign Policy Amendments: Senate Floor................................................................... 40

Table 10. Foreign Policy Funds in FY2005 Supplemental.......................................................... 55

Contacts

Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 58

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Most Recent Developments

On May 3, House-Senate conferees concluded negotiations on H.R. 1268, the emergency FY2005

supplemental appropriation, agreeing to an $82 billion total. The House passed the conference

agreement on May 5 (368-58), followed by the Senate on May 10 (100-0). President Bush signed

the bill (P.L. 109-13) on May 11. As approved, the $82 billion conference agreement is roughly

the same as the President’s overall request, but with numerous changes in funding allocations and

policy provision, including the attachment of immigration legislation. On April 21, the Senate

passed H.R. 1268 (S.Rept. 109-52), providing $81.3 billion, about $780 million less than the

President’s $82 billion request and about $80 million below the House level. The House approved

its bill on March 16 (H.Rept. 109-16).

P.L. 109-13 provides $75.86 billion for the defense-related portion, about midway between the

House total of $76.83 billion and the Senate total of $74.78 billion which was close to the

Administration’s request. The enacted bill provides higher benefits to survivors of those who die

and have died in combat or combat-related activities. For State Department and foreign aid

programs, the final measure falls about $500 million, or 8%, below the President’s request for

new appropriations. A $1 billion rescission of previous aid to Turkey brings the “net” foreign

policy total to $1.5 billion less than proposed. The conference bill is slightly higher than amounts

approved by the Senate, and $450 million more than included in the House bill for international

affairs. P.L. 109-13 fully or nearly fully funds the U.S. embassy in Iraq, contributions to U.N.

peacekeeping missions, and humanitarian assistance for the Darfur region of Sudan, and adds

over $150 million for global food aid needs, general Africa refugee relief requirements, and

support for Haiti.

The enacted bill includes most of the House-proposed provisions from H.R. 418, the REAL ID

Act of 2005, which sets minimum standards for state-issued drivers licenses that can be accepted

for federal purposes (e.g., to board aircraft); expands the scope of terror-related activity that

makes an alien inadmissible or deportable and tightens criteria for asylum, and allows the

Secretary of Homeland Security to waive all laws in order to construct barriers at U.S. borders.1

P.L. 109-13 also includes the Mikulski amendment proposed by the Senate that would permit

additional non-agricultural seasonal workers in FY2005 and FY2006.

Overview and Context of the FY2005 Supplemental

The FY2005 supplemental is the fifth of the Bush administration to focus on the global war on

terrorism and homeland security. As emergency funding, these requests have not been subject to

limits on spending in annual budget resolutions. In the case of both foreign assistance and

Defense Department appropriations, some funding to combat terrorism has been included in

regular as well as previous supplemental appropriations acts.

See CRS Report RL32754, Analysis of Provisions in H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of FY2005, by (name redacted),

Mikyung Lee, Todd Tatelman, and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Previous Funding for the “Global War on Terror”

Thus far, in response to Administration requests, Congress has provided $268.7 billion in

emergency supplemental funding for the “global war on terror,” including military operations in

Iraq and Afghanistan, enhanced security for defense installations, and foreign aid spending for

reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan and related activities. 2 If enacted, this request would bring

the total amount of war-related funding in this administration to $350.6 billion. The bulk of these

funds have been and continue to be for military operations as the United States enters its fourth

year of operations in Afghanistan and its third year of operations in Iraq.3

In addition to the FY2005 supplemental request, funds for the Department of Defense (DOD)

have been provided for Iraq and Afghanistan and the “global war on terror” in four previous

supplementals as well as regular appropriations acts.4 For DOD, funds provided by Congress for

the period FY2001 thru FY2004 totaled $176.2 billion. Congress also appropriated $25 billion to

cover war costs in the initial months of FY2005 as well as any shortfalls in FY2004. DOD

obligated $2 billion of those funds in FY2004. Thus, the total cost projected by DOD for FY2005

is $98 billion—$23 billion already provided and $74.9 billion requested. That total is over 45%

higher than the $64.9 billion provided to DOD in the FY2004 Supplemental. If Congress provides

the monies requested, DOD would have received between FY2001 through FY2005, a total of

$276 billion for these missions. With the funds included in the conference bill, DOD would have

received between FY2001 through FY2005, a total of about $277 billion for these missions.5

Table 1. Main Elements in FY2005 Emergency Supplemental

(billions of dollars)

Department/Category

Request

House

Senate

Passed

Conf.

Supplemental TOTAL

82.04

81.37

81.22

82.04

Defense Total

74.96

76.81

74.78

75.86

Military personnel

16.87

17.07

17.53

17.45

Operation and Maintenance/other

32.88

32.47

32.25

32.11

Tsunami relief

0.23

Train and Equip Afghan Security Forces

1.29

Train and Equip Iraqi Security Forces

5.70

[Support for Allies]a

[2.00]

[1.50]

[1.97]

[NA]

[Army and Marine Corps Restructuring]b

[5.30]

This includes $40 billion in P.L. 107-38 and P.L. 107-117, $23.9 billion in P.L. 107-206, $78.5 billion in P.L. 108-11,

$7.1 billion in P.L. 107-248, $10 billion in P.L. 108-7, $86.8 billion in P.L. 108-106, $25.7 billion in P.L. 108-287, less

rescission of $3.5 billion in P.L. 108-87.

DOD’s war-related funding totals $201.2 billion; see CRS Report RS21644, The Cost of Operations in Iraq,

Afghanistan, and Enhanced Security, by (name redacted).

DOD received $7.1 billion in the FY2003 DOD Appropriations Act, P.L. 107-248, $10 billion in FY2003

Consolidated Appropriations Act, and $25 billion in P.L. 108-287, the FY2005 DOD Appropriations.

For more information on war costs, see CRS Report RS21644, The Cost of Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and

Enhanced Security, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Department/Category

Request

House

Senate

Passed

Conf.

Procurement

16.14

18.23

16.09

17.38

Research, Dev., Test & Evaluation

0.46

0.51

0.55

0.63

Military Construction c

1.40

1.32

1.15

1.13

Rescission—Iraq Freedom Fund d

0.00

(0.05)

6.29

3.92

4.74

4.78

Iraqi Embassy: mission ops & construction e

1.37

1.31

0.90

1.28

Afghan reconstruction, counternarcotics

2.05

1.41

2.04

1.78

Sudan/Darfur

0.34

0.38

0.75

0.37

Tsunami Recovery and Reconstructionf

0.70

0.66

Aid to partners in global war on terrorism

0.75

0.35

0.58

Palestinian aid g

0.20

Other peacekeeping and foreign aid

0.88

0.62

0.61

0.91

Rescission prior foreign aid appropriations

-.-

(1.00)

0.79

0.64

1.70

1.39

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

0.11

0.08

Immigration and Customs/Border security

-.-

0.81

0.64

Coast Guard

0.16

Dept of Justice: FBI, BATF, IG, US Marshals

0.08

0.09

0.23

DEA—Afghanistan

0.01

Tsunami warning system

0.02

0.03

Director of National Intelligence (DNI)

0.25

Capitol Police/Architect of the Capitol

0.06

-.-

0.05

0.02

House S&E

-.-

0.04

Natural disaster aid for domestic needs

-.-

0.17

0.13

Judiciary—additional case workload

0.10

-.-

0.06

-.-

HHS vaccine production

-.-

0.01

CDC-influenza countermeasures

-.-

0.06

HHS rescissions

-.-

(0.01)

(0.07)

Other rescissions

-.-

(0.04)

(0.20)

Foreign Policy Total

Other

Sources: OMB, Request for FY2005 Supplemental, February 14, 2005. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ omb/budget/

amendments/supplemental_2_14_05.pdf; Department of Defense, FY2005 Supplemental request for Operation

Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), and Operation Unified Assistance, February 2005

(hereinafter, DOD, FY2005 Justification). http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2005_supp.pdf;

OMB Request for FY2005 Supplemental for Legislative and Judicial Branches, March 2, 2005.

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Figures in “[ ]” are subsets of other totals.

Includes funds for coalition support for Jordan, Pakistan, and other countries aiding in the global war on

terror, plus “lift and sustain” funds for unspecified allies.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Total cost of Army modularity and Marine Corps restructuring, primarily procurement of equipment for

new units; costs are included in the relevant appropriation title.

Includes funds for military construction to support Army and Marine Corps restructuring.

Sec. 1033 rescinds $50 million; Sec. 1035 provides an additional $50 million for classified programs.

H.R. 1268, as passed by the House, included $592 million for a new U.S. embassy in Baghdad. However, an

amendment adopted during floor debate prohibited the use of any funds in the bill for embassy security,

construction, and maintenance. The Senate measure provided $592 million with no restriction on the

monies use. The Senate bill further reduced U.S. mission operations in Iraq and Afghanistan by $400 million

but did not specify how much should be drawn from either mission. This table reduces the entire amount

from Iraq.

Excludes $250 million in non-foreign policy funds.

The Senate bill and the conference agreement include a set-aside of $50 for Israel.

On the foreign policy side, the supplemental increases the U.S. foreign policy budget from $29.7

billion enacted in FY2005 to $34.5 billion, an increase of 16%. It would also pushes the FY2005

amount above the $33.6 billion international affairs budget request for FY2006. Except for

FY2004, which included the $18.5 billion Iraq reconstruction aid package, the FY2005 total—

both the regular and the supplemental—represent the largest foreign policy budget, in real terms,

since fiscal 1985, and is roughly 41% higher than the international affairs budget (nominal)

immediately prior to the 9/11 attacks.

Main Elements in the FY2005 Request

Table 1 provides an overview of the request. This table does not include the funding already

received by DOD for war-related costs for FY2005, which is shown in later tables.

Defense Request

The DOD request included $16.9 billion for military personnel and $32.5 billion for operations

and maintenance that together total $44.9 billion. Of that total, about $35.5 billion is directly

associated with operations in Iraq and $9.4 billion with Afghanistan according to the Defense

Department justification material. In addition, the request included $5.7 billion to train and equip

Iraq’s security forces and $1.3 billion for Afghanistan’s security forces. Including those funds, the

total for Iraq was $41.2 billion and for Afghanistan, $10.7 billion.

DOD did not allocate the remaining funds by mission—e.g. for depot maintenance or recruiting

and retention, additional military personnel or Army and Marine Corps restructuring. About $5

billion of DOD’s procurement request was for the Army’s modularity initiative, and the Marine

Corps restructuring, both designed to create additional units, which can be more easily deployed

independently. The remainder of DOD’s procurement was for a variety of items to upgrade

primarily Army units, as well as $2.7 billion for force protection items; the request also included

$5.0 billion for classified programs (see Table 1).

Foreign Policy Request

The President’s request for $6.3 billion in FY2005 supplemental funding would support a broad

range of foreign policy activities:

•

U.S. diplomatic costs in Iraq

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

•

Afghanistan reconstruction and counternarcotics programs

•

Darfur humanitarian relief and peace implementation aid for Sudan

•

War on Terrorism assistance, including funds for Jordan and Pakistan

•

Palestinian aid

•

Ukraine assistance

•

U.N. peacekeeping contributions

•

Broadcasting programs in the Middle East

•

Tsunami recovery and reconstruction

Other Supplemental Requests

The Administration’s supplemental request also included several additional items addressing

homeland security and global war on terrorism matters:

•

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation—$110 million for the deployment of radiation

detection equipment and the training of law enforcement personnel at four

overseas posts designed to provide officials with the means to detect, deter, and

interdict illicit trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive materials.

•

Coast Guard operating expenses—$112 million to finance Coast Guard port

security and law enforcement capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and $49 million for

acquisition, construction, and improvements for a major refit, renovation, and

subsystem replacement of the Coast Guard’s 110-foot Patrol Boats.

•

FBI—$80 million to expand the Terrorist Screening Center and to cover costs of

FBI personnel stationed in Iraq.

•

Drug Enforcement Administration—$8 million to support DEA’s participation in

the Counternarcotics Implementation Plan for Afghanistan; and

•

Director of National Intelligence (DNI)—$250 million for additional personnel

and a new building for the new DNI who is to oversee the intelligence budget.

•

Capitol Police—$60 million, as requested by the Legislative Branch.6

•

The Judiciary—$100 million, as requested by the Judiciary Branch, for costs

associated with additional case workload.7

Immigration Provisions—Congressional Action8

The Administration did not include any immigration provisions in its requests, but in floor debate,

the Senate focused on three proposals, adopting the Mikulski amendment to increase visas for

foreign temporary non-agricultural workers and failing to vote cloture and limit debate on the

This request was submitted on March 2, separate from the balance of the supplemental proposal.

This request was also submitted on March 2, separate from the balance of the supplemental proposal.

This section was written by CRS analysts, (name redacted) and Ruth Wasem. See CRS Report RL32044,Immigration:

Policy Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Chambliss and Craig amendments, which proposed alternative approaches to dealing with foreign

agricultural workers. The Senate also adopted floor amendments on border security funding and

employment-based immigration.

For its part, the House included the Real ID Act, which, among other things, tightens standards

for asylum and creates standards for drivers licenses when they are used as a form of federal

identification, provisions that could affect immigrants. The Senate-passed bill did not include the

REAL ID Act. The conferees retained the immigration provisions passed by both chambers, with

some re-working of certain provisions as discussed below.

Real ID Act

The House-passed version of H.R. 1268 contained many of the immigration provisions that had

been in the House-passed Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004 passed in the

108th Congress that were dropped in the final version (P.L. 108-454). Passed by the House on

February 10, 2005, the Real ID Act of 2005 (H.R. 418) included those House provisions which

were then added to the House version of H.R. 1268.9

Among other things, the REAL ID Act provisions makes the following major changes:

•

modify the eligibility criteria for asylum and withholding of removal, a specific

form of deportation that assumes that the alien would be persecuted if forced to

return to the country he or she fled;

•

limit judicial review of certain immigration decisions;

•

eliminate the Breach Bond Account which is used to fund detention of aliens who

violate the law and institute new practices for bonds aimed at assuring the

appearance of aliens for removal;

•

provide additional waiver authority over laws to ensure the expeditious

construction of barriers and roads along land borders, including a 14-mile wide

fence near San Diego;

•

expand the scope of terror-related activity making an alien inadmissible or

deportable, as well as ineligible for certain forms of relief from removal;

•

require states to meet certain minimum security standards in order for the drivers’

licenses and personal identification cards they issue to be accepted for federal

purposes; and

•

require the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into its aviation security

screening database the appropriate background information of any person

convicted of using a false driver’s license for the purpose of boarding an airplane.

The conferees generally accept the Real ID Act, but modify the asylum and withholding of

removal, a type of deportation, and dropped the section on bonds. The compromise more closely

follows current standards that allow asylum seekers to demonstrate multiple motives for their

persecution. The compromise also eliminates an annual 10,000 cap on the number of asylum

For a legal analysis of H.R. 418, see CRS Report RL32754, Immigration: Analysis of the major Provisions of H.R.

