# FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other International Activities; Additional Hurricane Katrina Relief > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL33298 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** June 15, 2006 - **Citation:** RL33298 ## Text Order Code RL33298 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other International Activities; Additional Hurricane Katrina Relief Updated June 15, 2006 Paul M. Irwin, Coordinator Specialist in Social Legislation Domestic Social Policy Division Larry Nowels, Coordinator Specialist in Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other International Activities; Additional Hurricane Katrina Relief Summary On February 16, 2006, the Administration submitted two separate FY2006 supplemental appropriations requests. The first, totaling $72.4 billion, would fund ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan ($67.9 billion), and State Department operations in Iraq and various foreign aid programs, including additional assistance for Iraq ($4.2 billion). The other supplemental would provide $19.8 billion for recovery and reconstruction activities in hurricane-affected Gulf Coast areas. Thus, Congress considered a combined spending proposal of $92.2 billion. For the military component of the supplemental, several issues arose in Congress, including whether DOD’s funding requests for training Afghan and Iraqi security forces were necessary in light of the pace of implementation, how to make transparent the DOD assumptions about military personnel levels for active-duty and reserve forces that underlie the request, whether DOD could better contain increases in operating costs, and whether DOD’s investment request financed peacetime as well as wartime needs. The supplemental proposal for international matters covered a range of activities that were either not addressed in the regular FY2006 appropriations, addressed circumstances that had changed since passage of the regular spending measures, or, like military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, have been largely funded through supplementals rather than incorporated into the “base” of annual, on-going diplomatic and aid operations. The request of $1.6 billion in Iraq stabilization assistance was the first sizable aid package for Baghdad since Congress approved $18.45 billion in the FY2004 emergency supplemental measure. Other foreign policy elements included funding for U.S. diplomatic costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, reconstruction aid for Afghanistan, democracy promotion programs for Iran, Darfur humanitarian relief and peace implementation aid in Sudan, Pakistan earthquake reconstruction, Liberia refugee repatriation, and food aid for Africa. For hurricane recovery, half the funds — $9.9 billion — were designated for the Department of Homeland Security, mostly for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Department of Housing and Urban Development would receive $4.4 billion, most of which would be used for community planning and development. DOD would receive $1.8 billion and the Army Corps of Engineers $1.5 billion, primarily to be used for flood control and coastal emergencies, procurement, and construction. The Small Business Administration would receive $1.3 billion for loans to homeowners, renters, and businesses. On March 17, 2006, the House passed a $91.95 billion supplemental appropriation measure (H.R. 4939; H.Rept. 109-388), $270 million less than requested by the Administration. On May 4, the Senate approved its version totaling $108.9 billion, $16.8 billion more than the request. Congress cleared on June 15 for the President’s signature a $94.5 billion supplemental package, $2.3 billion above the request. Key CRS Policy Staff Subject Name Telephone E-Mail Iraq Military Operations & International Affairs Supplemental: Coordinator for Iraq Military Operations & International Affairs Supplemental Larry Nowels 7-7645 lnowels@crs.loc.gov Department of Defense Amy Belasco 7-7627 abelasco@crs.loc.gov Iraq State Department Operations Susan B. Epstein 7-6678 sepstein@crs.loc.gov Iraq Reconstruction Curt Tarnoff 7-7656 ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov Afghanistan Kenneth Katzman 7-7612 kkatzman@crs.loc.gov Iran Kenneth Katzman 7-7612 kkatzman@crs.loc.gov Sudan/Darfur Ted Dagne 7-7646 tdagne@crs.loc.gov Pakistan K. Alan Kronstadt 7-5415 akronstadt@crs.loc.gov Coordinator for Hurricane Recovery Supplemental Paul M. Irwin 7-7573 pirwin@crs.loc.gov Agriculture Ralph Chite 7-7296 rchite@crs.loc.gov Army Corps of Engineers & Flood Control Nicole T. Carter 7-0854 ncarter@crs.loc.gov Community Development Block Grant, Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Eugene Boyd 7-8689 eboyd@crs.loc.gov Defense Operation and Maintenance, and Procurement, Department of Defense Amy Belasco 7-7627 abelasco@crs.loc.gov Education hurricane recovery programs Rebecca R. Skinner 7-6600 rskinner@crs.loc.gov Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Dept. of Homeland Security Keith Bea 7-8672 kbea@crs.loc.gov Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept. of the Interior M. Lynne Corn 7-7267 lcorn@crs.loc.gov Historic Preservation Fund Susan Boren 7-6899 sboren@crs.loc.gov Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program Libby Perl 7-7806 eperl@crs.loc.gov Military Construction Daniel H. Else 7-4996 delse@crs.loc.gov National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Wayne Morrissey 7-7072 wmorrissey@crs.loc.gov Small Business Administration (SBA), Disaster Loans Program N. Eric Weiss 7-6209 eweiss@crs.loc.gov Tenant-Based Rental Assistance, HUD Maggie McCarty 7-2163 mmccarty@crs.loc.gov Transportation John Frittelli 7-7033 jfrittelli@crs.loc.gov Veterans Affairs Sidath Viranga Panangala 7-0623 spanangala@crs.loc.gov Border Security Blas Nunez-Neto Jennifer Lake 7-0622 7-0620 bnunezneto@crs.loc.gov jlake@crs.loc.gov Port Security and the DP World Purchase John Frittelli James K. Jackson 7-7033 7-7751 jfrittelli@crs.loc.gov jjackson@crs.loc.gov Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Sarah A. Lister 7-7320 slister@crs.loc.gov Hurricane Recovery Supplemental: Contents Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Summary of Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Defense Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Conference Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Senate Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 House Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 International Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Conference Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 House Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Senate Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Hurricane Recovery and Other Domestic Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Conference Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 House Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Senate Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Border Security: Administration and Senate Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 American Port Security and the Dubai Ports World Operational Control of Six U.S. Terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Defense Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Potential Issues in DOD’s FY2006 Supplemental Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Afghan and Iraq Security Forces Funds: Obligations Slower Than Anticipated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Coalition Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP) . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Iraq Freedom Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 New Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Military Personnel Request and Visibility of Personnel Plans . . . . . . 31 Operation and Maintenance Funding Rises Substantially in FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Investment Funding Grows in FY2006 Without Clear Overall Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Research and Development Emphasizes Improvised Explosive Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Military Construction Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Flexibility Issues: Transfer Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Intelligence Community Management Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 International Affairs Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 U.S. Diplomatic Mission Operations in Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Iraq Stabilization Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Sudan — Darfur and Other Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Darfur Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 The North-South Peace Agreement and Aid for Non-Darfur Sudan . . 56 Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Other Foreign Assistance Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Hurricane Recovery and Disaster Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Department of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Small Business Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Disaster Loans Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Defense Department Supplemental for Repairs, Rebuilding, and Help for Shipbuilders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Who Should Pay for Higher Costs Due to Delays in Shipbuilding . . . 69 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Military Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Request for Increased Flexibility to Transfer Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Other Funding for Hurricane Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Federal Emergency Management Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Other DHS Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 National Park Service, Historic Preservation Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Other Interior Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Department of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Department of Veterans Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Medical Center, New Orleans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Department of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Department of Housing and Urban Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Community Development Block Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Other Departments and Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Department of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 National Aeronautics and Space Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Armed Forces Retirement Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 General Services Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Other Departments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Other Titles for Disaster and Related Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Pandemic Influenza Prevention and Preparedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Appendix A — Department of Defense FY2006 War-Related Supplemental Request and Prior Funding by Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 List of Tables Table 1. Summary of FY2006 Supplemental Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Table 2. War-Related Defense Amendments: Senate Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 3. War-Related Defense Amendments: House Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 4. International Amendments: House Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 5. International Amendments: Senate Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 6. Hurricane Recovery Amendments: House Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 7. Hurricane Recovery and Other Domestic Amendments: Senate Action on Selected Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 8. Defense Department War and Occupation Appropriations, FY2004-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 9. Average Monthly DOD Budget Authority for War and Occupation, FY2005 Enacted-Revised FY2006 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 10. Department of Defense FY2006 War-Related Bridge Supplemental and FY2006 War-Related Supplemental Request . . . . . . . . 27 Table 11. State Department and Foreign Aid Funds in FY2006 Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Table 12. Iraq Stabilization and State Department Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Table 13. Afghanistan Aid Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Table 14. Sudan Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Table 15. Pakistan Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Table 16. Summary of FY2006 Supplemental for Hurricane Recovery and Disaster Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Table 17. FY2006 Disaster Supplemental for Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Table 18. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Table 19. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for Small Business . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Table 20. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Table 21. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for the Army Corps of Engineers . 76 Table 22. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . 79 Table 23. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Table 24. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Table 25. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for Veterans Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Table 26. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Table 27. