FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and Other Activities
CRS Report for Congress
FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and
Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and Other Activities
Updated May 12, 2005
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division
Specialist in Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and
Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and Other Activities
On February 14, 2005, President Bush submitted an $81.9 billion supplemental
appropriation request for FY2005 (subsequently amended to total $82.04 billion) to
provide funds for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the “global
war on terror,” reconstruction in Afghanistan, Tsunami relief and rehabilitation, and
other activities. As the fifth supplemental of the Bush Administration to focus on the
“global war on terrorism” and homeland security, these supplemental funds for
FY2005 would be in addition to the $25.7 billion received in August 2004 as part of
the FY2005 DOD Appropriations Act to cover war-related costs for the initial
months of the fiscal year (P.L. 108-287).
The Administration’s request included $74.96 billion for the Department of
Defense, $5.6 billion for reconstruction and other foreign aid, $950 million for
Tsunami relief, and $770 million for other activities. If enacted as an emergency
appropriation, as requested, the funds would not be subject to limits in annual budget
resolutions but would add to the size of the U.S. budget deficit. Taking into account
the funds already provided, DOD’s request would bring its FY2005 total
appropriation to about $100 billion, which is over 45% higher than the amount
provided in the FY2004 supplemental (P.L. 108-106).
While OMB Director Joshua Bolten argued that the request was an emergency
for “known and urgent requirements,” that could not be met with existing funds,
some Members questioned whether this characterization fit some elements in the
request. Some questioned whether the $5 billion requested by the Defense
Department for the Army’s initiative to re-organize Army units was an unanticipated
emergency since it was announced in the fall of 2003; others argued that the initiative
was a war-related expense because it was expected to relieve war-induced stress on
Army forces. For foreign aid and Iraq diplomatic facilities, the issue was whether the
requests represented true emergencies or could wait for later consideration. If not
dealt with in the FY2005 supplemental under an “emergency” designation, however,
these foreign policy items could be added to the pending FY2006 international affairs
appropriation bills and would place additional pressure on the Administration to
defend an already sizable foreign policy increase proposed for next year.
Another controversial issue was the Administration’s proposal to place policy
authority and control of funding with the Defense Department rather than the State
Department to train and equip Afghan and Iraqi security forces. The Administration
also requested $400 million for contingency funds related to the war on terror and
$200 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority, both of which raised concerns.
The conference agreement on H.R. 1268 passed the House on May 5 (368-58)
and the Senate on May 10, providing $82 billion in supplemental funding, the same
overall amount requested, but with many changes in program allocations and the
additional of immigration legislation. President Bush signed the measure on May 11,
when it became P.L. 109-13.
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Overview and Context of the FY2005 Supplemental......................2
Previous Funding for the “Global War on Terror”....................2
Main Elements in the FY2005 Request.............................4
Foreign Policy Request.....................................4
Other Supplemental Requests................................5
Immigration Provisions — Congressional Action.....................6
Real ID Act..............................................6
Additional Funds for Border Security and Immigration Control......7
Craig Amendment, AgJOBS Bill..............................8
Cross-Cutting Issues in the FY2005 Supplemental........................8
Iraq and Afghanistan Security Forces Fund..........................8
Supplemental Requests that May Fail to Meet the “Emergency” Test....11
Defense Department Request and Congressional Review..................14
Conference Action — Summary.................................14
Resolution of Funding Differences...........................15
Expanding Military Benefits................................15
Actions Affecting Weapon System Plans......................16
Senate and House Floor Amendments to Defense Request.............17
Future Cost and Accountability Issues.............................20
Size and Composition of DOD Request...........................22
Congressional Action — Funds for Personnel and Operations......25
Higher Survivor Benefits.......................................25
Congressional Action — Conference Bill Increases Benefits.......26
Recapitalization, Modularity and Construction Costs Grow............30
Procurement and Modularity Requests........................30