418, the REAL ID Act of 2005 by Michael Garcia, (name redacted), and Todd Tatelman.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

recipients who can become legal residents. The REAL ID Act provisions are in Division B of the

conference report.10

Mikulski Amendment

Senator Barbara Mikulski offered an amendment based on the “Save Our Small and Seasonal

Businesses Act” (S. 352). The Mikulski amendment increases the availability of visas for foreign

temporary nonagricultural workers, known as H-2B workers, by exempting returning H-2B

workers from the statutory cap of 66,000 annually, if the workers have already been approved and

successfully held the H-2B visa in the past three years. This provision would expire at the end of

FY2006.

The Mikulski amendment would cap at 33,000 the number of H-2B slots that would be available

during the first six months of a fiscal year. It also would require DHS to submit specified

information to Congress on the H-2B program on a regular basis. In addition, the Mikulski

amendment would impose a new fraud-prevention and detection fee on H-2B employers, and

would authorize DHS to impose additional penalties on H-2B employers in certain

circumstances.11 On April 19, the Senate voted to invoke cloture and limit debate on the Mikulski

amendment and then passed the amendment, as modified, by 94-6. The Mikulski amendment is

Title IV of Division B of the conference report.

Additional Visas

The conferees include two Senate-adopted amendments to revise immigration law pertaining to

employment-based immigration. One of these amendments reserves 10,500 of the 65,000

temporary H-1B visas available annually for Australian nationals to perform services in specialty

occupations under a new E-3 temporary visa. The other amendment would make up to 50,000

permanent employment-based visas available for foreign nationals coming to work as nurses.

These amendments are §501 and §502, respectively, of Division B, Title V, of the conference

report.

Additional Funds for Border Security and Immigration Control

The conferees include $176 million for additional border patrol and $454 million for immigration

enforcement activities in response to the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and action by

the Senate.12 The House bill did not include these funds.

Craig Amendment, AgJOBS Bill

Provisions proposed by Senator Craig, and based on S. 359, the “Agricultural Job Opportunities,

Benefits, and Security Act of 2005” (AgJOBS bill) were not included in the Senate bill. The

provisions would streamline the process of bringing in foreign workers under the H-2A temporary

For more information, see CRS Report RL32621, U.S. Immigration Policy on Asylum Seekers by (name redacted).

See Congressional Record, April 20, 2005, pp. S3966, 3983, 3988, 4079, 4084.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

agricultural worker program but the Senate failed to invoke cloture and limit debate, an action

requiring 60 votes and the amendment was determined to be non-germane.

Chambliss Amendment

Senator Saxby Chambliss offered an amendment to H.R. 1268 entitled the “Temporary

Agricultural Work Reform Act of 2005” that was also not included in the Senate bill. Like the

Craig amendment, the Chambliss amendment would streamline procedures for bringing in H-2A

workers, and create a new temporary worker program, called the “blue card program,” which

would be open to current unauthorized agricultural workers who have been in the United States

since April 1, 2005, and meet other requirements. On April 19, the Senate failed to invoke cloture

and limit debate on the Chambliss amendment by a vote of 21 to 77 and the amendment was

determined to be non-germane.

Cross-Cutting Issues in the FY2005 Supplemental

While Members raised concerns regarding individual elements of the supplemental request, two

matters cut across both the defense and foreign policy portions of the proposal: 1) funds for Iraq

and Afghanistan security forces; and 2) “emergency” designation of selected requests.

Iraq and Afghanistan Security Forces Fund

Within the Defense Department portion of the supplemental, the Administration requested $1.3

billion for Afghan security force assistance and $5.7 billion for Iraq security forces. These funds

would support training, equipping, and deploying of military, protective services, and border

personnel, and in the case of Iraq, police training. The resources would be provided to and solely

under the authority of the Secretary of Defense to transfer to the Combined Forces Command—

Afghanistan and to the Multi-National Security Transition Command—Iraq. Although the

Defense request included some general allocations of where funds would be spent, it did not

include any details about plans for the number or type of forces, or the schedule anticipated for

training Iraqi or Afghan forces and in the request, all the funds would be available for any

expense related to training and equipping of those forces until funds are expended. This request

was similar to other recent DOD requests for flexibility to use funds for a general purpose, such

as support of allies in or around Iraq and Afghanistan.

Although most of the past Iraq security forces assistance has been managed on the ground by the

Defense Department, the authority and control of funds remained initially with the Coalition

Provisional Authority (CPA), whose head reported to the Secretary of Defense, and since June 28,

2004, with the State Department. The supplemental proposal would shift this authority from the

Department of State to DOD, and move funds from the jurisdiction of the Foreign Operations

Appropriations Subcommittees to the Defense Subcommittees.

In approving $18.4 billion for the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF) in P.L. 108-106,

the FY2004 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation, Congress earmarked $3.2 billion for

security and law enforcement activities. As security challenges increased through the first half of

2004 and the January 2005 Iraq elections approached, the Administration, in September 2004,

sought to re-prioritize IRRF spending allocations to shift funds from lower priority activities to

more urgent, immediate needs. The White House proposed an increase for security and law

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

enforcement programs to $5.05 billion. Because the proposed transfers exceeded authorities

provided in P.L. 108-106, the Administration needed congressional approval. Congress granted

these transfers in P.L. 108-309, the first Continuing Appropriations for FY2005.

Since late 2004, the Administration has programmed the Iraq security and law enforcement funds

to address a number of key activities, primarily managed by the Defense Department, but with

some responsibility granted to the Departments of State and Justice and USAID:

•

Police training and technical assistance—$1.8 billion (Departments of State,

Defense, and Justice).

•

Border enforcement—$ 441 million (DOD).

•

Facilities Protection Service—$53 million (DOD).

•

Iraqi Armed Forces (IAF) facilities—$691 million (DOD).

•

IAF equipment—$641 million (DOD).

•

IAF training and operations—$433 million (DOD).

•

Iraqi National Guard operations and personnel—$232 million (DOD).

•

Iraqi National Guard equipment—$92 million (DOD).

•

Iraqi National Guard facilities—$359 million (DOD).

•

Iraqi Security Forces Quick Response program—$120 million (DOD).

•

Commander’s Humanitarian Relief and Reconstruction—$86 million (DOD,

Multinational Force-Iraq, and USAID).

For Afghanistan, security assistance funding since early 2002 has been provided exclusively

through the Foreign Operations Subcommittee regular Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and

Peacekeeping (PKO) accounts. FMF aid finances the acquisition of military articles, services, and

training, supports U.S. regional stability goals, and enables friends and allies to improve their

defense capabilities. Policy direction and funding allocations fall under the responsibility of the

State Department, while DOD executes the program on the ground. Broadly, PKO activities

support non-U.N. voluntary operations, but in the case of Afghanistan, Peacekeeping

appropriations have been used to pay Afghan National Army (ANA) salaries. Thus far, Congress

has appropriated over $1.1 billion in FMF and PKO support for Afghanistan, FY2002-2005.

Similar to Iraq security assistance, FMF funds have focused on ANA training and equipping.

Unlike the Iraqi program, Afghan police training and support has been funded separately out of

the State Department’s International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account,

and would remain under the State Department’s jurisdiction under the supplemental proposal. The

supplemental, however, seeks to shift the source of ANA training and equipping from FMF/PKO

accounts to DOD resources, and to place authority of the program under the Secretary of Defense

rather than the Secretary of State.

During early review of the supplemental proposal, a number of concerns were raised about this

shift from the State Department to DOD for funding and management of Iraqi and Afghanistan

security forces assistance. Some noted that this diverges from long-standing, historical practice of

State Department and country ambassador control of a key foreign policy tool in U.S. relations

with allies and other partner nations. While defense personnel may implement the programs,

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

some argued that it was important to maintain civilian authority over the program, especially over

foreign police assistance.

In response to these concerns, Secretary of State Rice defended the proposal by noting that Iraq,

in particular, is a unique, war zone situation where the United States needs to maintain a coherent

strategy for training and equipping Iraqi security, police, and border forces. She said that often

these personnel operate along side American military forces and that it made sense to have the

Defense Department in charge of training. She also remarked that the situation in Afghanistan

was different, and that police training would remain under the jurisdiction of the State

Department. But, she added, Afghanistan also remains a war zone and it is important for Afghan

security forces to be fully integrated in their operational efforts. Secretary Rice further pledged

that the Administration had established the “tightest” possible coordination mechanisms, placing

the chief of mission in charge of ensuring close collaboration between the agencies.13

Congressional Action

The conference version provides the full amount requested for Iraq and Afghan Security Forces,

as did the House-passed and Senate-reported versions, but requires additional congressional

oversight and involvement of the Secretary of State. The conference bill requires that the

Secretary of Defense notify congressional defense committees at least five days in advance of any

transfers made from this appropriation and report to the same committees on a quarterly basis

regarding the details of all transfers. The bills further require that these funds are available “with

the concurrence of the Secretary of State.” The conference version includes report language

calling for extensive reporting on “strategies for success” for Iraqi Security Forces but dropped

the Senate-proposed statutory reporting requirements and does not require additional reporting on

the Afghan Security Forces Fund.

Supplemental Requests that May Fail to Meet the “Emergency”

Test

Appropriations that are designated as “emergency” requirements do not count against

congressionally-set discretionary budget ceilings, formally or informally, but add to costs

incurred by the government and cause the current budget deficit to grow. Several Members of

Congress, including key appropriation committee leaders, put the Administration on notice that

they will look closely at the supplemental proposal, especially for items that do not represent true

“emergencies;” that is requirements that did not exist or were unforseen during consideration of

the regular FY2005 appropriations or that could wait and be debated during FY2006

appropriation deliberations.

The FY2006 Administration request includes proposals to tighten the definition of emergency

requirements that exempt items from enforcement mechanisms in the Budget Enforcement Act.

The Administration is proposing that emergency requirements be defined as “a necessary

expenditure that is sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and not permanent.”14 The Administration also

See exchange between Representative Kolbe and Secretary Rice during the February 16, 2005, hearing of the House

Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee.

Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2006 Analytical Perspectives, February 2005, p. 239;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/spec.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

proposes that this definition “encompass contingency operations that are national security

related,” and specifically says that “Military operations and foreign aid with costs that are

incurred regularly should be a part of base funding and, as such, are not covered under this

[emergency] definition.”15

This issue came up in recent hearings held by the Senate Budget Committee and the Senate

Appropriations Committees. In the Senate Budget Committee hearing of March 1, 2005, some

members questioned Administration witnesses about whether all elements in the FY2005

supplemental were appropriately classified as emergency spending—such as $5 billion for Army

modularity and $300 million for recruiting and retention—and other members argued that the

definition of emergency spending should be one-time expenditures.16

Within the foreign policy portion of the request, Members questioned the “emergency” nature of

several proposals. For some time, the State Department recognized the need for construction of a

new embassy in Baghdad but did not propose funds in the regular FY2005 budget. Instead, the

Department sought $658 million in the supplemental. Likewise, it was widely recognized in 2004

that insufficient peacekeeping funds had been requested in the regular appropriation proposal, yet

the Administration did not amend its pending request to cover what it now calls a $780 million

gap in peacekeeping requirements.

Additional assistance for Jordan, Pakistan, and Ukraine was also questioned by some as to

whether the needs represent a true emergency or could be addressed during consideration of

FY2006 funds. Portions of the Afghan reconstruction supplemental request were also scrutinized,

especially since the $2 billion proposal follows about a $1 billion appropriation for FY2005 and a

similar request for FY2006. Further, the $400 million providing support for coalition members

with troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other “partner” countries in the war on

terrorism was also challenged as new initiatives that would be more appropriately considered as

part of the regular FY2006 appropriation process. Some argued that longer-term tsunami related

reconstruction assistance should be debated later in the regular FY2006 Foreign Operations bill.

If not dealt with in the FY2005 supplemental under an “emergency” designation, however, these

foreign policy items could be added to pending FY2006 international affairs appropriation

requests that seek 13% higher spending compared with enacted levels for FY2005. This would

place additional pressure on the Administration to defend an already sizable foreign policy

increase that some believe will be closely scrutinized by Congress.

Within the Defense request, some members questioned whether funds for the Army’s modularity

initiative launched in the fall of 2003 to create 10 additional brigades that would be more

deployable individually fits the emergency criteria. Others questioned whether the funds for

30,000 additional Army personnel is appropriately considered a temporary, emergency request

rather than a longer-term need. Funding for modularity and additional military personnel was

approved, however, by the conferees and both houses. Other members questioned whether the

cost of DOD’s military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is, in fact, unanticipated or

Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2006 Analytical Perspectives, February 2005, p. 239;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/spec.pdf.

Senate Budget Committee, transcript, Hearing on the Fiscal year 2006 Defense Budget Request, March 1; see

comments by Senator Conrad on p. 3 and Senator Allard on p. 28.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

unpredictable since those operations are entering their third and fourth year respectively, and

monthly operational costs have averaged about $5 billion for some time.

Congressional Action

While the President won approval for most of his supplemental request with an “emergency”

designation, a few areas are not funded due to the non-emergency nature of the program. In

particular, P.L. 109-13 trims funds for Afghanistan reconstruction by about $222 million,

economic programs for southern Sudan by $63 million, and U.N. peacekeeping contributions by

$100 million. Conferees, like both the House and Senate, offset portions of the foreign policy

supplemental spending by rescinding $1 billion in FY2003 economic aid for Turkey that has not

been obligated.

During earlier debate on H.R. 1268, the House Appropriations Committee determined that

assistance for Jordan, Pakistan, Ukraine, the Palestinians, portions of Afghanistan reconstruction,

and USAID operating expenses in Iraq did not fit the criteria for an emergency designation.

Nevertheless, the Committee believed they warranted support and offset these non-emergency

items with the Turkey aid rescission. The Committee’s report noted that emergency assignments

were limited to funds responding “to a situation which poses direct threat to life and property, is

sudden, is an urgent and compelling need, is unpredictable, and is not permanent in nature.”

The House-reported measure also denied funding for several foreign policy activities that the

Committee felt would be more appropriately addressed during the regular FY2006 appropriations

review. Most notably, the legislation excluded $570 million in reconstruction support and $66

million in counter-narcotics programs for Afghanistan that the Committee said it would take up

during debate on the FY2006 Foreign Operations measure. As mentioned above, however, folding

these items into consideration of the regular FY2006 spending bill is likely to intensify the

challenges of meeting the President’s $22.8 billion Foreign Operations appropriations request.