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental for HUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Table 28. FY2006 Hurricane Supplemental: Other Departments and Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other International Activities; Additional Hurricane Katrina Relief Most Recent Developments On June 15, the President signed H.R. 4939 (P.L. 109-234), legislation providing $94.52 billion in emergency supplemental spending for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, foreign assistance in support of the war on terror and other international crises, additional relief for victims of Gulf Coast hurricanes, and other matters. The Senate approved (98-1) the conference report (H.Rept. 109-494) also on June 15, while the House passed the measure on June 13 (351-67). The total supplemental is about $2.3 billion higher than the President’s request but within the limit the President said was acceptable in order to avoid a veto of the legislation. Previously, the House had approved a $91.95 billion supplemental, while the Senatepassed measure totaled $108.9 billion. The size of the Senate bill had prompted a veto threat from the White House. For war related costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, H.R. 4939 provides $65.86 billion, roughly the same level as requested. The enacted bill, however, is about $1.9 billion less than passed earlier by the House and Senate, a reduction that serves as an offset for the addition of $1.9 billion to fund the President’s border security initiative. The other major reduction to the Administration’s request is $1 billion less to train and equip Iraqi and Afghan security forces. The conference agreement includes $4.25 billion for foreign assistance and the State Department, including $3 billion for aid and U.S. mission operations in Iraq, $66 million for democracy programs in Iran, and $618 million for humanitarian support in Sudan. The overall foreign aid and State Department package is about the same as the President proposed, but the conference agreement reduces amounts for Iraq and Iran by about $215 million and $9 million, respectively. The bill, however, increases emergency aid for Darfur and southern Sudan by $104 million. The conference bill also drops a Senate provision that would have rescinded $47 million in previously appropriated economic aid for Egypt. H.R. 4939, as approved by conferees, provides $19.3 billion in additional relief for victims of Gulf Coast hurricanes. Included in this total is $5.2 billion for Community Development Block Grants, as passed in the Senate, and $1 billion more than the House and the request. The measure appropriates $3.7 billion for levee repair and flood control projects, a level about $300 million below the Senate, but slightly above the President’s amended proposal. The largest reduction in the hurricane relief portion of the supplemental is for FEMA. H.R. 4939 provides $6 CRS-2 billion for a variety of disaster recovery and relief activities, $1.2 billion less than the revised Administration request and $4.4 billion below the Senate level. Other major issues settled by conferees include: ! Border security — fully funds the President’s $1.9 billion amended request adding 1,000 new Border Patrol Agents and facilitating National Guard deployments along the southern border; ! Avian influenza preparedness — includes $2.3 billion to prepare for and respond to the threat of a possible pandemic outbreak. The Senate had approved $2.7 billion, an amount not requested by the Administration but the President said he would accept this congressional add-on; ! Agriculture drought assistance — provides $500 million for farmers in the Gulf Coast region affected by last year’s hurricanes. The Senate had proposed $3.9 billion. Overview On February 16, 2006, the Administration submitted two separate FY2006 supplemental appropriations requests. The first, totaling $72.4 billion, would fund ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan ($67.9 billion), non-DOD intelligence operations ($0.3 billion), State Department operations in Iraq and various foreign aid programs, including additional assistance for Iraq ($4.2 billion), and other counter-terrorism funding for other agencies ($12 million). The other supplemental would provide $19.8 billion for recovery and reconstruction activities in hurricaneaffected Gulf Coast areas. Subsequently, the White House revised its request on April 25, proposing an additional $2.2 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to assist in post-Katrina recovery efforts, an amount offset by a $2.2 billion reduction in funding requested for FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund. The President further revised his supplemental request on May 18, asking for $1.95 billion to support an enhanced border security initiative, a proposal offset with cuts to the original DOD supplemental recommendation. Thus, Congress considered a combined spending proposal of $92.2 billion, as shown in Table 1. The request for Iraq and Afghanistan military operations continued the Administration’s practice of funding these activities through supplementals rather than in regular DOD appropriations. Congress, however, did approve a $50 billion bridge fund for Iraq in P.L. 109-148, the Defense Department FY2006 appropriation, to cover early FY2006 costs of military spending until a supplemental could be considered by Congress and enacted. Thus, the total amount of existing and proposed appropriations for military and intelligence operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other global war on terrorism for FY2006, was $117.9 billion. This compared to about $99 billion approved for FY2005 and $67 billion for FY2004. CRS-3 The supplemental proposal for international matters covered a range of activities that were either not addressed in the regular FY2006 Foreign Operations and State Department appropriation measures (Darfur peacekeeping, Pakistan earthquake relief), where circumstances have changed since passage of the regular spending measures (Iran democracy promotion and various refugee and food crises), or have been largely funded through supplementals rather than incorporated into the “base” of annual, on-going diplomatic and aid operations (Iraq reconstruction and U.S. embassy support in Iraq). The request of $1.6 billion in stabilization assistance for Iraq was the first sizable aid package for Baghdad since Congress approved $18.45 billion in the FY2004 emergency supplemental measure. Further, the Administration seeks about $750 million for Iraq in its regular FY2007 Foreign Operations budget. The $19.8 billion for recovery and reconstruction in the Gulf Coast region follows enactment last year of two FY2005 supplementals of $10.5 billion (P.L. 109-61) and $51.8 billion (P.L. 109-62) for hurricane relief.1 Table 1. Summary of FY2006 Supplemental Request ($s — billions) Req.* House Senate Conf. Military ops: Iraq, Afghanistan, & Global War on Terror $65.92 $67.72 $67.67 $65.86 State Dept. & Foreign Aid $4.23 $4.06 $4.45 $4.25 Intelligence and other war on terror $0.44 $0.38 $0.39 $0.30 Hurricane relief and reconstruction $19.76 $19.11 $28.81 $19.34 Low Income Home Energy Assistance — $0.75 — — Agriculture & Drought Assistance — — $3.96 $0.50 Pandemic Influenza — — $2.59 $2.30 Port Security — — $0.65 — Border Security $1.95 — $1.90 Veterans Medical Services — — $0.43 — Other — — $0.03 $0.06 Defense Offset — — ($1.90) — TOTAL $92.22 $91.95 $108.90 $94.52 $1.90 Totals may not add because of rounding. Conference totals are estimates. * Request includes Administration revisions of April 25 and May 18, 2006. 1 Additional resources for hurricane victims have been made available through the (continued...) CRS-4 The President requested that the entire amount of both supplementals be considered “emergency” appropriations, a designation that would exempt the funds from any limitations contained in the FY2006 Budget Resolution. Nevertheless, the supplemental adds to the size of the U.S. budget deficit. The Administration did not seek any offsets from other previously approved spending that could have the effect of reducing the supplemental’s impact on the deficit, although revisions to the original request were offset with reductions in the initial supplemental proposal. Some Members argued that some or all of the supplemental appropriation should be off set. Especially as the size of the Senate version of the emergency supplemental grew during committee and floor consideration, calls for offsets or the removal of spending for matters other than the Iraq war or hurricane relief intensified. Some Senate-passed amendments included corresponding offsets for new spending items — such as the amendment by Senator Gregg to add funds for border security, with an equivalent reduction in Defense Department appropriations. But many did not. As noted elsewhere, despite not proposing any offsets to the original $92.2 billion request, President Bush said on several occasions that he would veto the legislation if the final version exceeded his proposal, although he would allow increases for pandemic influenza preparedness. Summary of Congressional Action As cleared for the President on June 15, H.R. 4939 provides $94.52 billion emergency supplemental spending for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, foreign assistance in support of the war on terror and other international crises, additional relief for victims of Gulf Coast hurricanes, and other matters. The House passed the conference agreement on June 13 (351-67) and the Senate on June 15 (981). The total supplemental is about $2.3 billion higher than the President’s request but within the limit the President said was acceptable in order to avoid a veto of the legislation. Previously, the House had approved a $91.95 billion supplemental, while the Senate-passed measure totaled $108.9 billion. The size of the Senate bill had prompted a veto threat from the White House. For war related costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, H.R. 4939 provides $65.86 billion, roughly the same level as requested. The conference agreement includes $4.25 billion for foreign assistance and the State Department, including $3 billion for aid and U.S. mission operations in Iraq, $66 million for democracy programs in Iran, and $618 million for humanitarian support in Sudan. The overall foreign aid and State Department package is about the same as the President proposed, but the conference agreement reduces amounts for Iraq and Iran by about $215 million and $9 million, respectively. H.R. 4939, as approved by conferees, provides $19.3 billion in additional relief for victims of Gulf Coast hurricanes. Included in this total is $5.2 billion for Community Development Block Grants, $3.7 billion for levee repair and flood control projects, and $6 billion for a variety of disaster recovery and relief 1 (...continued) Department of Homeland Security Disaster Relief Fund and through assumed tax savings for people affected by the disaster. See below for further discussion of complete hurricane recovery measures and funding. CRS-5 activities, $1.2 billion less than the revised Administration request and $4.4 billion below the Senate level. Other major issues settled by conferees include $1.9 billion for the President’s border security initiative, $2.3 billion for Avian influenza preparedness, and $500 million for farmers in the Gulf Coast region affected by last year’s hurricanes. In previous congressional action, on March 17 (H.R. 4939; H.Rept. 109-388), the House provided $91.95 billion in supplemental funds, $270 million less than the Administration’s request. The legislation reduced the defense portion of the supplemental by $137 million, cut international programs by $166 million, and Gulf Coast hurricane relief by $658 million. H.R. 4939 further made available in FY2006 $750 million for Low Income Home Energy Assistance that had previously been appropriated for FY2007. This action, which was not requested by the Administration, raised the total funding level of the bill. In addition to trimming the President’s proposal, the House-passed measure included a provision that would block the sale of operations at five American port terminals to the UAE-based Dubai Ports World. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 4939 increased the overall size of the legislation to $108.9 billion, $16.8 billion over the request and $17 billion higher than the House. The bill provided $67.7 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,2 and $4.45 billion for State Department and foreign assistance programs, roughly at the levels requested. The legislation further provided $28.8 billion for hurricane related expenses, about $9 billion more than proposed. The Senate also included several provisions unrelated to either military operations, international affairs, or hurricane reconstruction, including $2.3 billion for pandemic influenza preparedness, nearly $4 billion for agriculture disaster and economic assistance, $650 million for port security, and $1.9 billion for enhanced security at American borders that was offset with cuts for defense spending in the bill. President Bush threatened to veto the legislation because of the added spending, although the White House said it supported the pandemic influenza appropriation, and would accept a bill that did not exceed about $94.5 billion. During floor consideration, the Senate acted on several amendments that proposed to reduce various items in the bill, but in most cases the amendments were defeated, tabled, or withdrawn. For example, Senator Coburn submitted an amendment cutting 19 separate programs proposed by the Senate Appropriations Committee totaling over $2 billion. In individual votes, the Senate approved one element of the Coburn amendment — cutting $15 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service to implement seafood promotion strategies — but tabled an item that would have 2 The actual figure for Defense costs in Iraq and Afghanistan is something less than the $67.7 billion figure. During floor debate, the Senate passed an amendment by Senator Gregg providing $1.9 billion for border security operations, offset by a 2.775% unspecified cut in defense monies for both the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina. Because the Defense Department would have discretion to distribute the cut, it is not possible to say what the total for war costs in the Senate bill would be. If the entire reduction was applied to war expenditures, the Senate total could be as low as $65.8 billion, or as high as $67.6 billion if the reduction was taken exclusively from DOD hurricane damage funds. The total