Military Construction Request...............................31
Congressional Action — Approach to Procurement Differs........31
Congressional Action — Military Construction Concerns.........32
New Flexible Accounts for Afghan and Iraqi Security Forces..........33
Congressional Action — Conferees Oversight Concerns..........34
Flexible Funds to Provide Support to Allies........................35
Congressional Action — Conferees Cut Support to Allies.........35
DOD Request for FY2005 by Appropriation Account ................36
Foreign Policy Supplemental Request and Congressional Review...........42
Key Provisions in Conference, House, and Senate Bills...........46
U.S. Diplomatic and USAID Operations in Iraq.....................48
Afghanistan Reconstruction, Counternarcotics, Police Training, and
Sudan North-South Peace Support................................52
Darfur Region and Eastern Chad.................................53
Global War on Terrorism-Related Programs........................54
U.N. Peacekeeping Operations..................................56
Broadcasting to Arab and Muslim Audiences.......................58
Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization....................59
Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction............................59
List of Tables
Table 1. Main Elements in FY2005 Emergency Supplemental...............3
Table 2. Defense-Related Amendments: Senate Floor...................18
Table 3. Defense-Related Amendments: House Floor....................19
Table 4. DOD Funding: FY2004 Enacted and FY2005 Request............24
Table 5. Proposed Changes in Death Benefits for Active-Duty
Table 6. Defense Department FY2005 Supplemental Request and Prior
Table 7. Foreign Policy Budget, FY2001-FY2006.......................42
Table 8. Foreign Policy Amendments: House Floor......................44
Table 9. Foreign Policy Amendments: Senate Floor.....................45
Table 10. Foreign Policy Funds in FY2005 Supplemental.................62
FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for
Iraq and Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and
Most Recent Developments
On May 3, House-Senate conferees concluded negotiations on H.R. 1268, the
emergency FY2005 supplemental appropriation, agreeing to an $82 billion total. The
House passed the conference agreement on May 5 (368-58), followed by the Senate
on May 10 (100-0). President Bush signed the bill (P.L. 109-13) on May 11. As
approved, the $82 billion conference agreement is roughly the same as the
President’s overall request, but with numerous changes in funding allocations and
policy provision, including the attachment of immigration legislation. On April 21,
the Senate passed H.R. 1268 (S.Rept. 109-52), providing $81.3 billion, about $780
million less than the President’s $82 billion request and about $80 million below the
House level. The House approved its bill on March 16 (H.Rept. 109-16).
P.L. 109-13 provides $75.86 billion for the defense-related portion, about
midway between the House total of $76.83 billion and the Senate total of $74.78
billion which was close to the Administration’s request. The enacted bill provides
higher benefits to survivors of those who die and have died in combat or combat-
related activities. For State Department and foreign aid programs, the final measure
falls about $500 million, or 8%, below the President’s request for new
appropriations. A $1 billion rescission of previous aid to Turkey brings the “net”
foreign policy total to $1.5 billion less than proposed. The conference bill is slightly
higher than amounts approved by the Senate, and $450 million more than included
in the House bill for international affairs. P.L. 109-13 fully or nearly fully funds the
U.S. embassy in Iraq, contributions to U.N. peacekeeping missions, and humanitarian
assistance for the Darfur region of Sudan, and adds over $150 million for global food
aid needs, general Africa refugee relief requirements, and support for Haiti.
The enacted bill includes most of the House-proposed provisions from H.R.
418, the REAL ID Act of 2005, which sets minimum standards for state-issued
drivers licenses that can be accepted for federal purposes (e.g. to board aircraft);
expands the scope of terror-related activity that makes an alien inadmissible or
deportable and tightens criteria for asylum, and allows the Secretary of Homeland
Security to waive all laws in order to construct barriers at U.S. borders.1 P.L. 109-13
also includes the Mikulski amendment proposed by the Senate that would permit
additional non-agricultural seasonal workers in FY2005 and FY2006.
1 See CRS Report RL32754, Analysis of Provisions in H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of
FY2005, by Michael John Garcia, Mikyung Lee, Todd Tatelman, and Larry M. Eig.
Overview and Context of the FY2005 Supplemental
The FY2005 supplemental is the fifth of the Bush administration to focus on the
global war on terrorism and homeland security. As emergency funding, these
requests have not been subject to limits on spending in annual budget resolutions.
In the case of both foreign assistance and Defense Department appropriations, some
funding to combat terrorism has been included in regular as well as previous
supplemental appropriations acts.