During House floor debate on March 16, lawmakers adopted an amendment by Representative

Upton prohibiting the use of funds in the bill for embassy security, construction, and

maintenance. Supporters argued, that among other things, the Baghdad embassy request should

have been proposed as part of regular FY2005 and FY2006 appropriation bills and should not be

assigned the emergency designation. In the Senate, a parallel amendment offered by Senator

Coburn, would have reduced funding for the U.S. embassy in Iraq from $592 million to $106

million. The Senate tabled the Coburn amendment 54-45.

Although several members questioned whether the Army’s modularity initiative was a legitimate

emergency expense, the House appropriators stated in their report that they felt “compelled to

fully fund the Army’s request,” in order to help the Army face “significant challenges,” and

“mitigate the stress on the current active-duty combat forces.”17

For future funding of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the conference bill retains sense

of the Senate language that calls on the Administration to submit by September 1, 2005, a budget

amendment, by appropriation account, to cover FY2006 military operations, as well as detailed

cost estimates and an estimate of costs in the following year.

See H.Rept. 109-16, p. 6.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Questions has also been raised by both houses and by the conferees about whether military

construction requests—which typically take some time to build—fit the emergency category (see

below). Senate appropriators questioned whether all proposed military construction projects were

appropriately emergency requests, and cut several overseas projects for Bagram Airbase in

Afghanistan which they suggested should be considered during the regular defense authorization

and appropriations process when the issue of establishing a long-term U.S. presence could be

debated. During Senate floor debate, Senator Byrd also questioned whether building a new prison

facility in Guantanamo for detainees qualified as an unanticipated emergency. An amendment to

cut funding for Guantanamo was defeated by a vote of 27 to 71.18

Unlike the House measure, H.R. 1268, as passed by the Senate, designated all amounts as an

emergency.

Defense Department Request

and Congressional Review

In the FY2005 Supplemental, the Administration requested a total of $74.96 billion. The Defense

Department request was in addition to the $25 billion already provided in the FY2005 DOD

appropriations act (P.L. 108-287) for war-related costs in the initial months of the fiscal year. Of

that $25 billion, $2 billion was obligated for FY2004 expenses, leaving $23 billion available for

FY2005. That brings the total amount anticipated by DOD for Iraq and Afghanistan and other

expenses in FY2005 to $98.0 billion or 45% higher than the amount appropriated in FY2004.

Several major defense issues were raised during consideration of the FY2005 supplemental:

•

increasing accountability for costs in the global war on terror;

•

changing the composition of the Defense request;

•

enhancing death benefits for service members;

•

the emergency nature of investment funding for restructuring;

•

oversight of flexible funds to support allies;

•

implications of military construction funding.

Conference Action—Summary

In the conference report on H.R. 1268 (H.Rept. 109-72), the conferees close the $2.0 billion gap

between the House and Senate version by providing $75.86 billion for the Defense Department—

midway between the House total of $76.82 billion and the Senate total of $74.78 billion which

was close to the Administration’s request. The conferees expand death benefits for survivors of

service members who die in combat or combat-related activities, adopting the eligibility standard

in the Senate bill for those who were to receive an additional $150,000 in life insurance

payments.

See S.Rept. 109-52, p.31ff for military construction cuts. For Byrd amendment, see Congressional Record, p.

S3515ff, vote on S3523, and section on Senate floor action below.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

The conference version also provides $765 million to cover these higher benefits that would be

available both retroactively and in the future. However, these new benefits would lapse as of

September 30, 2005, unless the defense authorizers include provisions in their consideration of

the FY2006 defense request. The conference version of H.R. 1268 also includes a new insurance

rider for traumatic injury protection that would provide from $25,000 to $100,000 both

retroactively and in the future; this provision will go into effect 180 days after enactment.19

As approved by both houses, the conferees provide the full $7.0 billion requested to train Afghan

and Iraqi security forces. The conferees chose, however, to convert the detailed statutory

reporting requirements in the Senate version report to report language which calls on the

Administration to develop and provide Congress with “strategies of success” and performance

indicators to assess the state of security in Iraq and better judge how to allocate resources and the

plans for U.S. troop levels. 20 The conference version retains Sense of the Senate language calling

on the Administration to submit its request for FY2006 military operations in a budget

amendment by September 1, 2005, and to provide overdue reports that are to include detailed cost

estimates.21

The conference version prohibits DOD from cancelling the C-130J transport aircraft and from

retiring the 12th carrier, the Kennedy, as proposed by the Senate. The conference, like both

houses, provides the full amount requested for the Director of National Intelligence, including

$181 million for a new building.

Resolution of Funding Differences

The conferees provide about $1.0 of the $2.0 billion added by the House to DOD’s supplemental

procurement request for purchasing Army and Marine Corps trucks, tactical vehicles (e.g.

HMMWVS), night vision and other protective gear that DOD included in its FY2006 request that

would otherwise be included in DOD’s FY2006 request.

The conferees provide about $1 billion below the request for Operation and Maintenance funds

by cutting DOD’s request for funds to reimburse allies (lift and sustain funds) and by transferring

funds from the Afghan and Iraq Security Forces Funds to cover Army training costs that the Army

had requested separately.

The conferees cut DOD’s $1.4 billion request for military construction funds by about $300

million because of concerns that the projects did not meet an emergency criteria and that the

projects could signal a long-term U.S. presence in the region when agreements with host nations

have not yet been reached.22 The conferees fund all projects in the United States to support unit

restructuring plans of the Army and Marine Corps and add funds for facilities to support Marine

Corps restructuring.

See sections 1012, 1013 and 1032 of H.R. 1268 in H.Rept. 109-72.

Joint explanatory statement of H.Rept. 109-72 as reprinted in Congressional Record, May 3, 2005, p. H2839.

See H. Rept. 109-72, “request for Future Funding for Military Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq,”

See H.Rept. 109-72 in Congressional Record, May 3, p. H2857ff. For a discussion of these construction issues, see

CRS Memo, “Military Construction in Support of Afghanistan and Iraq,” by (name redacted), April 11, 2005, available

from author.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Expanding Military Benefits

The conference version increases benefit levels and expands eligibility beyond that requested by

the Administration.

•

For benefits for survivors, the conferees provide higher benefits to survivors of

those who die either in combat areas or in combat-related activities such as

training, the standard proposed by the Senate for the higher insurance levels.23

The bill includes $765 million to fund these benefits. Retroactive to October 7,

2001, survivors of those eligible would receive an additional $238,000 above

current levels. For the future, members could increase their life insurance from

$250,000 to $400,000 in $50,000 increments with premiums paid by DOD for

members in combat areas. Spouses would have to be notified in writing if the

service members opts for less than the maximum level (see Table 5).

•

The higher death gratuity would be available immediately but the higher

insurance levels would only go into effect 90 days after enactment. For those

who die in that intervening 90 days, DOD would pay an additional $150,000

equivalent to the higher insurance levels that would ultimately be available. Both

the higher insurance levels and the higher death benefit would, however, lapse on

September 30, 2005, unless the defense authorizers make changes in the FY2006

defense authorization.

•

The conference bill drops the Senate proposal to provide Federal employees who

are activated reservists with additional pay to make up the difference between

their military and civilian salaries but includes meal and telephone services for

soldiers recuperating from Afghan or Iraq-incurred injuries but the provision

lapses on September 30, 2005.

•

The conferees provide the Senate-proposed extension of basic housing allowance

for dependents of those who die in the Iraq and Afghan theater for a year rather

than six months—estimated to cost $3 million cost in FY2005, $33 million

through FY2010, but the provision lapses on September 30, 2005.

•

The conferees include the Senate-proposed traumatic injury protection rider of

up to $100,000 to service members enrolled in Servicemembers Group Life

Insurance (SGLI) retroactive to October 7, 2001 for those injured in the Iraq and

Afghan theaters that would go into effect 180 days after enactment—estimated to

cost $46 million in FY2005 and $106 million through FY2010.

•

The conferees adopt the Senate-provision to provide travel for family members of

servicemembers hospitalized in the United States for injuries but the provision

lapses on September 30, 2005.

Actions Affecting Weapon System Plans

The conferees adopt the Senate-proposal to prevent DOD from terminating the C-130J program,

an aircraft used for intra-theater lift and other missions. The Air Force plans to terminate the C130J program because of cost increases and problems in meeting requirements, which could cost

See Sec. 1012 and Sec. 1013 of H.Rept. 109-72 in Congressional Record, May 3, 2005, p. H2817.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

as much as $1.6 billion in termination costs. The Senate amendment to require the Navy to keep

12 carriers rather than retire one as planned until after completion of DOD’s Quadrennial Defense

Review, and requires the Navy to make available “necessary funding” from the amounts in the

supplemental to extend the life of the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy as “the Navy considers

appropriate.”24 The Defense Department considers 11 carriers to be sufficient because ships are

being deployed for longer periods and have greater capability. 25 The conferees also adopt the

Senate provision that prohibits DOD from spending funds for a winner-take-all competition for

the DD(X) destroyer as is being considered by DOD.

Accountability Concerns

The conferees state their concerns about accountability in report language (see above) but drop

the Senate-proposed statutory reporting requirements for the Iraq Security Forces Fund. The

conference bill retains the Sense of the Senate language calling on the Administration to submit

future war costs in the Defense Department’s regular appropriations act, a provision also included

in the FY2004 Supplemental, and reiterates a requirement that DOD report its costs for Iraq and

Afghanistan, semi-annually as required in the FY2004 supplemental and the FY2005 DOD

Appropriations Act.26

The conference version of H.R. 1268 provides the $7.0 billion requested for the Afghan and Iraq

Security Fund accounts and require that transfers of funds

•

have the concurrence of the Secretary of State;

•

are sent to defense committees five days in advance;

•

are summarized in quarterly reports to the defense committees; and

•

that DOD provide measures for stability and security in Iraq and estimate

planned rotations of U.S. forces rather than the statutory reporting of the Senate

version.27

•

Both houses provide several hundred million less than requested for coalition and

other support for allies working with U.S. military forces.

Senate amendments are listed in Table 2 and House amendments in Table 3. Additional details

on the issues above are in individual sections and a summary of funding differences by account is

in Table 5.

Senate and House Floor Amendments to Defense Request

During floor debate, the Senate considered some 35 amendments and the House 11. Table 2 and

Table 3 list many of those amendments.28

See H.Rept. 109-72, section, “Aircraft Carriers of the Navy.”

Inside the Air Force, “Senior USAF officer C-130J terminaition costs could exceed $2 billion,” March 4, 2005 and

Washington Post, “Air Force to Require Lockheed Cost Details, April 14, 2005.

Congressional Record, p. S3786ff.

Congressional Record, April 19, p. S3891-3892.

For a complete list of amendments, see “Bill Status with Amendments” for H.R. 1268 on http://www.congress.gov.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Table 2. Defense-Related Amendments: Senate Floor

Sponsor

Purpose/Congressional Record page reference

Status

Kerry

(SA333)

Extends payment of basic housing allowance for dependents of active-duty service

members who die on active duty. (p. S3513, 3521)

Approved

(voice)

Kerry

(SA334)

Provides $100,000 death gratuity to survivors of all active-duty service members

who die. (p. S3513, 3521)

Approved

(voice)

Durbin

Makes up the difference in civilian and military pay for federal employees who are

activated for reserve duty. (p. S3518ff)

Approved

(voice)

Reid

Sense of the Senate that veterans rated as unemployable be considered eligible for

concurrent receipt of VA benefits and military retirement. (p. S3620)

Approved

(voice)

Obama

Provides meal and telephone service benefits for active-duty service members

recuperating from Iraq or Afghan-incurred injuries. (p. S3641)

Approved

Feingold

Authorizes travel and transportation of family members to visit members

hospitalized in the United States for non-serious illnesses (p. S3997)

Approved

(voice)

Chambliss

Prohibits termination of procurement contract for C/KC-130J transport aircraft (p.

S3965).

Approved

(voice)

Durbin

Requires reports on Iraq Security Forces Fund (p. S3891)

Approved

(UC)

Craig/Akaka

Provides traumatic injury protection insurance rider for service members enrolling

in Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) (p. S4080)

Approved

(Voice)

DeWine

Provides traumatic injury protection insurance rider retroactive to October 7, 2001

for service members enrolling in SGLI (p. S4081).

Approved

(Voice)

Salazar

Renames the death gratuity fallen hero compensation (p. S3643)

Approved

(voice)

Warner

Requires report by 7/15/05 on property disposal process applying during current

base closure round. (p. S3644)

Approved

(voice)

Graham

Prohibits implementation of certain orders on duties of General Counsel and Judge

Advocate General of the Air Force (p. S3643)

Approved

(voice)

Bayh

Adds $213 million to buy additional uparmored HMMWVs (p. S4079, S4083)

Adopted (6138)

Stevens

Provides amount requested for new building and additional employees for new

Director of National Intelligence (p. 3532)

Approved

(UC)

Byrd

Sense of the Senate that war costs should be included in regular DOD

appropriations. (p. S3786ff)

Approved

(61-31)

Warner

Requires Navy to keep 12th aircraft carrier until 180 days after conclusion of

Quadrennial Defense Review (p. S3981 and S3989)

Approved

(58-38)

Byrd

Cuts $36 million in military construction funds for detention facility at Guantanamo

Bay, Cuba (p. S3513ff)

Rejected

Murray

Provides $1.98 billion for medical care for veterans (p. S3451ff)

Congressional Research Service

(voice)

(27-71)

Ruled out of

order

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Table 3. Defense-Related Amendments: House Floor

Sponsor

Purpose/Congressional Record page reference

Status

Moran

Reduces and then increases Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide by $1 million;

with the intent to require the Defense Department to provide Congress with standards

for success in Iraq. (p. H1458)

Approved

(voice)

Markey

Prohibits the use of funds in the bill for purposes that would violate the United Nations

Convention Against Torture. (p. H1496)

Approved

(420-2)

Velazquez

Prohibits the use of funds in the bill for contracts that contravene small business

participation goals in Sec. 15 (g)(2) of the Small Business Act.

Approved

(voice)

Tierney

Adds $5 million to Operation and Maintenance defense-wide to be used to create a

commission to investigate contracting in Iraq. (p. H1455; H1486)

Rejected

(191-236)

Hooley

Motion to recommit bill with instructions to increase funds for O&M by $40 million and

funding for Defense Health by $100 million.

Rejected

(200-229)

Woolsey

Transfers $186 million from regular defense appropriations bills to National Guard and

Reserve personnel. (p. H1457)

Withdrawn

Lantos

Adds title, Hope at Home Act, providing that activated reservists with federal jobs would

receive the difference between their military and civilian salaries, and provides tax credits

to private businesses which make up the difference in income. (p. H1490).

Withdrawn

Markey

Requires that military personnel who are evacuated due to injuries continue to receive

hazardous duty pay until they are re-assigned. (p. H1495)

Withdrawn

Obey

Prohibits obligating funds in the bill for national intelligence activities in countries

sponsoring terrorism until President informs congressional intelligence and defense

communities of all clandestine military activities where U.S. government involvement will

be hidden.