for war costs could also fall somewhere in between this high and low range. CRS-6 deleted $700 million to relocate a CSX freight rail line further inland from the Gulf Coast and defeated a proposal to delete Section 2303 that would broaden the Navy’s liability for higher shipbuilding costs associated with business disruption. Senator Coburn withdrew that remaining 16 divisions of his amendment. The Senate further rejected an amendment by Senator McCain reducing agriculture assistance by $74.5 million. The Senate also tabled an amendment by Senator Thomas that would have replaced the committee text of the bill with the President’s request, plus funding for pandemic influenza preparedness and border security (with offsets), thereby reducing the bill’s total cost to $94.5 billion, and an amendment by Senator Ensign that would have required the bill to be recommitted to the Appropriations Committee with instructions to report back legislation not exceeding $94.5 billion. Other amendments passed by the Senate are set out below in tables and discussed in detail. Defense Issues Conference Action. Conferees, following a Senate recommendation, cut $2 billion from the Administration’s defense request to finance border security needs. But unlike the Senate position, the conference agreement allocates those cuts to particular accounts. Most, but not all, of the cuts are taken from procurement as requested by the Administration, but conferees also reduced the amounts to train the Afghan and Iraq Security Forces by $1 billion. The Administration opposed this cut but conferees argued that DOD could not use all of the funding requested within the fiscal year. The conference agreement also adopts the Senate proposal to consolidate all funds to develop ways to defeat Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in a new Joint Improvised Explosive Defeat fund and gives DOD the authority to transfer those funds to individual accounts with a reporting requirement to Congress within 60 days of enactment, and then every 30 days thereafter, on how the funds will be spent. Since most of the funds for IEDs were requested in operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts, the conference version shows a lower total for O&M even though the conferees largely approved the service requests. In the case of war-related military construction, the conference agreement approves $235 million, deleting funds for several projects in Bagram, which OMB withdrew without explanation, and reducing funds for an IED bypass road in Iraq, the utility of which both houses questioned. Conferees expressed some frustration with the Administration’s actions in changing its mind about whether certain projects were truly emergencies.3 The enacted bill drops a Senate provision that prohibited construction of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq or U.S. control of Iraqi oil resources or infrastructure. 3 Congressional Record, June 8, 2006, p. H3613-p.H3614. CRS-7 In section 1213, conferees endorse the Senate’s resolution calling on the Administration to submit requests for war-related funds after FY2007 in the annual budget rather than in supplementals. Senate Action. During floor debate, the Senate passed the Gregg amendment (S.Amdt. 4939) which provided $1.9 billion for border security operations, construction and procurement offset by a 2.775% unspecified cut in defense monies for both the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina. Because the Defense Department would have discretion to distribute the cut, it was not possible to say what the total for war costs in the Senate bill would be. If the entire reduction was applied to war expenditures, the Senate total could be as low as $65.8 billion, or as high as $67.7 billion if the reduction was taken exclusively from DOD hurricane damage funds. The total for war costs could have also fallen somewhere in between this high and low range. The Senate appropriators also cut $207 million from the $67.9 billion request for war funds compared to a House cut of $137 million. Except for the Gregg amendment, the Senate bill, like the House, largely redistributed funds with increases being mainly offset by cuts. In addition to the Gregg amendment reduction, significant war-cost-related floor amendments considered in the Senate included: ! an amendment by Senator Byrd (S.Amdt. 3079), adopted 94 to 0, that as in previous supplementals, stated a sense of the Senate that, after FY2007, the Administration should submit requests for funds for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the regular budget covering the entire fiscal year and including detailed justification; ! an amendment by Senator Biden adopted by voice vote (S.Amdt. 3717 as modified by S.Amdt. 3855) that prohibited the use of any funds in the bill to establish permanent military bases in Iraq or exercise U.S. control over Iraq’s oil infrastructure or resources; a House amendment by Congresswoman Lee prohibited the use of funds to negotiate a basing agreement with the government of Iraq (see below). CRS-8 Table 2. War-Related Defense Amendments: Senate Action Sponsor Purpose/Congressional Record Page Reference Vote Gregg Added $1.9 billion for operating, procurement, and construction expenses for border security offset by a $1.9 billion cut to DOD’s monies for war and Gulf hurricane expenses (pp. S3532-S3542). Agreed 59-39 Coburn Deleted Section 2303 broadening Navy’s liability for higher shipbuilding costs associated with business disruption (pp. S3864-S3869). Rejected 48-51 Biden Prohibited use of funds to establish permanent military bases in Iraq or U.S. control of Iraqi oil or oil infrastructure (pp. S3937, S3942-S3943, S3948-S3949). Agreed voice vote Byrd Sense of the Senate that Administration should submit cost of military operations for Iraq and Afghanistan in the regular budget after FY2007. Agreed 94-0 ChamblissIsakson Required comprehensive DOD report on mortuary procedures. Agreed voice vote Warner Provided authority to heads of any federal agency to provide benefits equivalent to those of the Foreign Service to civilian personnel detailed to Iraq or Afghanistan. Agreed voice vote Durbin and others Provided that federal employees activated to serve in the military would receive pay equal to their civil service pay. Agreed voice vote Salazar Added requirement to cover training to reporting requirement on Improvised Explosive devices. Agreed voice vote The Senate bill also differed from the House bill because it: 4 ! reduced the $5.9 billion request to train, equip, and provide infrastructure to Afghan and Iraqi security forces to $5.6 billion — a more modest cut than the $4.8 billion House level — but added a proviso that no funds could be spent on infrastructure until “after the formation of the unified Iraqi government;”4 ! established a new $1.958 billion transfer fund, the “Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund,” that would centralize funds that are in three separate accounts in the request, with Congress to receive a spending plan within 90 days of enactment; ! added procurement funds to keep the Abrams tank modification line and the C-17 cargo aircraft lines open, accelerate V-22 production, and buy more Predator UAVs that would be largely offset by cuts to other programs; ! added military personnel funds for recruiting and retention incentives and for higher death benefits for service members who S.Rept. 109-230, p. 22. CRS-9 died between May 12 and August 1, 2005 who are made eligible in the bill; and ! cut $200 million from military construction projects in Afghanistan and Iraq, calling for projects to be limited to those that “immediately support operations,” and reducing funding for projects that could signal a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq. The Senate Committee also cited considerable concern about DOD’s procurement requests because of the lack of standard budget information on requirements and schedules. Like the House, the Senate Committee reduced DOD’s requested transfer limit from $4 billion to $2 billion. Otherwise, the Senate Committee basically approved the request. House Action. The House-passed supplemental reduced the Department of Defense’s $67.9 billion request for war costs by $137 million overall, but redistributed the funding among the various titles. The major changes made by the House were to: ! reduce the $5.9 billion request to train, equip and provide infrastructure for Afghan and Iraqi security forces by cutting $1 billion intended for infrastructure for police forces, citing inadequate justification; ! increase funds for procurement to $17.7 billion by adding $1.3 billion more primarily for upgraded tanks and HMMWVs; ! cut $600 million from Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funds, providing $32.1 billion, close to the request; ! increase military personnel funding by $340 million to $9.9 billion, largely to restore a cut to DOD’s regular FY2006 funding; and ! cut military construction by $162 million, reducing the total to $323 million by rejecting various projects. With the exception of these changes, the House measure largely approved the Department’s request. The House Appropriations Committee, however, placed a hold on spending for $990 million for military infrastructure for Afghan and Iraq security forces until DOD submits a detailed project level plan. The committee cut by half DOD’s requested ceiling on transfer authority to $2 billion and rejected the request to allow transfers to or from military construction accounts. Citing dissatisfaction with information provided by DOD, the House panel also required several additional reports. The committee further set a $3.571 billion floor on funding in the bill for National Guard and Reserve programs to prosecute the global war on terror (GWOT). During floor debate, the House considered several amendments affecting defense issues but none changed the $67.7 billion for the Department of Defense approved by the House Appropriations Committee. The House: CRS-10 ! agreed to an amendment by Representative Barbara Lee that would prohibit the United States from using funds in the act to enter into a basing agreement with the government of Iraq. Members focused on differences among statements by various Administration spokesmen about whether the United States would have permanent bases in Iraq.5 Although the United States does not currently have any basing agreements with Iraq, the Defense Department has invested about $746 million in military construction funding in Iraq, another $126 million in neighboring countries supporting the Iraq mission, and another $322 million in bases supporting both Iraq and Afghanistan.6 The House approved $225 million, cutting the DOD’s request by $123 million (see below). If the House level is approved, DOD would have invested about $1.1 billion in bases in or in support of the Iraq mission (not including bases supporting both Iraq and Afghanistan). Secretary Rumsfeld recently testified that some “30 U.S. military bases have been returned to Iraqi control or closed altogether.”7 ! agreed to an amendment by Representative Millender-McDonald to redirect Defense Health funding to training in orthotics and prosthetics. ! rejected (193 to 225) an amendment by Representative Waxman to prohibit the Army from spending any funds in the act with any contractor where the Defense Contract Audit Agency had judged to be unreasonable more than $100 million of contract costs. Supporters argued that new contracts should not be signed with contractors where auditors found unreasonable costs while others raised concerns about whether not renewing current contracts could disrupt the military’s logistical support.8 ! sustained a point of order against an amendment by Representative Kaptur that would set up a Truman type commission that would investigate government contracts for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan and relief and reconstruction contracts for Hurricane Katrina.9 5 Congressional Record, March 16, 2006, p. H1107ff. 6 CRS calculations based on appropriations reports and other sources. 7 Secretary Rumsfeld testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Hearing on Defense Authorization, February 7, 2006, transcript. 8 See Congressional Record, p. H1101-H1104. 