# FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and Other Activities > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL32783 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** May 12, 2005 - **Citation:** RL32783 ## 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 4 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. 1 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 1 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 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 0.23 0.23 0.23 Train and Equip Afghan Security Forces 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 Train and Equip Iraqi Security Forces 5.70 5.70 5.70 5.70 [Support for Allies]a [2.00] [1.50] [1.97] [NA] [Army and Marine Corps Restructuring]b [5.30] [5.30] [5.30] [5.30] 2 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. 3 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). 4 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. 5 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 2 FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities Department/Category Request House Senate Passed 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 0.00 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 0.66 0.66 Aid to partners in global war on terrorism 0.75 0.35 0.58 0.58 Palestinian aid g 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Other peacekeeping and foreign aid 0.88 0.62 0.61 0.91 Rescission prior foreign aid appropriations -.- (1.00) (1.00) (1.00) 0.79 0.64 1.70 1.39 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.08 Immigration and Customs/Border security -.- -.- 0.81 0.64 Coast Guard 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Dept of Justice: FBI, BATF, IG, US Marshals 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.23 DEA—Afghanistan 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Tsunami warning system 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 Director of National Intelligence (DNI) 0.25 0.25 0.25 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 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. a. Includes funds for coalition support for Jordan, Pakistan, and other countries aiding in the global war on terror, plus “lift and sustain” funds for unspecified allies. Congressional Research Service 3 FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Activities b. Total cost of Army modularity and Marine Corps restructuring, primarily procurement of equipment for new units; costs are included in the relevant appropriation title. c. Includes funds for military construction to support Army and Marine Corps restructuring. d. Sec. 1033 rescinds $50 million; Sec. 1035 provides an additional $50 million for classified programs. e. 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. f. Excludes $250 million in non-foreign policy funds. g. 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 4 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 6 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. 8 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). 7 Congressional Research Service 5 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 9 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 6 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 10 For more information, see CRS Report RL32621, U.S. Immigration Policy on Asylum Seekers by (name redacted). For more information, see CRS Report RL32621, U.S. Immigration Policy on Asylum Seekers by (name redacted). 12 See Congressional Record, April 20, 2005, pp. S3966, 3983, 3988, 4079, 4084. 11 Congressional Research Service 7 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 8 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 9 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 13 See exchange between Representative Kolbe and Secretary Rice during the February 16, 2005, hearing of the House Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee. 14 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 10 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 15 Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2006 Analytical Perspectives, February 2005, p. 239; http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/spec.pdf. 16 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 11 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. 17 See H.Rept. 109-16, p. 6. Congressional Research Service 12 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. 18 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 13 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. 19 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. 21 See H. Rept. 109-72, “request for Future Funding for Military Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq,” 20 22 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 14 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 23 See Sec. 1012 and Sec. 1013 of H.Rept. 109-72 in Congressional Record, May 3, 2005, p. H2817. Congressional Research Service 15 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 24 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. 26 Congressional Record, p. S3786ff. 27 Congressional Record, April 19, p. S3891-3892. 28 For a complete list of amendments, see “Bill Status with Amendments” for H.R. 1268 on http://www.congress.gov. 25 Congressional Research Service 16 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 17 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 29 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.” 30 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 18 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 31 CBO, Estimate of War Spending, FY2005-FY2015, February 1, 2005, available online at http://www.cbo.gov/ ftpdocs/60xx/doc6067/02-01-WarSpending.pdf. 32 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. 33 New York Times, “Rumsfeld Sees an Iraq Pullout in Four Years,” December 7, 2004. 34 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. 35 CBO, Letter to Senator Thad Cochran, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, March 4, 2005, p. 1. 36 Sec. 1024 in H.R. 1268, Congressional Record, p. H2818 Congressional Research Service 19 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. 37 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. 38 Congressional Research Service 20 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. 39 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). 40 DOD, FY2005 Justification, p. 15. 