Withdrawn

Tierney

Establishes a select committee of the House to investigate awarding and implementation

of contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq. (p. H1452)

Point of

Order

Filner

Prohibits use of funds in the bill for reconstruction contracts in Iraq unless employers

agree to give preference to veterans.

Point of

Order

Sources: Congressional Record, March 15, p.H1427-H1500 and March 16, 2005, p. H1545-26.

Future Cost and Accountability Issues

As part of the current debate about U.S. involvement in Iraq, the long-range cost of operations in

Iraq and Afghanistan and accounting for those costs continued to be significant issues. The

Administration has not provided a projection of DOD costs for FY2006-FY2011 that was

required by January 1, 2005, in the FY2005 DOD Appropriations Act.29 The Congressional

Budget Office recently published an illustrative long-term cost estimate that assumes that military

personnel deployed or supporting operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and enhanced security for

defense installations remain at today’s level of about 300,000 through FY2006, then decline

gradually to 74,000 by FY2010, and remain at that level through FY2015.30 Based on those

assumptions, CBO estimated that the cost for DOD from FY2006-FY2010 would be $260 billion

See Section 9012 of P.L. 108-287; the President may waive the requirement if he certifies that the cost may not be

provided for “purposes of national security.”

CBO, Estimate of War Spending, FY2005-FY2015, February 1, 2005, available online at http://www.cbo.gov/

ftpdocs/60xx/doc6067/02-01-WarSpending.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

and the ten-year cost through FY2015 would be $393 billion.31 Typically, CBO’s estimates are

lower than DOD requests. 32

CRS has estimated that DOD has already received $201.2 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan, and

enhanced security through previous enacted appropriations. With the $75.6 billion for war-related

costs in the conference version of the supplemental, if CBO’s estimate of $260 billion were to be

accurate, DOD’s costs could total $537 billion by FY2010.

The Democratic staff of the House Budget Committee (HBC) recently issued a report specifically

projecting the future costs of the Iraq war (i.e. excluding Afghanistan and enhanced security)

under two scenarios. One scenario envisions that the United States withdraws all forces from Iraq

within four years or by 2009, a scenario which Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld told reporters that

he expected to be the case. 33 Based on that scenario, the study estimated Iraq costs could total

$461 billion including $287 billion in DOD costs and $175 billion in interest costs of the Federal

government because of the additional borrowing necessary to pay for the war. Assuming a more

gradual withdrawal of forces for Iraq as assumed by CBO, this analysis estimated costs through

FY2015 would total $646 billion, including $430 billion in DOD costs and $217 billion in

additional interest costs.34

Congressional Action

Although the Administration did not include any funds for war-related expenses in the FY2006

defense request, the recently-passed FY2006 budget resolution includes a reserve Fund of about

$50 billion for FY2006 but no war-related funding for later years. In a recent estimate, CBO

reported that the deficit in FY2005—including an estimate of war-related spending—would total

$394 billion in FY2005 and $370 billion to $375 billion in FY2006.35 Several members expressed

concerns about the lack of information about future costs of the war and occupations. The

conference version of H.R. 1268 includes sense of the senate language in Sec. 1024 that finds

precedent for including the cost of ongoing military operations in annual budget requests, calls on

the President to submit a budget amendment for FY2006 with detailed cost estimates for ongoing

military operations, and an estimate of cost for the next 12 months.36

Accountability Concerns

Attempts on the House side to add amendments during markup and floor debate to set up

investigating committees or a special commission modeled on the World War II Truman

Commission that would investigate war-time contracting failed to be added to H.R. 1268. During

floor debate, members raised concerns about where and how the Department of Defense has spent

CBO, Estimate of War Spending, FY2005-FY2015, February 1, 2005, available online at http://www.cbo.gov/

ftpdocs/60xx/doc6067/02-01-WarSpending.pdf.

CBO, Letter to Senator Kent Conrad, “Estimated Costs of Continuing Operations in Iraq and Other Operations of the

Global War on Terrorism,” June 25, 2004, p. 1.

New York Times, “Rumsfeld Sees an Iraq Pullout in Four Years,” December 7, 2004.

House Budget Committee, Democratic Caucus, “Iraq War Cost Estimate” Costs to Date and Costs to Go,” February

15, 2005. http://www.house.gov/budget_democrats/analyses/06iraq_war_cost_update.pdf.

CBO, Letter to Senator Thad Cochran, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, March 4, 2005, p. 1.

Sec. 1024 in H.R. 1268, Congressional Record, p. H2818

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

the $200 billion already appropriated for the “global war on terror” in light of recent reports by

auditors about misuse of funds and DOD’s lateness in submitting reports on war costs. The

conference bill includes Senator Byrd’s sense of the Senate amendment to include war and

occupation costs in DOD’s regular appropriations, following various precedents, and to require

DOD to submit reports on costs that are overdue that passed by a vote of 61 to 31.37

DOD has not yet sent Congress two reports on war costs and other matters that were required by

statute and due on April 1 and October 31, 2004; nor has DOD delivered an estimate of costs for

FY2006-FY2011 that was due January 1, 2005.38 An amendment offered by Congressman

Tierney to set up a select committee of the House made up of 15 members to investigate the

awarding and implementation of contracts was ruled out of order and a follow-up amendment to

provide $5 million to be used for such a commission was rejected by a vote of 236 to 191 (see

Table 3 above).

The House later adopted by voice vote the Moran amendment which reduced and then added $1

million to funding for Operation and Maintenance Defensewide with the intent—as voiced on the

floor—that these funds would be used by the Defense Department to provide Congress with

information about its standards for success in Iraq. The conference version also requires that

DOD submit a report on uparmoring HMMWVS within 60 days and every 60 days thereafter

until termination of the Iraq conflict. In Section 1031, the conference bill includes Senate

language that prohibits obligation of funds to subject any person in custody or under U.S. control

to torture or cruel or degrading punishment.

Size and Composition of DOD Request

The Defense Department request for FY2005—including the $25 billion in funds previously

provided in the FY2005 regular DOD Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-287)—totaled $98.0 billion or

over 45% more than the $65.1 billion provided in the FY2004 Emergency Supplemental (P.L.

108-106). The total request included several major types of expenses as shown in Table 4:

•

Recurring costs for military operations a 17% increase from $60.2 billion in

FY2004 to $70.5 billion in FY2005;

•

Investment costs, a six-fold growth from $3 billion in FY2004 to almost $18

billion in FY2005 to replace equipment damaged or lost in battles, recapitalize

equipment for units returning to the United States who leave their equipment

behind, and buy additional equipment for units to improve capability or add force

protection;

•

Support for other nations, a five-fold increase from $2 billion to $11.5 billion

including funds to train and equip Afghan and Iraqi security forces, funds to pay

for cooperative operations in the war on terrorism by Jordan and Pakistan

(coalition support), DOD counterdrug programs in Afghanistan, administrative

costs in Iraq, and the Commanders Emergency Response Fund (CERP), a

program providing funds directly to unit commanders to distribute for local

needs.

Congressional Record, April 18, 2005, p. S3786ff.

See P.L. 108-106, Sec. 1120, P.L. 108-287, Section 9010, and Sec. 9012; for debate, Congressional Record, March

15, 2005, pp. H1444, H1449, H1453-H1459.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Much of the year’s operating costs were already been provided in the $25 billion included in Title

IX of the FY2005 DOD Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-287). Combined with peacetime

appropriations for FY2005, CRS estimated that DOD could finance or cash flow war-related

expenses through May 2005.39 Recently DOD requested a transfer of funds to cover ongoing

costs and raised concerns about its needs for new funds. Of the total request, about 70% was for

operational costs—higher pay for active-duty forces who are deployed, the cost of activating

reservists, higher operating tempo costs, higher depot maintenance costs to repair equipment

reflecting wear and tear on equipment, and classified programs. In the FY2005 supplemental

request, recurring costs for military operations increased by $10 billion or 17%. About $3.5

billion was for higher than anticipated fuel costs, and another $3.5 billion for higher operating

tempo.

Military personnel costs were comparable to FY2004 reflecting force levels in FY2005 similar to

those the previous year. The Defense Department anticipated that forces in Iraq will decline from

a highpoint of about 160,000 before the Iraqi elections to 138,000 or about 20 brigades. Force

levels in Afghanistan are expected to remain at about 18,000 or three brigades.40 DOD continued

to provide little information about the roughly 300,000 military personnel either deployed or

supporting Iraq and Afghan operations, as well as enhanced security for defense installations. The

justification did not say how many reserve personnel are expected to be activated, on average, for

FY2005, or the number of personnel likely to be deployed more than once in three years for

active-duty forces or more than once in five years for reserves, the policy standard set by DOD.

As of the end of FY2004, one-third of all those deployed had served two or more deployments

suggesting that these DOD policies are currently not being met.41

The FY2005 Supplemental request included about $1.7 billion for the cost of an additional 30,000

active-duty military personnel authorized by Congress for FY2005 in order to reduce stress on

current forces. Some Members suggested that these additional personnel will be needed on a

long-term basis rather than temporarily because of Afghanistan and Iraq and hence that this

expense should be included in DOD’s regular budget rather than the supplemental.

The Defense Department argued that the additional personnel will only be needed temporarily

until additional units are created by the Army’s modularity initiative in FY2007, additional

military spaces are freed up through converting military billets to civilian slots, and “rebalancing” or changing the skill mix of active and reserve Army units to increase skills now

needed in greater numbers is completed. Military police, civil affairs and intelligence personnel

billets are to be increased while artillery personnel and others are decreased.

CRS calculation taking into account average peacetime and war-related obligation rates, assumes DOD would use all

4th quarter peacetime Army O&M and military personnel funds as well as remaining transfer authority (where DOD

moves funds between appropriation accounts with Congressional approval).

DOD, FY2005 Justification, p. 15.

Data from the Defense Manpower Data Center.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Table 4. DOD Funding: FY2004 Enacted and FY2005 Request

(in billions of dollars)

FY2005

Total

(Title IX +

Request)

FY2005

Request

(net of Title

IX)

21.4

70.5

49.1

31.8

15.8

35.6

19.8

Military Personnel

18.6

1.1

17.6

16.5

Depot Maintenance

2.8

0.4

3.6

3.2

Healthcare Support

0.7

0.9

0.2

Fuel price increase

0.0

1.0

3.5

2.5

Working Capital Fundsa

0.0

0.5

0.9

0.4

Morale/ Welfare/ Recreation

0.0

0.1

0.4

0.3

Classified/Other Global War on Terrorismb

6.3

1.8

8.0

6.2

Investment Costs

3.0

2.6

17.8

15.2

Military Constructionc

0.5

0.0

1.1

Replacing battle losses

0.0

1.8

Recapitalization and Procurement

2.2

2.6

9.5

6.6

Army Modularityd

0.0

5.0

Marine Corps Force Structure Review Grp

0.0

0.4

Storm Damage Repair

0.3

0.0

Support to Other Nations

2.0

1.1

11.5

10.4

[Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, security costs

funded in foreign operations]

[5.0]

0.0

Iraq Security Fund

0.0

5.7

Commanders Emergency Response Fund [legislative

cap]

[. ]

0.4

0.7

0.3

Train and Equip: Backfill

0.0

0.2

0.0

CPA Operating Costs/Iraq Project and Contracting

Office

0.0

0.3

[Military Aid training of security forces funded in foreign

ops]

[.7]

0.0

Afghan Security Fund

0.0

1.3

Commanders Emerg. Response Program

0.1

0.0

Train and Equip: Backfill

0.3

0.0

FY2004

Enacted

Supp.

P.L. 108-

Military Operations Costs

60.2

Operating Tempo

Type of Cost

[Brackets = entry not included in totals]

287

Title IX

Iraq

Afghanistan

Afghan Freedom Spt. Act & Counterdrug

0.1

0.0

0.5

Coalition Support (Includes Lift &Sustain)

1.9

0.0

2.0

Special Operations Forces Ctr in Jordan

0.0

0.1

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

FY2005

Total

(Title IX +

Request)

FY2005

Request

(net of Title

IX)

0.0

0.2

65.2

24.9

99.8

74.9

FY2005 Already Enacted in Title IX

24.9

-24.9

FY2005 New Request

74.9

FY2004

Enacted

Supp.

P.L. 108-

Tsunami Relief

0.0

TOTAL SUPP’L

Type of Cost

[Brackets = entry not included in totals]

287

Title IX

Source: See http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2005_supp.pdf.

Notes:

Excludes fuel price increase.

Includes both procurement and O&M funds.

Excludes military construction for modularity.

Includes military construction associated with modularity.

Congressional Action—Funds for Personnel and Operations

The conference version provides about $500 million more than the request for military personnel

primarily to fund higher death benefits in the bill (see section below). Both bills reduce DOD’s

$31 billion in operation and maintenance (O&M) funding (excluding Tsunami relief and the

Afghan and Iraq Security Funds) by about $1 billion primarily by reducing the Administration’s

request for funds to reimburse allies for their participation in the “global war on terror” (see

section below) and for a duplicate request from DOD to provide train and equip funds in both the

Army O&M account and the Iraq Security Forces Fund.42 Unlike previous supplementals, DOD’s

FY2005 request applied savings in FY2005 from $1.1 billion in peacetime training of Army

forces and $159 million training for Marine Corps forces to wartime costs.43

Higher Survivor Benefits

DOD’s FY2005 Supplemental request included $376 million to provide higher death benefits to

the families of those killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan including funds to pay higher

benefits retroactively. 44 Under the Administration’s proposed language, for the future, the

Secretary of Defense could designate those areas where service members who died in action or as

a result of related injuries or illness would be eligible to receive a death gratuity of $100,000

rather than the current $12,420 level. In addition, the Administration proposed to increase the

limit on Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) from the current $250,000 to $400,000.

Both changes would be applied retroactively to October 7, 2001 for those who died while serving

in the Iraq and Afghan theater of operations; thus, survivors of those killed would receive an

These proposed reductions are taken from Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (see Table 6). Total for

Operation and Maintenance includes funding for working capital funds, Defense Health, and Drug Interdiction.

House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 109-16, March 11, 2005, p. 12.

DOD, FY2005 Justification, February 2005, p. 15; http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/

fy2005_supp.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

additional $238,000 including $88,000 in a death gratuity and $150,000 in higher insurance

payments (see Table 5).45

There was considerable debate in Congress about who should receive these proposed enhanced

benefits. In testimony, General Myers, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chiefs of the

individual services each voiced personal opinions that these enhanced benefits should be

available to any service member who died regardless of the circumstances. 46 Several bills have

been introduced by members of Congress to provide such benefits including the Standing with

Our Troops Act of FY2005 and the Heroes Act.47

Congressional Action—Conference Bill Increases Benefits

The conference bill raises the level of life insurance from $250,000 to $400,000 and increases the

death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000 for survivors of service members who die in combat or

combat-related activities. The conferees adopt a broader eligibility standard than proposed by the

Administration which restricted the higher benefits to Iraq and Afghanistan but narrower, in some

cases, than was included in other versions of H.R. 1268 (see Table 5).