9 See Congressional Record, p. H1098. CRS-11 Table 3. War-Related Defense Amendments: House Action Sponsor Purpose/Congressional Record Page Reference Vote Lee Prohibited using funds in act to enter into a basing rights agreement with Iraq government (pp. H1101-H1104). Agreed, voice vote MillenderMcDonald Redirected funding for Defense Health by $20 million to increase training for prosthetics and orthotics in U.S. schools (p. H1013). Agreed, voice vote Kaptur Set up a “Truman”-type House Commission to investigate government contracts for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan and Hurricane Katrina relief and reconstruction (pp. H1098-H1099). Point of order sustained Waxman Prohibited spending Army funds with any contractor if the Defense Contract Audit Agency has found that more than $100 million of costs are unreasonable (pp. H1101-H1104, and H1110-H1111). Rejected 193-225 International Issues Conference Agreement. As approved in the enacted bill, H.R. 4939 provides $4.25 billion for State Department and international assistance activities. This level is slightly higher ($26 million) than the President’s request, and about midway between levels previously approved by the House and Senate. Major changes from the executive’s request or versions passed by the House and Senate include: ! Iraq stabilization aid and U.S. mission support in Baghdad is set at $3.04 billion, roughly $200 million less than the request. Most of the reduction is for Provincial Reconstruction Team support; ! Iran democracy, broadcasting, and student exchange programs are funded at $66 million, midway between House and Senate levels and $9 million below the request; ! Darfur peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance receives $499 million, the same as the House and Senate but $110 million less than the request; ! Liberia economic aid totals $63.8 million, up from the $13.8 million request; ! Haiti receives $20 million, half the amount approved in the Senate. The House and request did not include funding for Haiti; and ! Jordan receives $50 million, less than the Senate level of $100 million. There was no request or funding in the House bill. CRS-12 House Action. In total, the House-passed measure cut the international portion of the supplemental to $4.1 billion, $66 million less than requested. In most cases where reductions were made, the House Appropriations Committee stated its view that the emergency nature of the requests were not fully justified and that the Committee will address the issues again when it considers the regular FY2007 appropriation proposal. Major items and changes to the Administration requests included: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! reductions in USAID security and operation costs in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan; cuts in security for Provisional Reconstruction Teams in Iraq, but full funding for other State Department operational costs in Iraq and Afghanistan; near-full funding for Iraq stabilization assistance, with the redirection of $26.3 million from some prison and judge security funds to counter-narcotics programs in Colombia; Substantial cuts in Afghan reconstruction and debt relief proposals; a reduction from $75 million to $56 million for democracy and related programs in Iran; full funding for southern Sudan and Darfur, plus an additional $110 million for peacekeeping operations in Darfur, for a total Sudan package of $618 million; full funding for Pakistan earthquake relief and emergency food refugee aid for Africa; an additional $50 million in economic aid for Liberia; and $26.3 million for the purchase of DC-3 aircraft for Colombian drug interdiction efforts. Table 4. International Amendments: House Action Sponsor Purpose/Congressional Record Page Reference Vote Shays Directed that $20 million of economic aid funds for Iraq be used for the Community Action Plan program (pp. H1016H1017). Agreed, voice vote Burton Redirected $26.3 million of Iraq funds for counter-narcotics activities in Colombia (pp. H1067-H1068). Agreed, 250-172 Capuano Increased by $50 million funds for peacekeeping operations in Darfur (p. H1068). Agreed, 213-208 Garrett Cut $5 million for public diplomacy programs in Iran (pp. H1069-H1070). Rejected, 75-344 Garrett Cut $5 million for education and cultural exchanges for Iranian students (p. H1070). Rejected, 78-343 Foxx Cut $36.1 million for broadcasting into Iran (pp. H1070H1071). Rejected, 88-333 CRS-13 Senate Action. As passed, the Senate version of H.R. 4939 largely funded the Administration’s request for international programs, with some exceptions. The Senate bill provided $4.45 billion for international affairs, an increase of $220 million over the request. Concerning major items and changes to the request, the Senate measure: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! cut security funding for Provisional Reconstruction Teams in Iraq; further reduced State Department operational costs in Iraq by $60 million in order to add an additional $60 million for support of U.N. peacekeeping in Darfur; fully funded Iraq stabilization assistance, with an earmark of $96 million for broad-based democracy programs; did not provide the House-passed counter-narcotics funding for Colombia; included $3.3 million for demobilization assistance in Colombia; fully funded southern Sudan and Darfur, with an additional $110 million in funding for peacekeeping in Darfur, the same as the House; added $50 million for economic aid for Liberia, the same as the House; added $42.5 million for various Migration and Refugee Assistance programs in Somalia, the Horn of Africa, Democratic Republic of Congo, North Caucasus, North Asia, and Burma; increased to $20 million Emergency Migration and Refugee Assistance for the Horn of Africa; provided $35 million for drought relief in West Africa and the Horn of Africa; added $12 million for Hurricane Stan relief in Guatemala; rescinded $47 million in previously appropriated funds for economic aid to Egypt in order to offset the increases for African drought and Guatemala hurricane relief; added $40 million in economic aid for Haiti; added $100 million in Economic Support Funds for Jordan; added $13.2 million in Democracy Funds and peacekeeping in the Democratic Republic of Congo, with a rescission of the same amount from the Export-Import Bank; and provided $5 million for election support in the Democratic Republic of Congo. CRS-14 Table 5. International Amendments: Senate Action Sponsor Purpose/Congressional Record Page Reference Vote Lugar #3597 Waived annuity limitations on reemployed Foreign Service and Civil Service annuitants in order to fill positions in Iraq and Afghanistan (pp. S3792-S3793). Agreed, voice vote Leahy #3661 Required notification to House and Senate Appropriations Committees regarding the obligation of Democracy Fund money (p. S3793). Agreed, voice vote Leahy #3663 Clarified report language reducing the amount of Democracy Fund appropriations for Iran by $5 million to $34.8 million, and specifying $5 million of Democracy Fund appropriations for election support in the Democratic Republic of Congo (p. S3793). Agreed, voice vote Menendez #3777 Increased by $60 million, to $129.8 million, funds for a U.N. peacekeeping operation in Darfur; reduces by $60 million funds for State Department mission operations in Iraq (pp. S3939-S3940). Agreed, voice vote McConnell #3612 Added a Presidential national security waiver authority regarding restrictions on U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority (p. S3940). Agreed, voice vote Biden #3719 Provided not less than $250,000 of Diplomatic and Consular Programs of the State Department be used to create an office of a special envoy for Sudan (p. S3940). Agreed, voice vote Leahy #3823 Provided that $3.3 million of funds appropriated under the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement account be used to support the demobilization process in Colombia; has the effect of reducing funds requested for Iraq (pp. S3940-3941). Agreed, voice vote Kennedy #3686 Provided that of ESF appropriations for Iraq, $104.5 million should be available for broad-based democracy assistance through NGOs in Iraq (pp. S3945-3948). Agreed, voice vote Leahy #3657 Provided $12 million for Hurricane Stan relief in Guatemala and $35 million for drought relief in West Africa and the Horn of Africa; rescinds $47 million in previously appropriated cash transfer aid for Egypt (pp. S3963-3964). Agreed, voice vote Santorum #3640 Added $25 million for Iran democracy programs (pp. S3937, 3969). Ruled nongermane Hurricane Recovery and Other Domestic Issues Conference Agreement. H.R. 4939, as enacted, includes $19.3 billion for hurricane recovery activities, $2.3 billion for pandemic influenza preparedness, $1.9 CRS-15 billion for border security, and $563 million for other disaster assistance and related domestic activities. The conference agreement provisions include: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! $6.7 billion for the Department of Homeland Security — primarily for Federal Emergency Management Agency activities — $3.2 billion below the initial request and $1.0 billion below the revised request; $5.2 billion for the Community Development Block Grant at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, $0.8 billion more than requested; $3.7 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers for hurricane related activities, $2.2 billion below the initial request and approximately the same as the revised request; $2.3 billion for pandemic influenza preparedness, an amount separately requested by the Administration as part of its regular FY2007 budget request; $1.9 billion for border security, the same as the revised request; $542 million for the Small Business Administration Disaster Loan program, $712 million less than requested; and $500 million for agricultural disaster assistance, for which no funds were requested. House Action. The House-passed measure provided $19.1 billion for supplemental appropriations for relief and recovery from the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes, a reduction of $0.7 billion from what was requested by the President. The House bill agreed with much of the supplemental request, but made the following changes: ! ! ! ! ! ! did not fund the request of $202 million for Tenant-Based Rental Assistance at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); reduced the request for Procurement at DOD by $250 million — $887 million is provided; reduced DOD Military Construction by $270 million — $135.5 million is provided; reduced the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) funds for rebuilding the VA medical center in New Orleans by $50 million — $550 million was provided and the obligation was made contingent on enactment by June 30, 2006, of authority for rebuilding the medical center. In addition, the VA was allowed to transfer up to $275 million of these funds for unforeseen medical needs related to the global war on terror; expanded the mechanism requested for the distribution of $4.2 billion for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) so that it would not be limited to Louisiana projects; and added a provision to make available in FY2006 $750 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) that were appropriated for FY2007 in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171); these were contingency funds (allotted to one or more CRS-16 states, at the Administration’s discretion, and based on emergency need), and would remain available until the end of FY2007. Table 6. Hurricane Recovery Amendments: House Action Sponsor Purpose/Congressional Record Page Reference Vote MillenderMcDonald Provides $20 million for Defense Health Programs to expand training capacity for prosthetics and orthotics (pp. H1013H1014). Agreed, voice vote Jindal Decreases funding for FEMA disaster relief by $2 million and increases funding for Defense-wide procurement by the same amount (p. H1084). Agreed, voice vote Melancon Increases funding for Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies by $465 million (pp. H1033-H1034). Rejected, 199-215 Jefferson Increases Community Planning and Development by $2 billion and decreases FEMA by the same amount (pp. H1034-H1035). Rejected, 174-248 Sabo Increases funding for the Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the United States Coast Guard (USCG), FEMA administrative and regional operations, and FEMA preparedness by $700 million, $125 million, $300 million, and $100 million, respectively (pp. H1076-H1079, and H1094-H1095). Rejected, 208-210 Neugebauer Eliminates all funding in the bill for hurricane recovery (pp. H1079-H1082, and H1095-H1096). Rejected, 89-331 MillenderMcDonald Increases funding for election activities under FEMA by $20 million (p. H1082-84, H1096). Rejected, 194-227 Gingrey Reduces funding for the National Historical Preservation Fund by $3 million (p. H1086). Rejected, voice vote Senate Action. On May 4, 2006, the Senate amended and approved its version of the FY2006 supplemental appropriations, H.R. 4939. As passed, the legislation provided a total of $28.8 billion for hurricane recovery, $9.0 billion (45%) more than the President’s request, and roughly 51% more than the House provided ($19.1 billion). In addition, the bill provided $2.6 billion in funds for the prevention and preparedness for pandemic influenza. The House did not fund these activities; the President requested supplemental funds in November 2005. The Senate bill provided a supplemental appropriation of $6.9 billion for other disaster assistance unrelated to hurricane recovery or pandemic influenza; such assistance was not requested by the Administration nor included in the House bill. The Senate bill differed from the bill as passed by the House as follows. The Senate bill provided: ! ! $1.1 billion for mapping and debris removal to help Gulf Coast fisheries affected by the hurricanes; $2.5 billion more for levee repairs and related (total of $4.0 billion) for coastal and flood protection; CRS-17 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! $1.2 billion more for the Disaster Relief Fund and other a activities administered by FEMA (total of $11.1 billion), with funds set aside for the development of housing alternatives other than travel trailers; $881 million for education needs, including higher education loans and grants; $1.5 billion for repairs to transportation infrastructure, public transit, and grants for federal aid for highways; $1 billion more for CDBG (total of $5.2 billion) compared to both the request and the House approved funding, with a set-aside for low-income and assisted housing; $3.9 billion for emergency agricultural disaster assistance for crop losses; $648 million for port security enhancement; $2.3 billion for pandemic influenza preparedness and response activities; $1.9 billion for border security; and $430 million for veterans medical services. Table 7. Hurricane Recovery and Other Domestic Amendments: Senate Action on Selected Amendments Sponsor Purpose/Congressional Record page reference Vote Akaka #3642, as modified by #3647 Provides an additional $430 million for Veterans Affairs medical care (pp. S3560-S3564). Agreed, 84-13 Gregg #3594 Provides $1.9 billion for enhanced U.S. border security, offset with a corresponding reduction in defense accounts in titles I and II (p. S3532-S3543). Agreed, 59-39 Reid #3604 Provides $1.9 billion for enhanced U.S. border security, without an offset (pp. S3532-S3544). Defeated, 44-54 Ensign Motion to recommit the bill with instructions that it be reported back with a total net spending not exceeding $94.5 billion (pp. S3562-S3563). Tabled, 68-28 Coburn #3641, Division I Prohibits the availability of funds for the relocation of a CSX freight rail line further inland from the Gulf Coast (pp. S3557-S3560; S3564-S3566). Tabled, 49-48 Coburn #3641, Division II Prohibits the availability of funds for seafood promotion strategies (pp. S3569-S3573). Agreed, voice vote Allard #3701 Provides $27.6 million to repair Capitol complex utility tunnels (pp. S3683-S3684). Agreed, voice vote CRS-18 Sponsor Purpose/Congressional Record page reference Vote Dodd #3727 