41 Data from the Defense Manpower Data Center. Congressional Research Service 21 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 0.7 0.9 0.2 Fuel price increase 0.0 1.0 3.5 2.5 Working Capital Fundsa 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.4 Morale/ Welfare/ Recreation 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.3 Classified/Other Global War on Terrorismb 6.3 1.8 8.0 6.2 Investment Costs 3.0 2.6 17.8 15.2 Military Constructionc 0.5 0.0 1.1 1.1 Replacing battle losses 0 0.0 1.8 1.8 Recapitalization and Procurement 2.2 2.6 9.5 6.6 Army Modularityd 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 Marine Corps Force Structure Review Grp 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 Storm Damage Repair 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Support to Other Nations 2.0 1.1 11.5 10.4 [Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, security costs funded in foreign operations] [5.0] 0.0 0.0 0.0 Iraq Security Fund 0.0 0.0 5.7 5.7 Commanders Emergency Response Fund [legislative cap] [. ] 0.4 0.7 0.3 Train and Equip: Backfill 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 CPA Operating Costs/Iraq Project and Contracting Office NA 0.0 0.3 0.3 [Military Aid training of security forces funded in foreign ops] [.7] 0.0 0.0 0.0 Afghan Security Fund 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 Commanders Emerg. Response Program 0.1 0.1 0.0 Train and Equip: Backfill 0.3 0.3 0.0 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 0.5 Coalition Support (Includes Lift &Sustain) 1.9 0.0 2.0 2.0 Special Operations Forces Ctr in Jordan 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Congressional Research Service 22 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 0.2 65.2 24.9 99.8 74.9 FY2005 Already Enacted in Title IX NA 24.9 -24.9 NA FY2005 New Request NA NA 74.9 74.9 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: a. Excludes fuel price increase. b. Includes both procurement and O&M funds. c. Excludes military construction for modularity. d. Includes military construction associated with modularity. 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 42 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. 43 House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 109-16, March 11, 2005, p. 12. 44 DOD, FY2005 Justification, February 2005, p. 15; http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/ fy2005_supp.pdf. Congressional Research Service 23 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 45 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. 46 Senate Armed Services Committee, transcript, Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget, February 17, 2005, p.78. 47 Senate Armed Services Committee, transcript, Hearing on Death Benefits for Survivors of Military Personnel, February 1, 2005. 48 Congressional Record, March 15, 2005, p. H1466. Congressional Research Service 24 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). 49 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. 50 U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 1413a (e) (2). Congressional Research Service 25 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. a. 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 51 This does not include classified programs funded in procurement for which no details are available. Congressional Research Service 27 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. 52 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 28 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 53 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. 54 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 55 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. 56 S.Rept. 109-52, p. 31. 57 S.Rept. 109-52, p. 31. 58 S.Rept. 109-52, p. 31. Congressional Research Service 29 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: 59 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. 61 Office of Management and Budget, FY2005 Emergency Supplemental Request, February 14, 2005. 60 Congressional Research Service 30 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). 62 Department of Defense, “Iraq/Afghanistan Security Forces: DoD’s FY05 Supplemental Request,” February 2005; and DOD, FY2005 Justification, February 2005, p. 78-79. 63 Senate Appropriations Committee, transcript, Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2005 Emergency Supplemental, February 16, 2005, p. 30-31. 64 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 31 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 65 Department of Defense, FY2005 Justification, p. 80-81. http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2005_supp.pdf. 66 House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 109-18, p. 12 and p. 14. Congressional Research Service 32 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 33 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 NA 3.800 10.785 6.985 6.985 6.985 6.985 Iraq Freedom Fund NA 3.800 3.800 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Afghan Security Forces Fund NA NA 1.285 1.285 1.285 1.285 1.285 Iraq Security Forces Fund NA NA 5.700 5.700 5.700 5.700 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 13.609 NA NA 1.542 1.542 1.542 Included above Included above Reserve Pers, Army 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 National Guard Personnel, Army 0.000 0.000 0.429 0.429 0.429 0.291 0.291 O&M, Army: Defense SC 29.908 13.550 30.817 17.201 17.366 16.768 16.980 NA NA 0.066 0.066 0.066 Included above Included above O&M, Army Reserve 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.021 0.026 O&M, Army Nat’l Gd 0.000 0.000 0.189 0.189 0.189 0.327 0.327 Aircraft Proc, Army 0.000 0.000 0.459 0.459 0.459 0.459 0.459 Missile Proc, Army, 05/07 0.000 0.000 0.294 0.294 0.341 0.280 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 0.000 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.037 0.037 Mil Con, Army 0.090 0.000 0.990 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 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 0.000 0.009 0.009 0.011 0.009 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 0.000 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.124 O&M, Navy Reserve 0.000 0.000 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 Aircraft Proc, Navy 0.211 0.000 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 Weapons Proc, Navy 0.000 0.000 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.066 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 0.078 0.078 RDT&E, Navy 0.007 0.000 0.179 0.179 0.202 0.179 0.204 Mil Con, Navy 0.000 0.000 0.107 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 1.358 Reserve Personnel, MC 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL32783. Public record. Not legal advice.