Conference Eligibility Standard

The conference version adopts the same eligibility criteria for both future and retroactive benefits

and for both the higher insurance levels and the higher death gratuity. In other words,

retroactively, survivors of all service members who die in combat or combat-related activities

would receive an additional $238,000 to match the higher insurance levels available in the future

(+$150,000) and the higher death benefits (+ $88,000). For those eligible, the death benefit

increases from $12,000 to $100,000 and members could purchase life insurance of up to

$400,000 rather than today’s $250,000. For those serving in combat areas, DOD would pay the

premiums for the additional $150,000 of insurance.

Retroactive Increase in Benefits

The House version gave an additional $150,000 to survivors of active duty service member who

dies from injury or illness “in the performance of duty,” a coverage broader than ultimately

adopted. It is not clear who would have been covered under this new standard. In floor debate,

Congressman Obey (author of the amendment adopted) suggested that the House version would

cover deaths of active-duty members who die while “in the line of duty” but not those who die

while off-duty, such as in a drunken driving accident.48 The cost of the higher benefit was also not

clear and could range from $95 million to $300 million according to Representative Obey, and up

Office of Management and Budget, FY2005 Supplemental, 2-14-05, p. 57 to P. 58.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/supplemental_2_14_05.pdf For a complete discussion of benefits

available to survivors of deceased service members, see CRS Report RL32769, Military Death Benefits: Status and

Proposals, by (name redacted) and (name redacted). The additional insurance payment would be given to all

survivors regardless of whether the service member had signed up; 98% of active-duty members elect the coverage.

Senate Armed Services Committee, transcript, Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget, February 17, 2005, p.78.

Senate Armed Services Committee, transcript, Hearing on Death Benefits for Survivors of Military Personnel,

February 1, 2005.

Congressional Record, March 15, 2005, p. H1466.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

to $500 million more than in the request according to OMB.49 Additional funds were not provided

in the House bill.

The Senate appropriators adopted a different eligibility criterion that would have given $150,000

to survivors of members who die in the Afghan or Iraqi theater or to those who die of “combatrelated activities,” a standard currently defined in statute to include hazardous duty, conditions

simulating war or an instrumentality of war.50 The Senate bill added about $400 million to DOD’s

military personnel accounts for the broader benefits that would apply retroactively and in the

future.

By voice vote on April 13, 2005, the Senate adopted the Kerry amendment, which increased the

death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000 for all active-duty service members retroactively to

October 12, 2001, broader than the House version which provided the gratuity only to those who

died in the Afghan and Iraqi theaters.

Future Increases in Death Benefits

In the House version, service members in the future could increase their coverage under

Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) from $250,000 to $400,000 (in increments of

$50,000). Service members who opt out of the full coverage had to get written concurrence from

his or her spouse. The Senate-reported bill also raised the maximum insurance level to $400,000.

The conference version, like the House and Senate bill and the Administration request, all require

that spouses be informed if the member opts for insurance less than the maximum. The

conference version adopted the Senate proposal that for those serving in a combat zone, DOD—

rather than the service member—pay the premium for $150,000 in coverage.

The House-passed version of the bill also raised the one-time death gratuity from $12,420 to

$100,000 for all service members who dies in the future rather than leaving it to the discretion of

the Secretary of Defense to decide whose survivors would receive the higher payment. The

Senate-passed bill adopted the same eligibility, rejecting the reported version which limited

eligibility to those dying in combat or combat-related activity (see Kerry amendment passed by

voice vote).

See Sec. 1114 (b) in H.R. 1268 and CQ, “Panel Endorses $81.3 billion Emergency Supplemental,” by Gayle S. Putrich,

March 8, 2005. See DOD, FY2005 Justification, February 2005 for Administration’s proposed language, p.57, and p. 15 for

cost. For OMB estimate, see Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 1268, March

15, 2005;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-1/hr1268sap-h.pdf. See Congressional Record, March 15,

p.H1465-66 for Representative Obey’s later estimate. During floor debate, this amendment was protected from

challenge on points of order by an amendment to H.Res 151, the rule governing consideration of H.R. 1268 by the Cole

amendment; see Congressional Record, March 15, 2005, p.H1429ff.

U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 1413a (e) (2).

Congressional Research Service

Table 5. Proposed Changes in Death Benefits for Active-Duty Servicemembers

Death

Benefit

Service

members

Group Life

Insurance

(SGLI)

Current Law

DOD Request

House Passed

Senate Passed

Conference Version

Members may

purchase up to

$250,000 in life

insurance in

$10,000

increments.

Retroactive to October 7,

2001: Survivors of

members who die in the

Afghan or Iraq theater

receive $150,000.

Retroactive to October 7, 2001:

Survivors of members who

die in the “performance of

duty” receive $150,000.

Retroactive to October 7, 2001:

Survivors of service members who

die in the Afghan or Iraq theater

and who die as a result of combat

or combat-related activities receive

$150,000.a

Retroactive to October 7, 2001:

Survivors of service members who

die in the Afghan or Iraq theater and

who die as a result of combat or

combat-related activities receive

$150,000.a

After enactment: Members may

purchase up to $400,000 in life

insurance in $50,000 increments

with premiums for $150,000 to be

paid by DOD for those in combat

zones. Spouses to be informed if

member purchases less than

maximum.

After enactment: Members may

purchase up to $400,000 in life

insurance in $50,000 increments with

premiums for $150,000 to be paid by

DOD for those in combat zones.

Spouses to be informed if member

purchases less than maximum.

After enactment:

Members may purchase

up to $400,000 in life

insurance in $50,000

increments.

After enactment: Members may

purchase up to $400,000 in

life insurance in $50,000

increments. Spouses must be

informed if member purchases

less than maximum.

Effective date: As soon as

practicable.

Effective date: 90 days after

enactment; lapses 9/30/05.

Death

Gratuity

Survivors of

members who die

receive $12,200.

Retroactive to Oct. 7,

2001: Survivors of

members who die in the

Afghan or Iraq theater

receive $88,000.

After enactment:

Survivors of those who

die as a result of

operations as designated

by the Secretary of

Defense receive

$100,000.

Effective date: As soon as

practicable

Retroactive to Oct. 7, 2001:

Survivors of members who

die in the Afghan or Iraq

theater receive $88,000.

After enactment: Survivors

of all members who die

receive $100,000.

Effective date: On or after date

of enactment.

Retroactive to Oct. 7, 2001: Survivors

of all service members who die

receive an additional $88,000.

After enactment: Survivors of all

service members who die receive

$100,000.a

Effective date: 90 days after

enactment; lapses 9/30/05.

Effective date: 90 days after enactment;

lapses 9/30/05.

Retroactive to Oct. 7, 2001: Survivors

of service members who die in the

Afghan or Iraq theater and who die as

a result of combat or combat-related

activities receive an additional

$88,000.a

After enactment: Survivors of service

members who die in the Afghan or

Iraq theater and who die as a result of

combat or combat-related activities

receive $100,000.a

Effective date: 90 days after enactment;

lapses 9/30/05.

Sources: Department of Defense, FY2005 Supplemental Request for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), and Operation Unified

Assistance, February 2005; H.R. 1268 engrossed as passed by the House, 3-16-05; http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2005_supp.pdf; Sec. 1113 - Sec. 1114

in H.R. 1268 as passed by the House and Sec. 1111 and Sec. 1112 as passed by the Senate on April 13, 2005. See Sec.1012 and 1013 in H.R. 1268, conference version.

CRS-26

Combat-related is defined in U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 1413a to include combat, hazardous service, conditions simulating war and an instrumentality of war. Those

who die in combat or combat-related activities before enactment of the higher insurance levels receive $150,000.

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Other Benefits Increases

The conference bill adds a traumatic injury rider to DOD’s life insurance policy that would

provide from $25,000 to $100,000 that can be purchased by members; benefits would be

available retroactively. The provision goes into effect 180 days after enactment. The conference

bill rejects the provision where the federal government would make up the difference between

military and civilian pay for reservists who are federal civilian employees. Other Senate proposals

to provide free mails and telephone benefits for recuperating service members and expand

eligibility for travel by family members are in the conference version (see Table 2 above). DOD

will need to draw funds from other activities to cover these benefits.

Recapitalization, Modularity and Construction Costs Grow

In the FY2005 supplemental, DOD requested a total of $17.8 billion for investment, substantially

above the $3 billion in the FY2004 supplemental (see Table 3). 51 This $17.8 billion included:

•

$16.1 billion for procurement;

•

$0.5 billion for research, development, test and evaluation projects (RDT&E);

and

•

$1.3 billion for military construction, $1 billion for construction overseas, and

$0.3 billion for the Army’s modularity initiative.

This funding was directed at several new DOD thrusts: a major push to provide additional

equipment for units not only to replace battle losses, but also to improve capability, increase

equipment, and add force protection equipment; accelerate the Army’s plans to reorganize and

reequip Army and Marine Corps units; and build barracks and other facilities both within

Afghanistan and Iraq and in surrounding countries.

Procurement and Modularity Requests

The $16.1 billion in procurement was for the following purposes: $1.3 billion to replace battle

losses; $5.1 billion to provide additional equipment for deploying and returning forces; $2.7

billion for additional force protection equipment; $4.1 billion for Army modularity equipment;

and $250 million for Marine Corps Force Structure Review Group Initiative, a similar

reorganizing initiative.

A major issue raised was the funding requested for the Army’s modularity initiative that was

originally announced by Chief of Staff General Schoomaker in August 2003 as part of the Army’s

transformation. Some Members questioned whether this expense passes the test of emergency

supplementals where funding is requested for urgent and unanticipated requirements. The Army

appears to have accelerated its conversion plans announced last February, intending now to

reorganize not only three active brigades but also convert five rather than one brigade and three

National Guard brigades. This may explain part of the increase in funding from the $2.8 billion in

the February 2004 plan to the $5.0 billion in the new supplemental. DOD announced that it plans

This does not include classified programs funded in procurement for which no details are available.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

to Fund the Army’s modularity initiative in supplementals in both FY2005 and FY2006, and then

transfer that funding to the Army’s regular budget starting in FY2007.

Critics suggested that modularity expenses are more appropriately considered a regular

expenditure because they are a predictable, organizational change announced over a year and a

half ago. Therefore, these costs, according to some analysts, should be included in DOD’s regular

appropriations where they would compete with other programs. The Army argued that the

modularity initiative is intended not only to transform Army units to be more lethal and more

transportable, but that the additional units will decrease the stress on Army forces by providing

more units to deploy.

The Army also requested many procurement items that would be used to upgrade equipment or

provide additional equipment for both deploying units and returning units who are leaving their

equipment behind. This type of expense is not normally considered an incremental cost of

contingencies as defined in DOD’s financial regulations. DOD, in its justification material,

argued that the additional capabilities are necessary to deal with the dangers posed by the ongoing

insurgency. Some $2.7 billion of the procurement was for additional force protection equipment,

including not only additional armored Humvees, and add-on kits for other tactical vehicles, but

also a wide variety of other equipment for soldiers, such as night vision goggles, and other

devices intended to improve the military’s capability to deal with improvised explosive devices

(IEDs).

Military Construction Request

The new request also included $1.3 billion for military construction, about $1 billion overseas and

about $0.3 billion associated with the Army’s modularity initiative (e.g. providing additional

barracks for newly-formed units). Some of the military construction in and around Iraq and

Afghanistan was controversial because it was perceived to signal a long-term U.S. presence, for

example, replacing temporary tents with concrete barracks. Facilities may also be constructed at a

time when the U.S. has not negotiated bilateral agreements with a permanent Iraqi government as

is customarily the case for overseas U.S. military construction projects. The justification for some

projects—for example, constructing a supply road in Iraq to link to a new Kuwaiti route that

avoids urban areas—was also less convincing than other projects, such as concrete billets, which

were justified on safety grounds or force protection. 52

Congressional Action—Approach to Procurement Differs

The conference bill includes over $1 billion of the $2.0 billion in additional funding added by the

House to DOD’s request. Procurement totaled $17.4 billion. Much of the additional funds would

accelerate Army purchases of trucks, upgrades to Abrams tanks, additional uparmored

HMWVVs, other force protection, and other equipment, which would otherwise be funded in the

FY2006 regular DOD appropriations bill. That may make it easier to cut the FY2006 regular

appropriations bill.

For a discussion of these construction issues, see CRS Memo, “Military Construction in Support of Afghanistan and

Iraq,” by (name redacted), April 11, 2005, available from author.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

In its report, H.Rept. 109-16, the HAC stated that these additions are intended to fulfill “emergent

requirements in force protection, force restructuring and recapitalization ...” and to “accelerate

programs for which funding has been requested.”53 Although some would argue that these

additions are justified because they would be required later, others would argue that these items

are not appropriately categorized as emergency requirements.54

Full Funding of Army Modularity Request

The conferees, like both houses, fully Fund the Army’s $5 billion request for modularity,

accepting the House rationale that the funds are “needed to mitigate stress on the current active

duty combat force by creating at least 10 additional combat brigades,” and that supplemental

funds would ensure that equipment would be available prior to deployment for units “that will

deploy to either Iraq or Afghanistan in the next two troop rotations scheduled for later this year

and in 2006.”55

Congressional Action—Military Construction Concerns

The conferees mirrored the concerns of the House and Senate about the Administration’s $1.0

billion request for overseas military construction—whether the projects fit the emergency criteria

and whether the projects signaled a long-term presence prematurely rather than being projects of

a temporary and expeditionary nature, is appropriate.”56 The conference bill cuts overseas military

construction by $300 million and adds $32 million to meet Marine Corps restructuring needs. The

SAC noted that it was more difficult for construction projects to meet the emergency test of a

supplemental because of the duration of the “global war on terror” and the long lead times typical

for construction.

The “expeditionary” nature of the U.S. presence suggests that temporary facilities “should be the

rule rather than the exception” in the committee’s view. 57 In those cases where there may be a

case for an “enduring presence in the region,” that should be part of a long-term plan, emergency

appropriations would make emergency funding less appropriate, the committee argues. The panel

concluded that projects which have that character “should be requested in the normal budget

process, in which both authorization and appropriations committees have an opportunity to

carefully consider the request.”58

In light of these concerns, the conferees (like the Senate) cut four military construction projects—

a $57 million fuel tank farm and a $32 million prime power generation plant at Bagram Airfield

in Afghanistan, a $75 million aerial port in Kuwait, and a $66 million project to improve the Al

House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 109-16, Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the Fiscal

Year Ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, March 11, 2005, p. 24.