Provides $30 million for the Election Assistance Commission for payments to states affected by 2005 hurricanes (pp. S3870-S3872). Agreed, voice vote Domenici #3769 Provides an additional $1.67 billion for levee rehabilitation in New Orleans (p. S3859). Agreed, voice vote Hutchison #3789 Ensures that all localities incurring damage from Hurricane Rita have the same cost-sharing requirements for federal aid (p. S3859). Agreed, voice vote Salazar #3736 Provides an additional $30 million for National Forest System projects (pp. S3878-S3879). Agreed, voice vote Obama #3810 Requires all contracts for hurricane relief exceeding $500,000 be awarded using a competitive bidding process (pp. S3879-S3880). Agreed, 98-0 McCain #3617 Strikes $6 million to sugarcane growers in Hawaii (pp. S3858-S3863). Defeated, 40-59 Cornyn #3699 Establishes a floor to ensure that areas within States adversely affected by 2005 hurricanes receive at least 3.5% of funds set aside for the Community Development Block Grant program (pp. S3938-S3941). Agreed, voice vote Kennedy #3688 Provides $289 million for compensation of individuals harmed by pandemic influenza vaccine (pp. S3937, S394243, S3948). Agreed, 53-46 Inouye #3601 Provides $1 million for assessing and monitoring waters in Hawaii (pp. S3966-3968). Agreed, 51-45 McCain #3616 Strikes $74.5 million for agriculture assistance (pp. S3937, S3953-3955, S3964). Defeated, 37-61 Inouye #3673 Adds $900,000 for assessments of reservoirs and dams in Hawaii (pp. S3966-S3967). Defeated, 43-53 Vitter #3728 Provides an additional $200 million for flood prevention in Louisiana, offset by a reduction in funds for FEMA (pp. S4007, S4011-S4013). Agreed, voice vote Thune #3704 Provides $20 million for Veterans Affairs Medical Facilities, with an offset (pp. S4007, S4013-4014, S4016). Defeated, 39-59 CRS-19 Border Security: Administration and Senate Proposals10 On May 18, 2006, the President amended the FY2006 supplemental request by adding $1.948 billion11 for border security-related functions within the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice (DOJ). For the DHS, the request included: ! $805 million for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), portions of which will support deployment of 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents and 256 miles of vehicle barriers; ! $327 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for 4,000 additional detention beds in support of the Administration’s goal to end catch and release along the southern border; ! $25 million for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC); and ! $15 million for the DHS Preparedness Directorate for border security-related grants. In addition, the revised request included $756 million in DOD funding for deploying rotations of up to 6,000 National Guard personnel along the southern border. Such personnel would be mobilized under Title 32 authorities to operate surveillance systems, build patrol roads, fences, and vehicle barriers, and train personnel, but would not perform law enforcement functions. Although personnel would be under the control of individual governors, DOD would approve the use and numbers of personnel. As proposed, these funds would be provided in the operation and maintenance, defensewide account to be transferred to other accounts at DOD’s discretion.12 According to Administration witnesses, these funds would provide up to 6,000 reserve personnel at any one time in the first year and 3,000 in the second year with most of the personnel rotating in on two- to three-week assignments during their annual training. Thus, up to 156,000 reservists could be mobilized for short periods in the course of a year out of a 440,000 total in the Army National Guard. During a 10 This section was prepared by Jennifer Lake, Blas Nuñez-Neto, and Amy Belasco. For a more detailed breakdown of the Homeland Security-related funding in the Supplemental Appropriations Bills, please refer to CRS Report RL33428 Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations, Jennifer Lake and Blas Nuñez-Neto, Coordinators. 11 The actual request for DHS and DOJ was for $1.974 billion; however $16 million within the CBP Construction account and $10 million within the U.S. Attorney’s office were not border security related. The adjusted request for border security was $1.948 billion. 12 Office of Management and Budget, Estimate No. 6, FY2006 Emergency Supplemental(Border Security: Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice), May 18, 2006; [http://www.wh itehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/ supplemental_5_18_06.pdf]. CRS-20 recent hearing, a variety of concerns were raised — whether adequate personnel would still be available for war and hurricane missions, the prerogatives of governors, and the effectiveness of short-term mobilizations.13 Congressional Action. The Senate bill provided an amount similar to the request, but it differed substantially in its scope. The Senate bill generally focused on capital improvements within DHS, while the President’s request focused on funding for CBP, ICE, and National Guard personnel deployments, and for other resources on the border. The Senate bill included: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! $1.09 billion for CBP, portions of which will be used to replace air assets and border patrol vehicles, to upgrade air operations facilities, deploy sensor and surveillance technology, and for construction; $600 million for the Coast Guard aircraft and vessel acquisition, construction, renovation and improvement; $80 million for ICE; $60 million to accelerate database integration and the conversion of the United States Visitor & Immigrant Status Indicator Project (USVISIT) to a 10-print enrollment system; $50 million for the DHS Chief Information Officer to upgrade law enforcement communications equipment; $18 million for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center for information technology improvements and a language training center; and $2 million for the DHS Office of Policy to conduct a needs assessment for comprehensive border security. To offset the $1.948 billion cost of additional border security programs, the Administration proposed reducing $1.948 billion in funding requested for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan and other global war on terror operations). These funds would have come primarily from procurement. Although the Administration did not identify cuts specifically by weapon systems, some of the cuts appeared to come from those identified for reduction by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees appropriators, while others would reject congressional adds-ons (see sections below and Appendix A for details). The Senate bill included an offset through an unspecified cut of $1.9 billion in DOD funds for both war costs (Title I) and hurricane recovery (Title II). Under the Senate provision, the Administration would have allocated the cut among programs in both titles. The FY2006 conference agreement includes $1.9 billion for border security, the same as the amount requested. The supplemental funds include: $805 million for CBP; $327 million for ICE; $25 million for FLETC; and $15 million for grants. These funds total $1.17 billion for DHS border security activities, as compared to the $1.9 billion proposed by the Senate. The conference agreement includes the President’s proposal to fund the deployment of up to 6,000 National Guard troops to 13 Senate Armed Services Committee, Transcript, Hearing on National guard Role in Border Security, May 17, 2006; available on Reuters. CRS-21 the border. However, this proposal is funded at $708 million, as opposed to the $756 million requested. American Port Security and the Dubai Ports World Operational Control of Six U.S. Terminals14 The takeover of terminal operations at six major U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World (DP World), based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), sparked intense concerns among Members of Congress and the public, and reignited the debate over what role foreign acquisitions play in U.S. national security, and specifically security of American ports. DP World purchased the terminals from P&O Ports, a multinational terminal operating company based in the United Kingdom which leases marine terminals around the world, including terminals at six U.S. ports — New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans. These ports are owned by a port authority, which is a public or quasi-public organization associated with the city, county, or state government. The port authority is responsible for the overall administration of the property, terminals, and other facilities on the port complex. Marine terminals within these ports are areas with equipment for loading and unloading ships and space for staging cargo until it is loaded on the ship or transferred to overland modes of transport. P&O Ports is also involved in other cargo handling services at other East and Gulf Coast ports, and a cruiseship terminal in New York. DP World acquired P&O’s terminal leases or concessions at these ports, which account for a portion of the total cargo handling or cruise ship activity that takes place at these ports. DP World currently operates 19 container terminals outside the United States and is involved in other cargo handling services in 14 countries. DP World operates as a commercial entity but is owned by the Government of Dubai in the UAE. In addition to issues related to the review process for foreign investment in the United States and U.S. foreign policy with regard to the UAE, a key issue for Congress as it evaluated this transaction was what role marine terminal operators have in the security of U.S. ports. While the federal government, namely the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), takes the lead in port security, security responsibilities are also shared with the port authorities, local law enforcement, vessel owners, terminal operators, and port workers. Coast Guard regulations and CBP security programs require terminal operators to provide basic security infrastructure and follow certain security practices when handling cargo. While the United States actively promotes internationally the policy of relaxing rules concerning foreign investment, including the national treatment of foreign firms, some in Congress and others question some aspects of this policy as it relates to allowing foreign competitors unlimited access to the Nation’s industrial base. Much of this debate focuses on the activities of a relatively obscure committee, the 14 Prepared by John Frittelli, Analyst in Transportation, and James Jackson, Specialist in International Trade and Finance. CRS-22 Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and the Exon-Florio provision (added to the Defense Production Act in 1988; P.L. 100-418), which gives the President broad powers to block certain types of foreign investment.15 The proposed acquisition of port terminals operated by DP World sparked a firestorm of activity in the 2nd Session of the 109th Congress. H.J.Res. 79 and S.J.Res. 32 express Congressional disapproval of the proposed acquisition and direct CFIUS to conduct a full 45-day review of the transaction and to brief Members of Congress on the results of the investigation. Numerous other bills related to the issue were also introduced. The matter was inserted into the FY2006 Supplemental Appropriation during a House markup of the legislation on March 8. In the face of mounting pressure from Capitol Hill and elsewhere, DP World announced on March 9 that it would not manage the American ports itself, but transfer operations to a U.S. “entity.” Subsequently, on March 15 DP World said it would sell the U.S. port facility operations to an American buyer, a process that might take four to six months. In the meantime, the UAE-based company said that P&O Ports North America would be operated separately by a U.S. subsidiary. Congressional Action During the March 8 markup on the $92 billion emergency FY2006 emergency supplemental, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Lewis submitted an amendment aimed at blocking the acquisition by DP World of the six American port terminals. The amendment, which passed 62-2, barred the use of any appropriated funds to take action allowing the purchase by DP World, notwithstanding any “prior action or decision by or on behalf of the President.” President Bush previously had said that he would veto any legislation containing such text. Following the March 9 announcement by DP World that it would turn over port operations to an American entity, Chairman Lewis said in a press release issued on March 10, that “reports that Dubai Ports World has agreed to sell its holdings of a subsidiary involved in managing six American ports is encouraging news.”16 Nevertheless, the Lewis amendment remained in the House-passed version of H.R. 4939. The House defeated (38-377) an amendment offered by Representative Gilchrest on March 15 that would have struck the text banning DP World purchase. The Senate bill did not include language similar to the House regarding Dubai Ports World. However, a Byrd amendment accepted by the Senate Appropriations Committee added $648 million for port security grants, radiation portal monitors, and for activities of the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection Service. 15 For more information, see CRS Report RL33312, The Exon-Florio National Security Test for Foreign Investment, by James Jackson. 