Previous Funding for the “Global War on Terror”
Thus far, in response to Administration requests, Congress has provided $268.7
billion in emergency supplemental funding for the “global war on terror,” including
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, enhanced security for defense
installations, and foreign aid spending for reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan and
related activities.2 If enacted, this request would bring the total amount of war-
related funding in this administration to $350.6 billion. The bulk of these funds have
been and continue to be for military operations as the United States enters its fourth
year of operations in Afghanistan and its third year of operations in Iraq.3
In addition to the FY2005 supplemental request, funds for the Department of
Defense (DOD) have been provided for Iraq and Afghanistan and the “global war on
terror” in four previous supplementals as well as regular appropriations acts.4 For
DOD, funds provided by Congress for the period FY2001 thru FY2004 totaled
$176.2 billion. Congress also appropriated $25 billion to cover war costs in the
initial months of FY2005 as well as any shortfalls in FY2004. DOD obligated $2
billion of those funds in FY2004. Thus, the total cost projected by DOD for FY2005
is $98 billion — $23 billion already provided and $74.9 billion requested. That total
is over 45% higher than the $64.9 billion provided to DOD in the FY2004
Supplemental. If Congress provides the monies requested, DOD would have
received between FY2001 through FY2005, a total of $276 billion for these missions.
With the funds included in the conference bill, DOD would have received between
FY2001 through FY2005, a total of about $277 billion for these missions.5
2 This includes $40 billion in P.L. 107-38 and P.L. 107-117, $23.9 billion in P.L. 107-206,
$78.5 billion in P.L. 108-11, $7.1 billion in P.L. 107-248, $10 billion in P.L. 108-7, $86.8
billion in P.L. 108-106, $25.7 billion in P.L. 108-287, less rescission of $3.5 billion in P.L.
3 DOD’s war-related funding totals $201.2 billion; see CRS Report RS21644, The Cost of
Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Enhanced Security, by Amy Belasco.
4 DOD received $7.1 billion in the FY2003 DOD Appropriations Act, P.L. 107-248, $10
billion in FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Act, and $25 billion in P.L. 108-287, the
FY2005 DOD Appropriations.
5 For more information on war costs, see CRS Report RS21644, The Cost of Operations in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Enhanced Security, by Amy Belasco.
Table 1. Main Elements in FY2005 Emergency Supplemental
(billions of dollars)
Operation and Maintenance/other32.8832.4732.2532.11
Train and Equip Afghan Security Forces1.291.291.291.29
Train and Equip Iraqi Security Forces5.705.705.705.70a
[Support for Allies][2.00][1.50][1.97][NA]b
[Army and Marine Corps Restructuring] [5.30][5.30][5.30][5.30]
Procurement 16.14 18.23 16.09 17.38
Research, Dev., Test & Evaluation0.460.510.550.63c
Military Construction 1.401.321.151.13d
Rescission — Iraq Freedom Fund 0.000.000.00(0.05)
Foreign Policy Total6.293.924.744.78e
Iraqi Embassy: mission ops & construction 1.371.310.901.28
Afghan reconstruction, counternarcotics2.051.412.041.78
Sudan/Darfur 0.34 0.38 0.75 0.37
Tsunami Recovery and Reconstructionf0.700.660.660.66
Aid to partners in global war on terrorism0.750.350.580.58g
Palestinian aid 0.200.200.200.20
Other peacekeeping and foreign aid0.880.620.610.91
Rescission prior foreign aid appropriations-.-(1.00)(1.00)(1.00)
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation0.110.110.110.08
Immigration and Customs/Border security-.--.-0.810.64
Dept of Justice: FBI, BATF, IG, US Marshals 0.080.090.090.23
DEA — Afghanistan0.010.010.010.01
Tsunami warning system0.020.020.030.03
Director of National Intelligence (DNI)0.250.250.250.25
Capitol Police/Architect of the Capitol0.06-.-0.050.02
Natural disaster aid for domestic needs-.--.-0.170.13
Judiciary — additional case workload0.10-.-0.06-.-
HHS vaccine production -.--.-0.010.01
Sources: OMB, Request for FY2005 Supplemental, February 14, 2005. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/budget/amendments/supplemental_2_14_05.pdf]; Department of Defense, FY2005 Supplemental
request for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), and Operation Unified
Assistance, February 2005 (hereinafter, DOD, FY2005 Justification).