House Appropriations Committee, Press Release, Full Committee Unanimously reports War Supplemental, March 8,

2005; http://appropriations.house.gov/; and DOD, FY2005 Justification, February 2005. http://www.dod.mil/

comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2005_supp.pdf

House Appropriations Committee, Press release, “Highlights of the War Supplemental,” March 3, 2005;

http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=446.

S.Rept. 109-52, p. 31.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates.59 The House had signaled its displeasure with DOD

by prohibiting obligation of some of the funds until DOD submitted an overdue comprehensive

master plan for basing of U.S. forces; DOD submitted the plan in mid-March 2005 but reportedly

did not address Iraq. 60

New Flexible Accounts for Afghan and Iraqi Security Forces

The FY2005 supplemental proposed to establish two new accounts to train Afghan and Iraqi

security forces ranging from Army to police forces:

•

$1.3 billion in the Afghan Security Forces Fund; and

•

$5.7 billion in the Iraq Security Forces Fund.

For both funds, language of the request would have allowed the Secretary of Defense to use the

funds until funds are expended “notwithstanding any other provision of law ... to provide

assistance to the security forces of [Afghanistan or Iraq] including the provision of equipment,

supplies, services, training, facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, and construction, and

funding.”61 This language would have exempted DOD from any restrictions applying to current

training of foreign military forces and would have allowed the Secretary of Defense or his

designee to use these funds for any purpose and for any type of security force—Army, national

guard, or police. Nevertheless, the Administration stated that it does not intend to use these funds

for training Afghanistan police forces, and requested $400 million elsewhere in the supplemental

for the State Department’s International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement office to support

such police training.

The train and equip provision would effectively transfer policy and funding authority from the

Secretary of State, where authority for training foreign military forces is currently lodged, to the

Secretary of Defense. In recent testimony, Secretary of State Rice supported this transfer and

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld argued that the authority reflects the current wartime situation.

This transfer would remove this traditional foreign policy tool from the jurisdiction of the

Secretary of State.

The authority requested, and the DOD justification material provided, was broader than currently

available to the Secretary of State. DOD provided only an illustrative breakdown of the funds but

no details about the number and types of personnel, the rate of training anticipated, the types of

equipment to be purchased, or the specific uses of the funds. The State Department, especially

within its quarterly report on the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, provided substantial details

regarding how it has used and plans to use in the future funds to train and equip foreign military

forces.

According to DOD, the $5.7 billion for Iraqi security forces that would cover costs through July

2006, may be distributed to:

S.Rept. 109-52, p. 34 and p. 35.

See H.Rept. 108-342, p. 17 and H.Rept. 109-16 on FY2005 Supplemental, p.32.

Office of Management and Budget, FY2005 Emergency Supplemental Request, February 14, 2005.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

•

$3.1 billion for front line security forces including up to two mechanized

divisions;

•

$809 million for support forces;

•

$1.5 billion for police and other forces;

•

$180 million for “quick response” funding; and

•

$104 million for institutional training.62

These funds would be in addition to the $5 billion already provided in Iraq Relief and

Reconstruction Funding that was provided to the State Department in the FY2004 Supplemental,

and $210 million in “train and equip” funds provided through DOD.

There was considerable debate in Congress about the effectiveness of training of Iraqi security

forces thus far. In testimony on February 16, 2005, before the Senate Appropriations Committee,

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld reported that 136,000 Iraqi forces had been trained thus far,

including 57,000 Ministry of Defense Forces (army, national guard, intervention forces, special

operations, air force and navy) 79,000 Ministry of Interior forces (police, civil intervention,

emergency response forces, border enforcement, highway patrols, dignitary protection, special

police commandos). 63 DOD’s justification material stated that thus far, Iraq’s transitional

government has fielded over 90 battalions but that “All but one of these battalions, however, are

lightly equipped and armed, and have very limited mobility and sustainment capabilities.”64

Congressional Action—Conferees Oversight Concerns

The conferees drop the Senate’s statutory reporting requirements for the Iraq Security Forces fund

in favor of report language. Both the SAC and the House approve DOD request for $1.3 billion to

train and equip Afghan security forces and $5.7 billion to train and equip Iraqi security forces but

add several reporting requirements. Although the proposed language would still provide the funds

to the Secretary of Defense “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” the funds would be

available until the end of FY2006 rather than until expended.

In addition, DOD would need to have the concurrence of the Secretary of State on the use of the

money and to notify congressional defense committees in writing five days in advance of

transfers from the funds, and report on transfers quarterly. The original DOD language did not

include any notification or reporting requirements. DOD would still have the prerogative to

distribute these funds to any activities related to training and to any type of security forces from

the Army to police as well as being able to receive contributions from other nations for these

purposes. The detailed statutory reporting requirements in the Senate version of H.R. 1268 were

included as report language (see H.Rept. 108-72).

Department of Defense, “Iraq/Afghanistan Security Forces: DoD’s FY05 Supplemental Request,” February 2005;

and DOD, FY2005 Justification, February 2005, p. 78-79.

Senate Appropriations Committee, transcript, Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2005 Emergency Supplemental, February

16, 2005, p. 30-31.

Department of Defense, FY2005 Supplemental request for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom

(OEF), and Operation Unified Assistance, February 2005 (hereinafter, DOD, FY2005 Justification), p. 78;

http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2005_supp.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Flexible Funds to Provide Support to Allies

In addition to its requests for $7.0 billion in flexible funds for Iraq and Afghanistan security

forces, the Administration requested $2.9 billion in other types of support for allies in the “global

war on terrorism.” Those funds included:

•

$1.37 billion for coalition support to “key cooperating nations,” who provide

logistical and military support;

•

$627 million for “Lift and Sustain” funds for security forces in Iraq, Afghanistan

and other nearby nations;

•

$825 million for the Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP) in

which military commanders Fund local projects;

•

$250 million to reimburse the services for providing equipment to the Afghan

Army;

•

$99 million to set up a new Special Operations Training Center in Jordan; and

•

$257 million for DOD’s counternarcotics program.65

Since the 9/11 attacks, DOD has received substantial funds in these flexible accounts that may be

distributed to U.S. allies in and around Iraq and Afghanistan to reimburse them or provide

logistical support for their participation in the “global war on terror.” Although the DOD request

would have required concurrence of the Secretary of State and 15-day advance notification to

congressional committees reporting for coalition support—as was included in previous

supplementals—the request included no reporting for funds provided for “lift and sustain,” for the

Commanders Emergency Support Program, or for DOD’s counternarcotics programs. The State

Department also receives counternarcotics funds (see below).

Congressional Action—Conferees Cut Support to Allies

The conferees reduce DOD’s request for funds to reimburse allies by several hundred million but

less than proposed by the House. For example:

•

the conferees provide $500 million for “lift and sustain,” an additional source of

funds for Afghan, Iraq, and neighboring security forces rather than the $600

million requested and in the Senate version and the $300 million in the House

bill;

•

the conferees provide $1.2 billion for “coalition support” for Pakistan, Jordan,

and other cooperating nations in the “global war on terror,” $150 million less

than the request but above the House level; and

•

both bills support the $854 million request for the Commanders Emergency

Response Program (CERP), a program where unit commanders dispense funds

locally. 66

Department of Defense, FY2005 Justification, p. 80-81.

http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2005_supp.pdf.

House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 109-18, p. 12 and p. 14.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

DOD Request for FY2005 by Appropriation Account

Table 6 below shows DOD’s estimate and Congressional action of the FY2005 Supplemental

request. To provide context, the table shows total DOD needs for FY2005 including both the

amount provided in Title IX and the current FY2005 Emergency Supplemental Request, as well

as DOD’s obligations, or contractual costs in FY2004 based on accounting reports. In FY2004,

DOD obligated all of the funds appropriated.

The lion’s share of the request was for the Army, a reflection of the predominant role of ground

forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The greatest difference between FY2004 and FY2005’s estimate

was the amounts requested for investment accounts—procurement, RDT&E, and military

construction—and DOD’s request for $7.0 billion to train and equip Afghan and Iraqi forces.

The conferees provide $1 billion more for the Army compared to the request and the Senate level

but less than the House’s add of $1.8 billion. Similarly, the Marine Corps receives about $$300

million more than the request and the Senate level but less than the $630 million proposed by the

House. Both services play the major role in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Navy’s request is cut by

$300 million. The totals for Defense-wide and the Air Force are close to the request (see Table 6

below).

Congressional Research Service

Table 6. Defense Department FY2005 Supplemental Request and Prior Funding

(billions of dollars)

Service/Account

FY2004

Obligations

Title IX,

P.L. 108287

FY2005

Total Based on

Request

FY2005

Request

House

Passed

Senate

Passed

Conference

SPECIAL ACCOUNTS SUBTOTAL

3.800

10.785

6.985

Iraq Freedom Fund

3.800

0.000

Afghan Security Forces Fund

1.285

Iraq Security Forces Fund

5.700

ARMY SUBTOTAL

43.382

15.381

56.597

41.217

42.938

41.417

42.261

Mil. Pers. :Defense SubComm. (SC)

11.972

0.916

14.215

11.757

11.780

13.609

1.542

Included

above

Included

above

Reserve Pers, Army

0.000

0.040

National Guard Personnel, Army

0.000

0.429

0.291

O&M, Army: Defense SC

29.908

13.550

30.817

17.201

17.366

16.768

16.980

0.066

Included

above

Included

above

O&M, Army Reserve

0.000

0.008

0.021

0.026

O&M, Army Nat’l Gd

0.000

0.189

0.327

Aircraft Proc, Army

0.000

0.459

Missile Proc, Army, 05/07

0.000

0.294

0.341

0.280

0.310

Proc, Wpns & Combat Tracked Vehicles

0.457

0.050

2.475

2.425

2.679

2.406

2.551

Procurement, Ammo

0.000

0.110

0.585

0.475

0.533

0.475

0.533

Other Proc, Army

0.954

0.755

6.071

5.316

6.550

5.536

6.251

RDT&E, Army

0.000

0.025

0.037

Mil Con, Army

0.090

0.000

0.990

0.930

0.897

0.847

NAVY SUBTOTAL

3.818

0.504

5.438

4.935

4.562

4.939

4.603

Military Personnel, Navy

0.857

0.028

0.553

0.525

0.534

0.535

Mil.Pers.: Quality of Life SubComm (QOL SC)

O&M, Army: QOL SC

CRS-34

Service/Account

FY2004

Obligations

Title IX,

P.L. 108287

FY2005

Total Based on

Request

FY2005

Request

House

Passed

Senate

Passed

Conference

Reserve Personnel, Navy

0.000

0.009

0.011

0.009

Operation and Maintenance

2.555

0.367

3.791

3.424

3.031

3.431

3.031

O&M, Navy, Tsunami

0.000

0.124

O&M, Navy Reserve

0.000

0.075

Aircraft Proc, Navy

0.211

0.000

0.200

Weapons Proc, Navy

0.000

0.072

0.066

Proc Ammo, Navy & MC

0.000

0.079

0.213

0.134

0.142

0.134

0.140

Other Proc, Navy

0.189

0.030

0.116

0.086

0.078

RDT&E, Navy

0.007

0.000

0.179

0.202

0.179

0.204

Mil Con, Navy

0.000

0.107

0.093

0.107

0.140

MARINE CORPS SUBTOTAL

2.846

2.057

7.279

5.222

5.855

5.289

5.655

Military Personnel, MC

0.918

0.242

1.488

1.246

1.252

1.358

Reserve Personnel, MC

0.000

0.004

Operation and Maintenance, MC

1.567

1.665

2.635

0.970

0.982

0.970

0.982

O&M, MC, Tsunami

0.000

0.003

O&M, MC Reserve

0.000

0.025

Procurement, Marine Corps

0.360

0.150

3.124

2.974

3.588

2.929

3.283

AIR FORCE SUBTOTAL

9.765

0.594

11.586

10.463

10.641

10.447

10.403

Military Personnel, AF

3.272

0.065

1.381

1.317

1.473

1.685

1.600

Reserve Personnel, AF

0.000

National Guard Personnel, AF

0.000

0.001

0.000

Operation and Maintenance, AF

6.131

0.419

6.550

5.602

5.769

5.529

5.627

O&M, AF, Tsunami

0.000

0.030

Aircraft Procurement, AF

0.053

0.000

0.269

0.279

0.269

0.277

Proc Ammo, AF

0.021

0.000

0.007

CRS-35

Service/Account

FY2004

Obligations

Title IX,

P.L. 108287

FY2005

Total Based on

Request

FY2005

Request

House

Passed

Senate

Passed

Conference

Other Proc, AF

0.286

0.110

2.944

2.834

2.659

2.654

2.578

RDT&E, AF

0.001

0.000

0.103

0.122

0.133

0.143

Mil Con, AF

0.000

0.302

0.301

0.141

DEF.-WIDE/OTHER SUBTOTAL

5.824

2.565

8.686

6.134

5.834

5.968

6.007

O&M, Defensewide

2.108

0.404

3.925

3.521

3.061

3.308

3.042

O&M, Defensewide, Tsunami

0.000

0.029

Office of Inspector General

0.000

Drug Interdiction (for transfer)

0.000

0.257

0.227

0.242

Defense Health: HAC QOL & SAC Defense

0.888

0.683

0.859

0.176

0.226

0.211

Defense Health, Tsunami

0.000

0.004

Overseas Humanitarian

0.000

0.010

0.000

Overseas Humanitarian, Tsunami

0.000

0.036

Procurement, Defense-wide

0.199

0.050

0.641

0.591

0.646

0.591

0.646

National Gd & Reserve Equipment

0.039

0.050

0.000

RDT&E, Defense-wide

0.062

0.000

0.154

0.160

0.204

0.254

Defense Working Capital Fund

0.002

1.478

2.789

1.311

1.411

1.311

1.511

Working Capital Fund, Navy

0.002

0.000

National Defense Sealift Fund

0.000

0.032

Def. Agencies, Special Ops & Other

2.584

0.000

Transferred to Coast Guard

0.000

-0.100

0.000

GENERAL PROVISIONS

[3.000]

[5.000]

[12.500]

[11.00]

[7.500]

[7.685]

[9.185]

General Transfer Authority: FY05 Supp

[3.000]

[1.500]

[6.500]

[5.000]

[2.000]

[3.000]

General Transfer Authority: FY05 DOD

Appropriations

[NA]

[3.500]

[6.000]

[5.500]

[5.685]

[6.185]

Defense Cooperation Transfer Account

0.000

0.012

0.000

Rescission - Iraq Freedom Fund

0.000

-0.050

CRS-36

Service/Account

FY2004

Obligations

Title IX,

P.L. 108287

FY2005

Total Based on

Request

FY2005

Request

House

Passed

Senate

Passed

Conference

TOTAL DEFENSE DEPARTMENT

65.635

24.900

99.944

74.967

76.827

74.726

75.864

INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY

MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT

0.000

0.250

TOTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNCTION

(050)

65.697

24.900

100.194

75.218

77.077

74.976

76.114

Sources: CRS calculations based on Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Consolidated Department of Defense (DoD) Terrorist Response Cost Report (Revised),

FY2004 Supplemental Appropriation As of September 30, 2004; P.L. 108-287; Department of Defense, FY 2005 Supplemental Request for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF),

Operation Enduring Freedom J(OEF), and Operation Unified Assistance, February 2005; and H.Rept. 109-18, Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2005,

March 11, 2005, H.Rept. 109-72.