16 Chairman Lewis Makes a Statement on DP-World Development, March 10, 2006. Available at House Appropriations Committee website: [http://appropriations.house.gov/ index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home] CRS-23 The conference agreement on H.R. 4939 deletes the House provision. Conferees noted that the DP World decision to transfer operations to a U.S. entity makes the House-passed text unnecessary. The enacted bill further drops the Senatepassed title providing $648 million for port security funding. Defense Supplemental17 To cover war costs, the FY2006 revised supplemental requested $65.9 billion for the Department of Defense (DOD) war-related costs, an amount that was in addition to the $50 billion that DOD already received in the FY2006 bridge fund included in DOD’s FY2006 Appropriations Act (P.L.109-148).18 If enacted, this would have brought DOD’s total for Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom or OIF) and Afghanistan/other global war on terrorism activities (Operation Enduring Freedom or OEF) to $115.8 billion in FY2006. If passed as revised, DOD’s funding in FY2006 would have been $17 billion more than the $99 billion received in FY2005 and $49 billion more than the $67 billion received in FY2004 (Table 8).19 Based on this request, DOD’s war and occupation costs would have increased from $67 billion in FY2004 to $116 billion in FY2006 — an increase of 72% in two years. In FY2003, the year of the invasion of Iraq, the Defense Department’s war costs totaled between $69 billion and $76.2 billion depending on whether $7.1 billion in funds provided in DOD’s FY2003 regular appropriations are included.20 17 Prepared by Amy Belasco, Specialist in National Defense. Military construction section prepared by Daniel Else, Specialist in National Defense. 18 In FY2005 and FY2006, Congress included “additional appropriations” for war costs in Title IX of DOD’s regular appropriations act to ensure that DOD would have sufficient funds to cover war costs until a supplemental was passed. 19 The $99 billion total for FY2005 includes $75.9 billion in the FY2005 Supplemental (P.L. 109-13) and $23.1 billion of the $25 billion appropriated to DOD in the FY2005 bridge supplemental (Title IX, P.L. 108-287). Congress provided that the FY2005 bridge funds were available upon enactment and DOD obligated $1.9 billion in FY2004, leaving $23.9 billion available for FY2005. 20 See CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and Enhanced Security Since 9/11, by Amy Belasco. CRS-24 Table 8. Defense Department War and Occupation Appropriations, FY2004-FY2006 ($s — billions) FY2004 Department of P.L.108-106; Defense P.L.108-287a Total FY2005 FY2006 Bridge: P.L.108-287; P.L.109-13b P.L.108-148 FY2006 Revised Supp. FY2006 Total with Supp. $66.8 $98.8 $50.0 $65.9 $115.8 Annual Change NA $32.0 NA NA $17.0 $ Change Since FY2004 NA $32.0 NA NA $49.0 % Change Since FY2004 NA 48% NA NA 73% Source: CRS calculations based on public laws. a. Total for P.L. 108-106 excludes $3.5 billion rescission of FY2003 funds; includes $1.9 billion of funds in the FY2004/FY2005 bridge fund that was obligated in FY2004 (Title IX, P.L. 108287). b. Total for FY2005 includes funds available for FY2005 from the FY2004/FY2005 bridge fund and funds appropriated in the FY2005 supplemental (P.L. 109-13) excluding funds for Tsunami relief and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. According to DOD’s justification materials, the FY2006 supplemental request assumed that monthly deployment levels would average about 138,000 troops in Iraq and 18,000 troops in Afghanistan, with temporary fluctuations during troop rotations. DOD did not provide a breakdown of how the revised $65.9 billion request would be allocated between Iraq and Afghanistan. DOD’s justification materials stated that monthly military personnel and operation and maintenance costs — the expenditures most closely tied to military operations — averaged $4.5 billion in Iraq and $0.8 billion in Afghanistan and other global war on terrorism activities, or a total of $5.3 billion monthly for both operations in FY2005.21 If one defines “military operations costs” as the cost of military personnel and operation and maintenance and applies this approach to the enacted bridge fund and DOD’s new supplemental FY2006 request, average military operations costs per month would increase from $5.6 billion in FY2005 to $6.8 billion per month in FY2006, a 21% increase (see Table 9). These average monthly costs include only those costs that would be obligated in FY2006 but not all of DOD war and occupation costs that are associated with operations. For example, this definition of “military operations costs” does not include additional funds spent for national intelligence (cost not tracked by DOD) or training of Afghan and Iraq security forces, 21 Department of Defense, FY 2006 Supplemental Request For Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), February 2006; [http://www.dod.mil/ comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/FY06_GWOT_Supplemental_Request_-_FINAL.pdf], p. 3 (hereinafter cited as DOD, FY2006 Supplemental Request - war). CRS-25 now a substantial expense. Nor do military operations costs — as defined by DOD — include DOD’s substantial investment costs for additional equipment for deployed forces that DOD believes needs to be ordered in FY2006 to meet its military needs.22 If all these costs are included, full monthly war and occupation costs would have averaged $8.2 billion in FY2005, and would have increased to $9.7 billion in FY2006 if DOD’s request were enacted. Table 9 shows the average monthly increases for each of these categories, which range from decreases for military personnel and Afghan and Iraq training funds to increases in O&M and investments. Potential Issues in DOD’s FY2006 Supplemental Request In its revised FY2006 supplemental request, the Department of Defense requested $65.9 billion to provide special pays for military personnel, activate reserves, support military operations, repair equipment, house and provide for troops, buy additional military equipment, conduct research and development, construct military facilities, train Afghan and Iraqi security forces, and reimburse coalition allies, a reduction of $1.9 billion from the original request.23 Table 10 lists the major elements of the new request by title, the amount in the FY2006 bridge fund (Title IX, P.L.109-148) and the total for FY2006 as requested and approved to date. For a breakdown by appropriation account, see table appended to this report. 22 DOD requests that its procurement funds be available for three years to take into account the one to three years that it takes to contract, order, produce and receive military parts and equipment. 23 See Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Estimate No. 6, May Office of Management and Budget, Estimate No. 3, OMB, FY2006 Supplemental Request, Estimate No. 3, FY2006 Emergency Appropriations (various agencies), Ongoing Military, Diplomatic and Intelligence Operations in the Global War on Terror, Stabilization and Counterinsurgency Activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Other Humanitarian Assistance, 2-16-06; [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/ supplemental2_2_16_06.pdf]; (Hereafter cited as OMB, FY2006 Supplemental War Request.) DOD, FY2006 Supplemental Request - war. CRS-26 Table 9. Average Monthly DOD Budget Authority for War and Occupation, FY2005 Enacted-Revised FY2006 Request ($s — billions) Title FY2005: Bridge & Suppa FY2006: Bridge &Revised Supp Requestb Military Personnel $18.4 $15.8 ($2.6) -14% Operation & Maintenance(O&M) $46.0 $61.3 $15.3 33% Other supportc $2.9 $4.2 $1.2 42% Military Operations Total $67.3 $81.3 $13.9 21% Monthly Average: Military Operations (BA) $5.6 $6.8 $1.2 21% Other Defense programsd $3.9 $5.0 $1.0 26% Afghan and Iraq Training Forces Fund $7.0 $5.9 ($1.1) -16% Intelligencee [5.1]e [5.6] [.5]e [10%]e Investment $20.5 $23.8 $3.3 16% Total Costs $98.9 $115.8 $16.9 17% Monthly Average,Total Budget Authority $8.2 $9.7 $1.5 18% FY2006 +/- FY2005 $s % Sources: CRS calculations based on public laws, conference reports, DOD, FY2006 Supplemental Justification Materials, February 2006. Note: Totals may not add because of rounding. a. Includes remaining funds in FY2005 bridge (P.L. 108-287) and FY2005 Supplemental (P.L. 10913) excluding funds for Tsunami relief and office of the Director of National Intelligence. b. Includes $50 billion in P.L. 109-148, FY2006 DOD Appropriations Act and $67.9 billion in FY2006 supplemental request (OMB Estimate No. 6, May 16, 2006; and revised OMB Estimate No. 3, original request. c. “Other support” includes defense health and working capital funds. d. “Other Defense programs” include Iraq Freedom Fund, the Office of Inspector General, and Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug. e. Funding of $1.8 billion for intelligence was included in the Iraq Freedom Fund in P.L.108-287, and $3.3 billion in P.L. 109-13 for a total of $5.1 billion for FY2005. Funding of $3 billion was included in the Iraq Freedom Fund in the FY2006 bridge (P.L. 109-148), and the FY2006 request includes an additional $2.6 billion for a total of $5.6 billion; see DOD, FY2006 Justification - War, Feb. 2006, p. 1. Several issues about the FY2006 supplemental request arose in Congress, including whether DOD’s funding requests for training Afghan and Iraqi security forces were necessary in light of the pace of implementation, how to make transparent the DOD assumptions about military personnel levels for active-duty and reserve forces that underlie the request, whether DOD could better contain increases in operating costs, and whether DOD’s investment request finances peacetime as well as wartime needs. CRS-27 Table 10. Department of Defense FY2006 War-Related Bridge Supplemental and FY2006 War-Related Supplemental Request ($s — billions) FY2006 FY2006 Enacted Supp. FY2006 plus Revised House Enacted Request Request Supp. Senate Supp. Supp. Conf. Iraq Freedom Fundb $4.66 $4.76 $0.10 $0.00 $0.03 $0.00 Afghanistan Security Forces Fund $0.00 $2.20 $2.20 $1.85 $1.91 $1.91 $0.00 $3.70 $3.70 $3.01 $3.70 $3.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1.95 $1.96 $6.21 $15.80 $9.59 $9.93 $10.20 $10.28 $28.56 $61.29 $32.71 $32.11 $31.60 $31.03 Procurement $7.98 $24.38 $14.60 $17.68 $15.46 $14.91 Research, Development, Test & Eval $0.05 $0.83 $0.74 $1.00 $0.71 $0.71 Military Construction $0.00 $0.49 $0.37 $0.32 $0.28 $0.24 Revolving & Management Funds $2.52 $3.03 $0.52 $0.50 $0.52 $0.52 $0.03 $1.38 $1.35 $1.32 $1.31 Title Iraq Security Forces Fund Joint Improvised Explosive Defeat c Military Personnel Operation and Maintenance Other Defense d e Total General Provision reducing DOD war & hurricane funds e $50.00 $117.87 $65.87 -.- -.- -.- $67.72 $67.67 -.- $1.31 f $65.86 ($1.90)f a. Reflects $1.948 billion reduction proposed by the Administration on May 18, 2006 (OMB Estimate No. 6). b. Iraq Freedom Fund includes $3 billion for intelligence in the FY2006 bridge fund (Title IX, P.L.109-148), and $100 million in the FY2006 request for two-year money for commanders’ “near-term urgent operational needs;” see OMB, Estimate No. 3, 2-16-06; also includes $100 million for the Coast Guard. c. Request and House bill included $1.958 billion in three separate accounts. d. Excludes Afghan and Iraq Security Forces Fund. e. “Other” includes Defense Health, Drug Interdiction and the Office of the Inspector General. Department of Defense, FY 2006 Supplemental Request For Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation E n d u rin g F re e d o m (OE F ), February 2006; [http://www.dod.mil/co mp tr o ller / defbudget/fy2007/FY06_GWOT_Supplemental_Request_-_FINAL.pdf]. f. The Senate adopted an amendment providing $1.9 billion for border security, to be offset by an unspecified cut of $1.9 billion in DOD funds for both war costs (title I) and hurricane rehabilitation (title II). The Administration would determine the distribution of the cut among programs in both titles. Consequently, the $67.67 billion Senate total for war costs could have fallen somewhere in the range of $65.77 billion and $67.67 billion, depending on how the reductions would be allocated. Afghan and Iraq Security Forces Funds: Obligations Slower Than Anticipated. In its FY2006 supplemental, DOD requested $2.2 billion for the Afghan Security Forces Fund and $3.7 billion for the Iraq Security Forces Fund to train and equip Afghan and Iraqi security forces. These funds were in addition to $500 million that DOD could use in the FY2006 bridge for either country.24 24 Section 9005, P.L. 109-148 sets a ceiling of $500 million from funds within Title IX. CRS-28 Altogether, DOD would have had available $6.4 billion in FY2006 and FY2007 for training and equipping, in addition to funds already appropriated.25 For Iraqi security forces, the request included: ! ! ! $787 million to equip Iraq’s brigades by purchasing aircraft, patrol boats, equipment, and ammunition, $751 million for basing and infrastructure; $712 million for police equipment, $696 million for basing, $250 million for training, $296 million to maintain buildings; and $65 million for other police needs; and $73 million to train and equip Iraqi security guards for detainee operations or contract for those services. For Afghan security forces, the request included: ! ! ! $585 million for police training, $346 million for police infrastructure, $235 million to maintain equipment and pay police salaries and $195 million for equipment; $225 million to operate and support Afghan military forces, $221 million for military equipment, $138 million for training, and $240 million for military infrastructure; and $14 million for detainee operations. Although training and equipping Afghan and Iraqi security forces is clearly a high priority for the Administration, it appears that DOD is obligating these funds more slowly than originally anticipated so that funding requested for FY2006 could be greater than currently required. The $5.9 billion requested in the FY2006 bridge supplemental would be in addition to the $7 billion — $1.3 billion for Afghanistan and $5.7 billion for Iraqi security forces — already received by DOD in FY2005, and the $6.9 billion previously provided in the FY2004 supplemental. As of January 2006, about $235 million of the $5 billion provided for training Iraqi forces in the FY2004 supplemental was unobligated or still available to be spent;26 obligations data for Afghanistan are not available. Of the $5.7 billion appropriated for Iraq in FY2005, about $2.1 billion or about 37% is obligated as of January 1, 2006. In its plan for FY2005, DOD had projected obligations of $4.3 billion or about 75% at that point. In the case of Afghanistan, DOD has obligated about $733 million or 33% of the $1.3 billion appropriated as of January 1, 2006. This is also below the $825 million or 64% anticipated by DOD last year.27 25 As in previous proposals, the monies are requested to be available for two years or until September 30, 2007. 