CRS-37

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Foreign Policy Supplemental Request and

Congressional Review

The President sought $6.3 billion in FY2005 supplemental funding supporting a broad range of

foreign policy activities:

•

U.S. diplomatic costs in Iraq

•

Afghanistan reconstruction and counternarcotics programs

•

Darfur humanitarian relief and peace implementation aid in Sudan

•

War on Terrorism assistance, including funds for Jordan and Pakistan

•

Palestinian aid

•

Ukraine assistance

•

U.N. peacekeeping contributions

•

Broadcasting programs in the Middle East

•

Tsunami recovery and reconstruction

If enacted as proposed, FY2005 total spending for foreign policy programs would have increased

by roughly 50% over levels approved the international affairs budget immediately prior to the

9/11 attacks. Even with Congressional reductions to the foreign policy portion of the

supplemental, FY2005 international affairs spending, including the supplemental, is 41% higher

than before 9/11 (see Table 7).

Table 7. Foreign Policy Budget, FY2001-FY2006

(billions of dollars)

FY2001

FY2002

FY2003

FY2004

FY2005

Total

Enacted

$24.409

$25.455

$33.490

$49.618

$29.727

FY2005

Supp

Conf.

$4.782

FY2005

Total

$34.509

FY2006 Request

$33.635

Sources: OMB, Department of State, CRS calculations.

Congressional Action—Summary

Conference Consideration

As reported on May 3, and subsequently approved in the House and Senate, H.R. 1268 provides

$5.78 billion in new appropriations for State Department, foreign aid, tsunami relief, and other

foreign policy activities. This represents a $512 million, or 8% reduction to the President’s $6.3

billion request. Conferees, as had earlier House and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 1268, offset

part of these costs by rescinding $1 billion in FY2003-appropriated funds for aid to Turkey that

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

had not yet been obligated.67 As a result, the “net” appropriation for foreign policy programs in

H.R. 1268 is $4.78 billion, or $1.5 billion below the request. The entire amount is designated as

emergency appropriations.

Beyond congressional decisions to reduce selected supplemental requests, the conference

agreement and the $512 million cut may have significant implications for Congress’ consideration

later this year of regular FY2006 appropriations for Foreign Operations and the State Department.

In some cases, House and Senate Appropriation Committees had expressed the view that some

supplemental requests did not require immediate funding and could be addressed during the

debate on FY2006 appropriation bills. This is particularly relevant to the funds proposed for

Afghanistan reconstruction and economic aid programs in southern Sudan. Earlier, Congress

approved a budget resolution for FY2006 (H.Con.Res. 95) that assumes a reduction in the

President’s foreign policy funding request of about $2.4 billion, or 7%. If House and Senate

Appropriation Committees add to the pending FY2006 request some of the items not approved in

the FY2005 supplemental conference agreement, the challenge of meeting the budget resolution

target for international affairs program will be an even greater challenge.

House Consideration

H.R. 1268, as passed by the House on March 16, approved $4.92 billion for additional foreign

policy programs. This level was $1.37 billion less than requested. During House Appropriations

Committee markup on March 8, the panel excluded items that it felt were not well justified, could

be funded by other international donors, or did not require immediate funding and could be

considered as part of the regular FY2006 appropriation. The House Committee further

redesignated $995 million as non-emergency spending and offset these costs by rescinding $1

billion in unspent economic aid appropriated in FY2003 for Turkey. This brought the “net” total

for foreign policy programs in the House version of H.R. 1268 to $3.92 billion. During House

floor debate, Members approved an amendment by Representative Jackson adding $100 million

in humanitarian relief for the Darfur region in Sudan.

Table 8. Foreign Policy Amendments: House Floor

Sponsor

Purpose/Congressional Record page reference

Status

Jackson

Adds $100 million in disaster and refugee aid for the Darfur region of Sudan. (p. H

1467)

Approved

(voice)

Maloney

Increases by $3 million the Tsunami Relief and Recovery Fund, and to decrease by

$3 million ESF funds. (p. H1467)

Approved

(voice)

Upton

Prohibits the use of funds in the bill for embassy security, construction, and

maintenance. (p. H1482, H1486)

Approved (258170)

Tancredo

Prohibits the use of funds in the bill for tsunami relief. (p. H1479)

Rejected (voice)

Weiner

Prohibits the use of funds in the bill for aid to Saudi Arabia. (p. H1484, H1487)

Rejected (196231)

Weiner

Prohibits the use of funds in the bill for the Palestinian Authority and for West Bank

and Gaza projects. (p. H1497)

Rejected (voice)

Congress appropriated $1 billion in the FY2003 Emergency Supplemental (P.L. 108-11) that could be used by

Turkey to guarantee loans of about $8.5 billion to bolster its ailing economy. With substantial economic recovery

during the past two years, Turkey has not drawn on the $1 billion loan guarantee funds.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Sponsor

Purpose/Congressional Record page reference

Status

Kelly

Prohibits funds for aid to the Nigerian government. (p. H1489)

Withdrawn

Senate Consideration

The Senate passed its version of H.R. 1268 on April 21, providing $5.74 billion in new

appropriations for foreign policy activities, a level about $350 million less than the President’s

request, but over $800 million more than passed the House. Like the House, the Senate version of

H.R. 1268 offset the foreign policy total by rescinding $1 billion in FY2003-enacted economic

aid for Turkey, bringing the “net” amount down to $4.74 billion. But unlike the House, the Senate

measure designated the entire foreign policy portion as an “emergency” appropriation. The Senate

considered over 20 amendments related to foreign policy items in the supplemental, altering the

Committee-reported bill in several key ways.

In particular, the Senate, in adopting two amendments offered by Senator Byrd and Senator

Ensign, shifted about $550 million from international peacekeeping and Iraq and Afghanistan

mission operations to bolster U.S. border security. Conversely, the Senate added $320 million in

food assistance to provide additional resources for humanitarian crisis in Darfur and elsewhere,

and to replenish food aid accounts which had previously been diverted for emergency purposes.

Eight amendments were approved concerning tsunami-affected countries, including a provision

allowing up to $45 million, as requested, debt deferral or rescheduling. Among other

amendments, the Senate:

•

fully funded the request for the State Department’s Office of the Coordinator for

Reconstruction and Stabilization and for the ready-response corps, offset by a

reduction for the Global War on Terrorism Partners Fund;

•

added $5 million for democracy programs in Lebanon, offset by a further

reduction in the Partners Fund;

•

added $20 million in aid to Haiti; and

•

designated $90.5 million in peacekeeping funds for Darfur.

The Senate rejected one amendment—by Senator Coburn—that would have reduced funding for

the U.S. embassy in Iraq from $592 million, as proposed by the Committee, to $106 million. See

Table 9 for further information on other amendments.

Table 9. Foreign Policy Amendments: Senate Floor

Sponsor

Purpose/Congressional Record page reference

Status

McConnell

(No. 402)

Adds aid to combat the avian flu virus to the purposes for which the Tsunami Recovery

& Reconstruction Fund can be used. (p. S3542)

Approved

(UC)

Obama

(No. 422)

Makes mandatory a $25 million “soft”earmark for programs to prevent the spread of

the avian influenza virus (p. S3619)

Approved

(UC)

Leahy

(No. 404)

Broadens the provision for using $5 million for environmental recovery activities in all

tsunami-affected countries (p. S3542)

Approved

(UC)

Leahy

Makes obligations from the Tsunami Recovery & Reconstruction Fund subject to

Approved

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Sponsor

Purpose/Congressional Record page reference

Status

(No. 405)

congressional notification five days in advance of obligation. (p. S3542)

(UC)

McConnell

(No. 491)

Permits up to $45 million for costs associated with the deferral and rescheduling of

debt owed by tsunami-affected countries. (p. S3811)

Approved

(UC)

Landrieu

(No. 414)

Earmarks $25 million to assist children and others in tsunami-affected countries. (p.

3993-95)

Approved

(UC)

Durbin

(No. 489)

Provides $10 million for programs creating new economic opportunities for women in

tsunami-affected countries. (p. S 4000)

Approved

(UC)

Bennett

(No. 425)

Provides $20 million for microcredit programs in tsunami-affected countries. (p. S4001)

Approved

(UC)

Lugar

(No. 403)

Increases the amount available to the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction &

Stabilization to $17.2 million (as requested); offsets this amount by reducing funds for

the GWT Partners Fund (p. S3542)

Approved

(UC)

Salazar

(No. 370)

Adds $5 million for democracy programs in Lebanon; offsets this amount by reducing

funds for the GWT Partners Fund (p. S3619)

Approved

(UC)

Leahy

(No. 423)

Makes certain State Department funds appropriated for FY2005 subject to

reprogramming. (p. S3619)

Approved

(UC)

Leahy

(No. 492)

Sense of the Senate regarding the restoration of democracy in Nepal (p. S3811)

Approved

(UC)

Leahy

(No. 548)

Encouraging Ecuador to protect the biodiversity of the Galapagos. (p. S3881)

Approved

(UC)

Kohl

(No. 380)

Increases from $150 million to $470 million food aid. (p. S3966-68; S3970)

Approved

(UC)

Corzine

(No. 368)

Earmarks $90.5 million of Contributions to Int’l Peacekeeping for peacekeeping &

humanitarian aid in Darfur. (p. S4080)

Approved

(UC)

Corzine/

Brownback

(No. 517)

To impose sanctions against perpetrators of crimes against humanity in Darfur. (p.

S4005-07)

Approved

(UC)

Leahy

(No. 493)

Provides $5 million to assist families & communities of Afghan civilians who have

suffered losses due to military operations. (p. S4000)

Approved

(UC)

DeWine

(No. 342)

Provides $20 million for aid programs in Haiti. (p. S4001)

Approved

(UC)

Byrd

(No. 516)

Provides $390 million for U.S. border security; reduces from $767 million to $358

million funds for U.S. mission operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. (p. S3983-84; S3988)

Approved

(65-34)

Ensign

(No. 487)

Adds $147 million for U.S. border patrol agents; reduces Contributions to Int’l

Peacekeeping by $147 million. (p. S4079, S4084, S4087)

Approved

(UC)

Coburn

(No. 471)

Reduces from $592 million to $106 million funds for the U.S. embassy in Iraq. (p.

S3971-76; S3981; S3984-85)

Tabled

(54-45)

Key Provisions in Conference, House, and Senate Bills

Major recommendations included in H.R. 1268 as agreed to by conferees, and previously passed

by the House and Senate, include:

•

Afghanistan reconstruction and police training—$1.78 billion, $262 million less

than requested. This level fell between the House-passed measure ($1.4 billion)

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

and the Senate ($2.05 billion). The conference agreement further fully funds

counter-narcotics activities, but reduces policy training by $40 million.

•

Darfur humanitarian aid—at least $238 million, roughly the amount proposed by

the President. The conference agreement, however, adds $90 million in food aid

world-wide, some of which might be available for Darfur, and permits the

transfer of $50 million in support of African Union peacekeeping operations in

the region. The House measure had increased the funding level for Darfur to

$342.4 million. The Senate version approved $242 million, as requested, but

added an additional $320 million in food assistance, some of which could be used

in Darfur, and $90 million that could have been transferred to meet humanitarian

and peacekeeping needs.

•

Sudan peace implementation aid—$37 million, as had been included in the

House measure. Conferees delete $63 million in rehabilitation and reconstruction

funding. The Senate bill had included the entire $100 million request.

•

Palestinian aid—$200 million, as requested and passed in earlier House and

Senate votes. The conference measure sets aside $50 million, similar to the

Senate version, for Israel to help facilitate the movement of Palestinian people

and goods in and out of Israel. Conferees recommended that none of the funds be

available for direct financial support to the Palestinian Authority.

•

Pakistan military aid—$150 million, as requested.

•

Jordan economic and military aid—$200 million, as requested.

•

Iraq embassy—$592 million, $66 million below the request. This is the same

level as in the Senate bill, while the House measure included an amendment that

baring the use of the funds for construction of the embassy.

•

Peacekeeping—$680 million, $100 million below the request. The conference

amount is higher than both the House ($580 million) and Senate ($442 million).

The Senate figure could have been reduced further due to an authority to transfer

$90.5 million for African Union peacekeeping support in Darfur and

humanitarian needs in that region.

•

Tsunami relief and prevention—$656 million for relief and $25.4 million for

prevention, the same as in the Senate bill. The House-passed amount was slightly

higher. The conference agreement provides authority (but not the $45 million

requested) to defer and reschedule debt owed by tsunami-affected countries. The

House bill had not granted such authority.

•

Partners Fund and Solidarity Fund—No funds are provided for the Partners Fund

($200 million proposed), while the full $200 million request for the Solidarity

Fund is included. In addition, the conference agreements adds $30 million for

other Global War on Terror security assistance, as determined by the President.

The House had denied all funding for these purposes, while the Senate approved

$225.5 million for the two contingency funds.

•

Ukraine aid—$60 million, as requested and including in the Senate measure. The

House had approved $33.7 million. In addition, similar to the Senate, the

conference agreement provides $10 million for other regional aid requirements in

Belarus and the North Caucusas.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

•

Haiti assistance—$20 million, of which $2.5 million for criminal case

management, case tracking, and the reduction of pre-trial detention in Haiti,

similar to the Senate position. The $20 million had not been requested or

included by the House.

•

Iraqi families and communities affected by military operations—$20 million for

civilians who have suffered losses due to military activities, similar to a Senateadded provision. These funds will be drawn from the $18.44 billion appropriated

in P.L. 108-106, the FY2004 emergency supplemental for Iraq reconstruction.

Each of these elements and others are discussed in more detail below. Table 10 (below)

summarizes the spending request.

U.S. Diplomatic and USAID Operations in Iraq

The supplemental request included a total of $1.37 billion for U.S. Mission operations in

Baghdad ($690 million), the construction of a new embassy compound ($658 million), USAID

operating expenses in Iraq ($24 million) and USAID Inspector General costs in Iraq ($2.5

million).