26 State Department, Section 2207 Reports, Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Funds (IRRF) Status of Funds, obligations as of December 28, 2005. 27 See entries for these accounts in Standard Form (SF)133, Report on Budget Execution and Budgetary Resources, October 2005 and FY2006, 1/30/06 for 1st quarter FY2006. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/reports/sf133/FY_2005_SF_133s_w_Revis.pdf]. For (continued...) CRS-29 Potential Training Funding Issues. With the current rate of spending, some observers questioned whether the full $5.9 billion requested to train and equip Afghan and Iraqi forces was needed at this time. Last year, DOD anticipated that training funds appropriated in FY2004 would run out in June 2005 for Iraq and in October 2005; some $235 million remains available. Obligations of FY2005 appropriations are also below those anticipated for FY2005 monies, particularly for Iraq. On the other hand, the FY2006 supplemental requested funds that would be available for two years and so could also be used in both FY2006 and FY2007. Another potential issue was whether Congress might want advance notification of DOD’s overall plans for the types of equipment to be provided to Afghan and Iraqi security forces. While the current and proposed statutory language requires DOD to provide five-day advance notification of individual transfers from the account, this does not give Congress an overall sense of DOD plans for the amounts and types of equipment to be provided. Nor is it clear whether DOD plans to transfer or leave behind any U.S. equipment and how that would factor into such plans. Congressional Action. The conference agreement endorses the $1.9 billion in Afghan training funds recommended by both houses, $300 million below DOD’s request, suggesting that the funds could not be spent in FY2006. For Iraq, the conference measure provides $3 billion, $700 million below the request. Conferees did not specify where the funds would be cut, and permit DOD to use funds for infrastructure facilities for both military and security forces, dropping restrictions proposed by the House. Conferees also endorse House-proposed reporting requirements and call on the Administration to seek funds from neighboring countries for Iraq’s security forces.28 In prior action, the House measure provided $1.9 billion to Afghan security forces and $3 billion for Iraqi Security forces in specially segregated funds to cover the cost to train, equip, and build facilities for military and police forces. Pending submission of complete justification materials, the House Appropriations Committee cut funds intended to build facilities for Afghan ($396 million) and Iraqi police forces ($696 million). The Committee also put a hold on another $991 million slated for military infrastructure until DOD submits a detailed, project-by-project financial plan. The Senate-passed measure provided $1.91 billion to train Afghan security forces — close to the House level and $3.7 billion for Iraq security training — $700 million more than the House and the same as the request. During Committee markup, the Senate panel added language that places a hold on funds to repair and construct Iraqi security infrastructure until formation of a unified government.29 In its April 25, 2006 statement of administration policy, the Administration specifically 27 (...continued) DOD plan, see DOD, “Iraq/Afghanistan Security Forces: DOD’s FY05 Supplemental Request,” March 2005. 28 Congressional Record, June 8, 2006, p. H. 3608. 29 S.Rept. 109-230, p. 21-22. CRS-30 objected to the reduction in funds for Afghan security forces as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Coalition Support. As in previous years, DOD requested funds to make payments to “key cooperating nations” that provide logistical and military support for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the FY2006 supplemental, DOD requested $1.5 billion for coalition support and $550 million for “lift and sustain funds” — to assist Iraq and Afghanistan and other nearby friendly nations in their efforts to combat terrorism — in addition to the $195 million in coalition support bridge funds. This would bring the total to $2.2 billion for support of coalition partners. In FY2005, DOD received $1.2 billion for coalition support. DOD did not provide a rationale for the increased funding for coalition support requested. If history is a guide, much of the funds will go to Pakistan, with the remainder to Jordan, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Poland, and other coalition allies.30 Congressional Action. The conference agreement cuts in half DOD’s request for coalition support for U.S. allies participating in the war on terror from $1.5 billion to $740 million, as recommended by the Senate. The House measure had provided $1.2 billion. In its April 25, 2006 statement of administration policy, the Administration specifically objected to the Senate-proposed cuts for coalition support. Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP). DOD also requested $423 million for the Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP), a program where military commanders can fund local projects for humanitarian relief and reconstruction. The FY2005 Supplemental set an upward limit of $854 million in FY2005, $500 million above DOD’s request.31 Congressional Action. The conference agreement approves DOD’s request for a ceiling of $423 million on CERP programs, as recommended in both House and Senate bills. The House Appropriations Committee, however, cited concerns about a change in the program’s focus. Iraq Freedom Fund. Conferees rejected DOD’s request for $100 million in the Iraq Freedom Fund for unspecified purposes, as had been recommended by the House. The Senate bill provided $25 million. New Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund. The Senate bill set up a new transfer account that would allow the Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization to “investigate, develop and provide equipment, supplies, services, training, facilities, personnel and funds to assist U.S. forces in the defeat of improvised explosive devices,” (IEDs). DOD would report to 30 Office of the Secretary of Defense, Coalition Support Fund Tracker, FY2002-FY2005, February 2006. 31 See Section 1006, P.L. 109-13, which raised the limit set in the FY2005 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-375). CRS-31 the congressional defense committees within 60 days of enactment on its plans.32 The $1.958 billion allocated to this new account was drawn from $490 million in O&M, Army, $1.1billion in Other Procurement, Army and $357 million in RDT&E Army included in DOD’s request. The House approved the monies in DOD’s request for countering IEDs but left the funds in the three separate accounts. Military Personnel Request and Visibility of Personnel Plans. The Defense Department requested $9.6 billion for military personnel in the FY2006 supplemental, which would bring total funding for the year — including the bridge supplemental — to $15.8 billion. This is $2.9 billion less than received by DOD for FY2005.33 It was not clear why the level would be almost $3 billion lower this year. Additional War-related Military Personnel Benefits. In the FY2006 supplemental request, $3.2 billion was slated to pay for additional war-related military personnel benefits including: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! $1.4 billion for special pays for active-duty forces including hostile fire pay, family separation allowances, hardship duty;34 $341 million for additional recruiting and retention bonuses to sustain wartime forces levels; $59 million for higher foreign language proficiency pay; $544 million for death gratuities; $400 million for additional life insurance claims above peacetime levels;35 $474 million for catch-up benefits for service members who suffered traumatic injuries who would qualify under the new benefit enacted in the FY2006 National Defense Authorization Act;36 and $22 million for insurance premiums for OIF/OEF personnel. With the $800 million already received in the FY2006 bridge fund, the total for warrelated special pay and benefits in FY2006 would be about $4 billion.37 Since the launch of military operations in Iraq, Congress has raised and added war-related personnel benefits and may again consider whether these benefits are sufficient. 32 See Congressional Record, June 8, 2006, p. H3588, and H.R. 4939 as marked up by the Senate, p. 101-102. 33 DOD’s reported war-related obligations for military personnel are $15.9 billion according to the September 30, 2005 report of the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS), Supplemental & Cost of War Execution Report. These reports, however, appear not to capture about $2.95 billion in military personnel obligations as recorded by the SF-133, the government’s standard financial reporting system. 34 Congress has authorized monthly levels of $225 for imminent danger pay, $250 for family separation allowance and $100 for hardship duty location pay for those deployed less than 12 months and $300 for those deployed more than 12 months. 35 Payments go to the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay claims. 36 Payments go to the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay claims. 37 CRS calculations based on H.Rept. 109-359, p. 471. CRS-32 Sustaining Force Levels. The FY2006 supplemental request included $6.2 billion to sustain current force levels, including $653 million to support active-duty force levels above normal peacetime levels, known as “overstrength,” and about $5.5 billion to pay activated reservists.38 In DOD’s plan, Army troop levels would be 16,300 above and Marine Corps levels would be 6,000 above peacetime strength levels in FY2006. DOD has already received $420 million to cover overstrength costs, which would bring the total base for the Army and 175,000 for the Marine Corps. DOD’s FY2006 request also included $5.5 billion to pay activated national guard and reserve forces, in addition to $4.6 billion included in the FY2006 bridge fund for “incremental” war costs for military personnel. That would bring the total to about $10.1 billion, or about $1.5 billion less than requested in FY2006.39 DOD’s wartime financial reporting system reports $8.4 billion to activate reserve forces in FY2005 but this figure appears to be understated.40 DOD’s FY2006 supplemental justification did not include any information about the mix of active-duty and reserve forces anticipated in FY2006 that would be funded with these monies. And because of the discrepancies in the figures, it is impossible to say whether DOD’s estimated funding in FY2006 is similar to or different from last year. In general, the more that DOD relies on reservists, the higher are war-related military personnel costs. That is because DOD’s incremental war costs for active-duty forces include only special pays because their regular pay is included in DOD’s regular appropriations whereas the additional full-time pay for activated reservists is a wartime expense. According to a DOD data base, about 36% of the 270,00 forces deployed in support of the global war on terror were activated reservists and about 64% were active-duty in FY2005, figures similar to those cited by DOD spokesperson.41 According to DOD, the FY2006 funding request supported overall force levels in FY2006 that were similar to those in FY2005 — about 138,000 in Iraq and 18,000 in Afghanistan. These figures did not appear to include other forces in the region or elsewhere supporting the global war on terrorism. In light of concerns about stress and sustaining both active-duty and reserve forces, some observers wanted to know the DOD planning assumptions for the FY2006 supplemental request for military personnel, including not only personnel 38 This includes some $933 million for basic allowance for housing for dependents of activated reservists. 39 See H.Rept. 109-359, p. 471. 40 DFAS, Supplemental & Cost of War Execution Report, September 2005; the FY2007 budget shows almost all military personnel funds as obligated; see OMB, FY2007 Budget Appendix at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/appendix/mil.pdf]. CRS compared appropriated levels to those reported in DFAS reports and those reported in the FY2007 budget to identify a discrepancy of about $3 billion. 41 CRS calculations based on Defense Manpower Data Center, Contingency Tracking System, Deployed Military Personel by Country and Component, November 2005 run. CRS-33 in-country but all those paid for by bridge and supplemental funds. That information was not provided in DOD’s justification material. Congressional Action. The conference agreement adds $560 million to the Navy Military Personnel account. Of that amount, about $200 million increases recruiting and retention incentives by two-thirds above the request. Another $300 million restores monies cut from the regular budget in a government-wide 1% acrossthe-board cut levied to offset additional Gulf Hurricane monies.42 Restoring that cut would fund peacetime military personnel expenses even though the funds are being included in the war supplemental. The increase also adds a Senate-proposed provision of $49 million for higher death benefits, which the bill makes available to service members who died between May 12, 2005, and August 1, 2005. In earlier action, the Senate bill also included $300 million to restore funds cut for regular expenses of Military Personnel, Navy by the 1% cut. In addition, the Senate added $195 million to the $305 million request for recruiting and retention incentives that is included in the services’ military personnel accounts. Most of the funds went to the Army. (An additional $85 million for recruiting and retention was in the O&M accounts.) Operation and Maintenance Funding Rises Substantially in FY2006. The Defense Department requested $32.7 billion in Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funds in the FY2006 supplemental. These funds would be in addition to the $28.6 billion received in the FY2006 bridge fund, and would bring total funding in FY2006 to $61.3 billion. That amount is $15.5 billion or about one-third higher than the $45.8 billion appropriated in FY2005. O&M funding pays for activities and services ranging from personnel support for troops (e.g., subsistence, body armor, morale, welfare and recreation activities) to the cost of operating forces and billeting troops. Major elements in the $32.7 billion FY2006 supplemental — all in addition to FY2006 Title IX bridge funds — included: ! ! ! ! ! ! 