For U.S. Mission operations and embassy construction, the supplemental funds are intended to

cover costs for the balance of FY2005 and most expenses in FY2006. Previously, Congress

appropriated in several spending measures $991 million for Mission operations for FY2004 and

FY2005, of which $769 million remained for this year. The Administration estimates that the

State Department will need $1.06 billion in FY2005 to manage activities of about 1,000 American

personnel located in Bagdad and four regional offices. The State Department sought $290 million

for Mission operations, including logistics and security, for the rest of FY2005, and $400 million

for “extraordinary” security and logistical expenses in FY2006. The regular FY2006 budget,

submitted to Congress on February 7, 2005, includes $65 million that will serve as a “funding

base for basic embassy operations” and assumes that the U.S. Mission in Baghdad will reach a

“basic operations” status at some point in the future.68

The State Department plans to build the new embassy over the next 24 months and argues that it

needs the entire funding now so Mission staff can move out of temporary facilities as quickly as

possible as promised to the new Iraqi government. The $658 million sought represents the entire

estimated construction costs, plus “reasonable” contingency amounts to manage possible risks of

the project. According to the Department, planning for the new embassy would be completed by

March 15, 2005, with an anticipated contract award date of mid-May 2005, subject to passage of

the supplemental. Under this time schedule, the project would be completed in May 2007.69

Critics note, however, that Congress has already appropriated about $20 million in previous

supplementals specifically for construction of the embassy. Moreover, they say, plans for a new

facility were far enough along in calendar 2004 that the Administration should have amended its

FY2005 regular appropriation request to accommodate the sizable funding additions needed for

Department of State, FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations Financial Plan, February 2005, pp. 21-22; and remarks

of Joe Bowab and Eric Hembree, Deputy Assistant Secretaries of State for Resource Management, during a State

Department news briefing, February 14, 2005.

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations Financial Plan, pp. 25-29.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

embassy construction. To them, the proposal does not meet the test of an “emergency”

requirement. 70

Congressional Action

The conference agreement on H.R. 1268 provides $690 million for Iraq Mission operations and

USAID operating and IG costs, $27 million less than requested. Conferees further settled on $592

million for construction of a new embassy in Baghdad, a level $66 million below the request.

Conferees added a $250,000 earmark for a contribution to a scholar-rescue program that would

bring Iraqi and Afghan scholars, whose lives are threatened in their home countries, to the United

States and place them in host universities.

The matter of funding for a U.S. embassy in Baghdad was one of the most contentious elements

of the supplemental debate. Initially, the House Appropriations Committee had recommended a

reduction of $66 million for embassy construction (the same as in the conference agreement),

stating that even with this cut, remaining funds would be sufficient for the compound to be

constructed within the Administration’s two-year schedule. During floor debate, however, the

House adopted (258-170) an amendment by Representative Upton, prohibiting the use of any

funds in the bill for embassy security, construction, or maintenance. Supporters of the amendment

argued that since planning for a new Baghdad facility had been underway for at least a year, this

should not be funded as an emergency requirement. Instead, the Administration should have

submitted a proposal for consideration in the regular FY2005 appropriation or requested funds in

the regular FY2006 spending measure. Before adoption of the Upton amendment, the White

House had expressed concern over the Committee’s $66 million cut for embassy construction.

Officials argued that full funding of the $658 million request was important for a “secure work

and living environment for Americans serving in Baghdad,” and that construction postponement

would delay the movement of U.S. staff into “more safe, secure, and functional facilities.”71

The Senate supported State Department construction plans for a graduated design that could be

scaled back as requirements in Baghdad change. The $592 million provided—$66 million less

than the request—was, in the Committee’s view, sufficient given reduced mission staffing levels.

During floor debate, the Senate tabled (54-45) an amendment by Senator Coburn that would have

reduced funding for the embassy to $106 million, an amount that supporters of the amendment

argued was needed immediately, but contended that the balance could be addressed in regular

appropriation bills.

H.R. 1268, as passed in the Senate, also cut funds for State Department operating costs in Iraq

and Afghanistan. A floor amendment by Senator Byrd set funding for diplomatic and consular

programs at $357.7 million, about $400 million below the President’s request for both missions.

This reduction came as an offset to fund additional U.S. border security needs in the Byrd

amendment.

For further information, see CRS Report RS21867, U.S. Embassy in Iraq.

OMB, Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1268. March 15, 2005, p. 2.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Afghanistan Reconstruction, Counternarcotics,

Police Training, and Other Activities

The supplemental proposed $2.046 billion for Afghanistan out of foreign policy budget

accounts.72 By comparison, enacted FY2005 appropriations for economic, law enforcement, and

security assistance to Afghanistan total about $1 billion, and between $1 billion and $1.1 billion is

proposed for FY2006. The Administration argues that the supplemental is necessary in order to

support the newly elected Karzai government plan for the upcoming Parliamentary elections and

to complete high impact projects that could be done in the near term.73 The supplemental funds

for Afghanistan are divided into several components.

•

U.S. Mission operations and security—$60 million.

•

Infrastructure and economic development—$795.8 million. These funds would

be used to continue ESF-funded secondary road construction ($125 million),

power transmission and generation capacity ($300 million), health sector reforms

and services ($69 million), school construction and teacher training ($68

million), Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) infrastructure ($75 million),

clean water and agriculture projects ($82 million), and other reconstruction

activities.

•

Capacity-building of the Afghan government, including strengthening democratic

institutions—$265 million. This would cover government salaries, infrastructure,

support for parliamentary elections, and other rule of law and democracy

promotion activities. Included is $25 million to complete the Kabul airport.

•

Anti-terrorism training and protection—$17.1 million for providing security for

President Karzai. Congress approved $18.8 million in the regular FY2005

Foreign Operations appropriations for similar programs funded under the NonProliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR) account

for Afghanistan. For FY2006, the State Department seeks an additional $18.4

million for NADR account activities.

•

Police training—$400 million. These funds are intended to accelerate on-going

efforts that will be expanded further by FY2006 requested appropriations.

Activities include Task Force Police training ($285 million), police equipment

($74 million), and salary payments ($40 million).

•

Counternarcotics (eradication and interdiction)—$260 million. Of this total, $95

million would cover costs already incurred to begin crop eradication, establish a

National Interdiction Unit, and support public information programs. The balance

of $165 million would expand efforts for eradication ($89 million), interdiction

($51 million), law enforcement ($22 million), and public information ($3

million). Authority is also sought to transfer up to $46 million of the amount to

ESF programs, presumably in support of alternative livelihood activities.

Elsewhere, in the DOD portion of the supplemental, the Administration sought $1.285 billion to assist Afghan

security forces and an additional $257 million for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities in Afghanistan and

Central Asia. Furthermore, there was $7.6 million requested for Drug Enforcement Agency participation in U.S.

counternarcotics activities in Afghanistan.

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations Financial Plan, p. 1.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

•

Counternarcotics (alternative livelihood programs)—$248.5 million. A portion

($139 million) of this amount would replenish reconstruction and development

aid accounts that had been drawn on previously to address alternative livelihood

activities. The balance ($110 million) would be used to expand programs into a

total of seven provinces.

In total, including Defense Department and DEA accounts, the FY2005 supplemental sought

$773 million for counternarcotics in Afghanistan and Central Asia.

Congressional Action

Conferees approved $1.78 billion for Afghan programs covering U.S. mission costs,

reconstruction, counter-narcotics, police training, and security for President Karzai.74 This level is

about mid-way between Senate ($2.05 billion, the same as the request) and House ($1.4 billion)

amounts. The conference measure redistributes the funds differently than had been requested.

U.S. mission operations, counter-narcotics activities, and President Karzai’s security detail are

fully funded, while conferees reduced police training from $400 million to $360 million. The

most debated element of the Afghanistan request was the portion for economic reconstruction.

The conference measure trims about $220 million of the President’s $1.1 billion request, finding

that some projects did not fit the “emergency” nature of the supplemental. The conference level,

however, assumes full funding for health programs and expenses of provisional reconstruction

teams. Conferees recommend $5 million for women-led NGOs in Afghanistan and $5 million for

displaced persons, as provided by the Senate, and earmarks $2.5 million to assist families and

communities of Afghan civilians who have suffered losses due to military operations. The Senate

bill had included a $5 million earmark for this purpose.

In earlier action, the House-passed bill rejected $46 million for aerial eradication efforts and

denied funding for several reconstruction projects, including money for the Kabul Airport, a new

law school in Kabul, a power plant, industrial parks, a courthouse, and a community housing

project. Some of the projects, the House Appropriations Committee noted, will be reviewed

during consideration of the regular FY2006 Foreign Operations appropriations. In its report on

H.R. 1268, the Committee said that it expected that some of these projects could be financed by

other countries, the Asian Development Bank, and the World Bank.

The Senate measure shifted $46.5 million of the request from operation and maintenance (O &

M) of a helicopter fleet to eradicate illicit crops to a pilot program to train local Afghan police

forces. The Committee noted in its report that an earlier reprogramming proposal for procuring

the helicopters had been denied, making the O & M funds unnecessary.

Sudan North-South Peace Support

The Administration requested $100 million for immediate support of the January 9, 2005

Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the government in Khartoum and the Sudan People’s

Liberation Movement in the south. In justifying the request, the State Department noted that when

In the DOD portion of H.R. 1268, conferees approved an additional $1.285 billion for Afghan security forces and

$242 million for DOD drug interdiction activities in Afghanistan. Conferees further included $7.6 million for DEA

programs in Afghanistan and Central Asia.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

FY2005 appropriation decisions were finalized, a peace accord was uncertain. The supplemental

programs, officials said, would help ensure that the peace agreement is effectively implemented. 75

Most of the supplemental proposal targeted needs in southern Sudan. The proposal included $22

million for assisting the National Commissions required under the peace accords and supporting

governance and political party development, $10 million for security sector reform in southern

Sudan, $63 million for rehabilitation and reconstruction, primarily in southern Sudan, and $5

million for UNHCR, International Organization for Migration, and NGO repatriation programs

for Sudanese refugees. The $100 million total supplemental requested for Sudan compares with

about $200 million allocated for all activities in FY2005 and $112 million proposed for FY2006.

The supplemental proposal for Sudan also reflects a new initiative proposed more broadly in the

regular FY2006 budget request for post-conflict, fragile countries. The Administration

recommends shifting assistance that has traditionally been channeled through USAID’s

Development Assistance account to the Transition Initiative (TI) account. TI funds are available

under more flexible programming authorities than regular development assistance, and according

to the Administration, will permit more effective and better targeted types of support that postconflict states require in the near-term. Four countries—Sudan, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and

Haiti—are scheduled for this funding transfer in the FY2006 request. Included in the $100

million, the supplemental proposal also seeks $63 million for Sudan rehabilitation and

reconstruction under the TI account.

Congressional Action

While fully supporting the requests for security, governance, and refugee repatriation programs,

the conference agreement, like the House-passed bill, does not include $63 million for

reconstruction programs in southern Sudan. The Senate measure provided the full $100 million

requested for programs related to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.76

Darfur Region and Eastern Chad

The supplemental sought $242 million for emergency humanitarian relief for the Darfur region of

Sudan and for eastern Chad. These funds would add to the roughly $375 million currently

allocated or planned for emergency programs with existing FY2005 funds. As the crisis worsened

throughout 2004, the demands for a broader U.S. response exceeded those assumed in the

FY2005 budget request, according to the Administration. The supplemental request included

$48.4 million in refugee aid, $44 million for both replenishing previously expended disaster relief

funds and meeting new emergency shelter, clean water, and medical requirements in the region,

and $150 million in food aid. The food aid request was intended to relieve some of the current

pressure on the enacted FY2005 food assistance budget in meeting not only the needs in Darfur,

but in a number of crisis situations around the world.

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations Financial Plan, p. 6.

The Senate bill, however, directed that $2.5 million of the $63 million in Transition Initiative funds be used for the

management of criminal cases, case tracking, and the reduction of pre-trial detention in Haiti.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

Congressional Action

Conferees approved at least $238 million for Darfur-related support (roughly the level requested),

although this total could climb if the Administration decides to allocate additional food aid to the

region or transfer peacekeeping funds for the African Union’s operation in Darfur. The conference

agreement adds $90 million in food aid that can be used globally to address emergency shortfalls.

Some of this additional amount could be used in Darfur if the situation warrants. The Senate bill

had added more—$320 million—in food assistance, amounts that also could be used worldwide,

including Darfur. Conferees also permit the transfer of $50 million in support of African Union

peacekeeping operations in the region. These funds would be drawn from the State Department’s

assessed U.N. peacekeeping account from which U.S. contributions might be drawn for a U.N.

mission in Darfur.

Previously, the House-passed supplemental added $100 million—for a total of $342.4 million—to

the Administration’s request for humanitarian assistance to the Darfur region. The initial House

Committee draft bill had provided $92.4 million. During Appropriations Committee markup, the

House panel voted 32-31 to approve an amendment by Representative Jackson to restore $150

million in food assistance that had been requested but not made part of the Chairman’s draft bill.

Earlier, however, the Committee had rejected (29-30) a more expansive amendment by

Representative Jackson that would have provided the additional food aid, plus $100 million for

more refugee and disaster relief in the Darfur region. Subsequently, during debate on March 15,

the House adopted by voice vote an amendment by Representative Jackson adding the same $100

million for Darfur that had been rejected in Committee.

H.R. 1268, as passed in the Senate, provided $242.4 million directly for humanitarian aid for the

Darfur region and eastern Chad, the same as the request. In addition, two floor amendments could

have pushed this figure higher. As noted above, an amendment by Senator Kohl added $320

million in food assistance for Darfur and to meet other emergency and non-emergency food aid

needs around the world. A second amendment by Senator Corzine made available $90.5 million

out of the Contributions to International Peacekeeping account specifically for Darfur. Of this

total, $50 million could be transferred to support African Union peacekeeping activities in the

region, while $40.5 million could be transferred for additional humanitarian relief needs in

Darfur.

Global War on Terrorism-Related Programs

The Administration proposed $750 million in direct aid for Jordan, Pakistan, and other coalition

partners in the war on terrorism, some of which has been challenged for representing an openended contingency resource that lacks sufficient controls and congressional oversight.

•

Jordan economic and military aid—$200 million. These funds, which would be

evenly split between economic and military aid, are justified as necessary to help

Jordan offset the costs of hosting Iraq training initiatives, address increasing

threats from Iraqi insurgents and problems on the Syrian and Saudi borders, and

high oil prices. 77 The supplemental package would come on top of $452 million

already appropriated for Jordan in the regular FY2005 appropriation and $456

million requested for FY2006.

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations Financial Plan, p. 4.

Congressional Research Service

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities

•

Pakistan military aid—$150 million. As part of a multi-year, $3 billion

Presidential aid pledge to Pakistan, the Administration requested in the regular

FY2005 appropriation $700 million for Pakistan, $300 million of which would

support military activities. Congress directly appropriated $148.8 million (post

rescission) of the military aid request and authorized the President to draw an

additional $150 million from prior

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.