42 $12 billion for operating support (fuel, spare parts, and related expenses); $1.9 billion in personnel support (e.g., subsistence, body armor and other protective gear); $2.4 billion for billeting of soldiers, base camp facilities, staging areas, airfields; $500 million for command, control, communications and tactical intelligence; $9.5 billion for transportation personnel and equipment both to and within the theater; $3.2 billion for equipment maintenance in-theater and depot maintenance at home; and See Congressional Record, June 8, p. H. 3606. Sec. 3801, Title, III, Chapter 8, P.L.109148 requires a 1% across-the-board cut government-wide except for the VA and emergency appropriations. CRS-34 ! $2.8 billion in other unspecified support costs. It is difficult to explain the increases in FY2006 because DOD did not show the funding already received in the bridge supplemental in its justification materials. Since DOD did not request the bridge funds — though it did not oppose them — there was no formal request or justification material. It appears that about half of the $15.3 billion increase in FY2006 for O&M could be explained by higher transportation, maintenance, and fuel costs. Depot Maintenance and Transportation Slated for Large Increases. If the FY2006 request was approved as proposed, DOD’s total depot maintenance bill for FY2006 would be $7.3 billion — about $2.1 billion, or almost 40% higher than the FY2005 level.43 According to DOD’s justification material, the additional depot maintenance requirements reflected the harsh desert environment and wartime conditions, which have increased the wear and tear on equipment. Another area programmed for large increases was transportation of personnel and equipment to and within theater for which DOD is requesting $9.5 billion. Including FY2006 bridge funds would bring the FY2006 total to $10.8 billion, or about $4 billion, or almost 60% higher than the $6.8 billion in FY2005. DOD attributed about $1.8 billion of the increase to higher fuel costs in FY2006. Excluding those costs, the total would still be almost one-third higher than the previous year. DOD did not provide a breakdown between its use of more expensive airlift vs. sealift to transport goods but noted that the “Department is working to reduce the proportion of air transport used and to lower the costs ... but ... will continue to need air transport for the most critical items and shipment,” a commitment also included in DOD’s justification material for FY2005.44 It is not clear why in the fourth year of operations, DOD is still heavily relying on air transport of supplies. Higher fuel prices may also account for increases in operating tempo costs that include fuel, spare parts, and other costs of deployed units. DOD’s request is predicated on the assumption that the average price of fuel — with service charges — rises from $62 to $84 per barrel.45 DOD estimates that higher fuel costs in FY2006 account for $2.6 billion in higher costs, including $2.2 billion financed in the bridge fund and $423 million in the new supplemental.46 The FY2006 O&M supplemental also included $539 million for body armor plus an additional $140 million in the bridge supplemental for a total of $680 million. 43 DOD obligated $5.2 billion for depot costs in FY2005; see DFAS, Supplemental & Cost of War Execution Report, September 2005. 44 DOD, FY2006 Supplemental Request — war, p. 10. 45 Ibid., p. 12 46 Ibid., pp. 10, 12. CRS-35 This appeared to be comparable to the $650 million appropriated for body armor in FY2005.47 These three areas — equipment maintenance, transportation, and higher fuel costs would account for about $8.7 billion, or roughly half of the $15 billion increase in O&M in FY2006. From DOD’s justification material, the source or rationale for other funding increases or for continuation of FY2005 levels for other areas was not apparent. Congressional Action. The $31.6 billion in funding proposed in the conference agreement for O&M is $1.7 billion below the request and close to the Senate level. The cuts include $500 million to O&M, Air Force, presumably reflecting the House difference about the likely cost of fuel; a $750 million cut to coalition support which halves the Administration’s request; and a transfer of funds to counter IEDs from O&M to the new centralized account. Conferees also endorse the House’s call for a report on the long-term cost to repair Army equipment due by July 7, 2006. In earlier action, the House-passed measure cut a total of $630 million from DOD’s $32.7 billion O&M request, decreasing funds for higher fuel prices (-$759 million), coalition support (-$300 million), and “lift and sustain” aid to U.S. allies (-$104 million). These cuts were partly offset by increases for depot maintenance of upgraded M1A1 tanks for Army National Guard units ($130 million) and for Marine Corps repair/reset ($100 million). The Senate-passed bill reduced by $1.1 billion DOD’s O&M request — almost twice the amount cut by the House. Like the House, most of the cuts were for higher fuel prices (-$813 million), coalition support (-$760 million), “lift and sustain” aid for allies (-$104 million). The bill also transferred $490 million in monies to counter IEDs to the new account. These cuts were partly offset by additions for repairs of M1A1 tanks for Army National guard units ($130 million like the House), additions for Air Force optempo ($194 million) and transportation ($500 million), no reason provided, plus a $73 million addition for family counseling and transition assistance for service members. Investment Funding Grows in FY2006 Without Clear Overall Rationale. In its revised FY2006 supplemental request, DOD requested $14.6 billion for procurement, $1.7 billion below its original request in addition to the $8 billion included in the bridge supplemental. The Administration’s proposal did not identify specific cuts by weapon system but only totals by account, so it was sometimes not clear where the cuts would be taken. If enacted as proposed, FY2006 war-related procurement would total $22.7 billion compared to $18.8 billion appropriated in FY2005.48 Although some of the decreases in the revised request 47 48 CRS calculations based on H.Rept. 108-622, p. 380 and H.Rept. 109-72, pp. 103-105. CRS calculations based on DOD, FY 2006 Supplemental Request — war, p. 2; H.Rept. 109-148, p. 468, and H.Rept. 109-72, p. 114. DOD also transferred an additional $2.2 billion from its baseline budget to war-related procurement in FY2005, for a total of $20.9 (continued...) CRS-36 reflected cuts made, others would reject additions proposed by the appropriators such as for additional C-17 aircraft. The FY2006 original supplemental request included the following: ! ! ! ! ! ! $3.1 billion for Army modularity equipment; $7.2 billion to reconstitute equipment; $2.6 billion for force protection items; $500 million for classified items; $1.2 billion for ammunition; and $692 million for SINCGARS radios for “transition teams supporting OEF/OIF.”49 The supplemental also included substantial funding for tactical vehicles, such as High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles ($410 million for Army HMMWVs and $271 million for those of the Marine Corps), night vision devices ($173 million for the Army and $259 million for the Marine Corps), target devices such as lightweight laser designator rangefinder ($95 million and $113 million for Knight Family fire support and target designators for the Army), and additional communication aids. Modification kits for aircraft (e.g., AH-64 helicopters in the Army and AV-8s in the Navy) were also requested. Similar items were included in the bridge fund, including, for example, over $1 billion for radios of various types.50 Rationales for Procurement Request Unclear. Although DOD’s request included descriptions of individual procurement items, it did not give any rationale or explain whether funding requests for various items reflect battlefield losses, washout rates for worn equipment, equipment provided for state-side units whose equipment remains overseas, or additional gear for deployed units. This made it difficult to assess whether funding levels were too high, too low or about right. Nor was it clear whether the Army and Marine Corps, in particular, had additional unfunded requirements that would come due in later years or whether some of these items were originally budgeted in the baseline budget but transferred to the supplemental. Carryover of FY2005 Procurement Monies. About $6 billion of procurement monies appropriated in FY2005 remain to be obligated in FY2006. In addition, much of the $8 billion for procurement in the FY2006 bridge fund is probably still available.51 If DOD received an additional $16.4 billion in the FY2006 48 (...continued) billion; see table in Appendix A. 49 DOD, FY 2006 Supplemental Request — war, p. 26. 50 Ibid., p. 2; H.Rept. 109-148, p. 468; H.Rept. 109-72, pp. 2, 14-16, 26, passim; see H.Rept. 109-359, pp. 477-482 for FY2006 bridge. 51 CRS calculation of unobligated balances is from comparing amounts appropriated in FY2005 with obligations in DFAS, Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS), Supplemental & Cost of War Execution Report, September 30, 2005; later reports not available. CRS-37 supplemental, DOD would have as much as $30 billion in procurement monies to spend in FY2006 in addition to its baseline budget. As part of its budget review, DOD set a goal that all supplemental procurement funds should be obligated by the fourth quarter of the fiscal year. In light of the large amount of funds and the fact that monies were not likely to be available until the third quarter, it appeared unlikely that DOD would reach that goal. Although procurement monies are generally available for three years, it could be argued that a shorter period of time would be appropriate for urgently required procurement funds, and would improve oversight. Congressional Action. Although the conference agreement adopts a procurement total of $15.0 billion — $2.6 billion below the House level and $450 million below the Senate level — some $1.1 billion of this decrease reflects the transfer of procurement funds to counter IEDs from procurement to the new consolidated account. Thus, the actual cut to the original request is closer to $1.5 billion with about $440 million taken from trucks and other logistical support equipment, $210 million from the Bridge to Future Networks, a program still undergoing testing, and cuts to various communications devices. The Administration’s revised request included some of these cuts. Conferees also include the congressional adds of $230 million for 3 V-22 aircraft, the $227 million to keep the C-17 aircraft line open, and $300 million to keep open the line to upgrade M1A1 tanks. Like both houses, the enacted bill shifts some of the funds requested to recapitalize old HMWWVs to buying more new vehicles. In prior congressional action, the House bill added $1.3 billion to the DOD request for procurement funds, primarily to upgrade and keep open production lines for M1A1 and M1A2 tanks ($400 million), and buy Tank Urban Survival Kits ($100 million), improved recovery vehicles ($100 million), 8 MQ-1 Predators ($77 million). The measure also proposed to spend $100 million to keep the C-17 production line open even though it is not clear whether additional planes will be needed. Preferring to buy new uparmored HMMWVs rather than rebuild old ones, the House Appropriations Committee swapped $480 million in recapitalization monies to buy new vehicles, bringing the total for new HMMWVs to $890 million, which would buy about 6,850 vehicles at about $130,000 each.52 The Committee argued that buying new vehicles was more appropriate because these would be uparmored whereas the repaired vehicles would not and therefore would not be usable in combat. If the recapitalized HMMWVs are not suitable for combat, then it was not clear why DOD included that funding in the supplemental. DOD did not show how their funding request meshes with the Army’s requirements in theater. In recent years, the Army has received about $3.2 billion to purchase 18,129 uparmored 52 CRS calculation based on DOD, FY 2006 Supplemental Request - war, p. 24, which shows that $410 million buys 3,146 HMMWVs. CRS-38 HMMWVs, which is close to their March 2005 requirement, a requirement which was increased in late February 2006.53 In its report, the Senate Committee stated its concern that DOD’s justification for war-related procurement “includes only descriptive summaries . . . and is absent of meaningful program and budget information, such as requirements, pricing and delivery schedules.” For this reason, the committee warned that “Congress will not be able to fully support supplemental requests unless it is provided with the same detailed justification and program materials that is receives with the annual request.”54 The Senate bill cut $940 million of DOD’s $16.4 billion procurement request that included a transfer of $1.1 billion in Army procurement funds for countering IEDs to the new centralized Joint IED Defeat Fund (see above). Additions to various programs were largely offset by cuts elsewhere. The $700 million in cuts included programs considered to be duplicative (-$111 million for Explosive Ordnance Devices, -$30 million for communication equipment), not executable or ahead of need (-$74 million for UH-1Y/AH-1Z helicopters, -$30 million for Hellfire missiles), troubled (-$110 million from Joint Network nodes), or questionable (-$145 million for LOGCAP trucks, trailers, and other equipment). These cuts were offset by various increases. Like the House, the Senate add [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%3ARL33298. Public record. Not legal advice.