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2005_supp.pdf]; OMB Request for FY2005
Supplemental for Legislative and Judicial Branches, March 2, 2005.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Figures in “[ ]” are subsets of other totals.
a. Includes funds for coalition support for Jordan, Pakistan, and other countries aiding in the global war on
terror, plus “lift and sustain” funds for unspecified allies.
b. Total cost of Army modularity and Marine Corps restructuring, primarily procurement of equipment for
new units; costs are included in the relevant appropriation title.
c. Includes funds for military construction to support Army and Marine Corps restructuring.
d. Sec. 1033 rescinds $50 million; Sec. 1035 provides an additional $50 million for classified programs.
e. H.R. 1268, as passed by the House, included $592 million for a new U.S. embassy in Baghdad. However,
an amendment adopted during floor debate prohibited the use of any funds in the bill for embassy
security, construction, and maintenance. The Senate measure provided $592 million with no restriction
on the monies use. The Senate bill further reduced U.S. mission operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
by $400 million but did not specify how much should be drawn from either mission. This table reduces
the entire amount from Iraq.
f. Excludes $250 million in non-foreign policy funds.
g. The Senate bill and the conference agreement include a set-aside of $50 for Israel.
On the foreign policy side, the supplemental increases the U.S. foreign policy
budget from $29.7 billion enacted in FY2005 to $34.5 billion, an increase of 16%.
It would also pushes the FY2005 amount above the $33.6 billion international affairs
budget request for FY2006. Except for FY2004, which included the $18.5 billion
Iraq reconstruction aid package, the FY2005 total — both the regular and the
supplemental — represent the largest foreign policy budget, in real terms, since fiscal
immediately prior to the 9/11 attacks.
Main Elements in the FY2005 Request
Table 1 provides an overview of the request. This table does not include the
funding already received by DOD for war-related costs for FY2005, which is shown
in later tables.
Defense Request. The DOD request included $16.9 billion for military
personnel and $32.5 billion for operations and maintenance that together total $44.9
billion. Of that total, about $35.5 billion is directly associated with operations in Iraq
and $9.4 billion with Afghanistan according to the Defense Department justification
material. In addition, the request included $5.7 billion to train and equip Iraq’s
security forces and $1.3 billion for Afghanistan’s security forces. Including those
funds, the total for Iraq was $41.2 billion and for Afghanistan, $10.7 billion.
DOD did not allocate the remaining funds by mission — e.g. for depot
maintenance or recruiting and retention, additional military personnel or Army and
Marine Corps restructuring. About $5 billion of DOD’s procurement request was for
the Army’s modularity initiative, and the Marine Corps restructuring, both designed
to create additional units, which can be more easily deployed independently. The
remainder of DOD’s procurement was for a variety of items to upgrade primarily
Army units, as well as $2.7 billion for force protection items; the request also
included $5.0 billion for classified programs (see Table 1).
Foreign Policy Request. The President’s request for $6.3 billion in FY2005
supplemental funding would support a broad range of foreign policy activities:
!U.S. diplomatic costs in Iraq
!Afghanistan reconstruction and counternarcotics programs
!Darfur humanitarian relief and peace implementation aid for Sudan
!War on Terrorism assistance, including funds for Jordan and
!U.N. peacekeeping contributions
!Broadcasting programs in the Middle East
!Tsunami recovery and reconstruction
Other Supplemental Requests. The Administration’s supplemental
request also included several additional items addressing homeland security and
global war on terrorism matters:
!Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation — $110 million for the
deployment of radiation detection equipment and the training of law
enforcement personnel at four overseas posts designed to provide
officials with the means to detect, deter, and interdict illicit
trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive materials.
!Coast Guard operating expenses — $112 million to finance Coast
Guard port security and law enforcement capabilities in the Persian
Gulf, and $49 million for acquisition, construction, and
improvements for a major refit, renovation, and subsystem
replacement of the Coast Guard’s 110-foot Patrol Boats.
!FBI — $80 million to expand the Terrorist Screening Center and to
cover costs of FBI personnel stationed in Iraq.
!Drug Enforcement Administration — $8 million to support DEA’s
participation in the Counternarcotics Implementation Plan for
!Director of National Intelligence (DNI) — $250 million for
additional personnel and a new building for the new DNI who is to
oversee the intelligence budget.
!Capitol Police — $60 million, as requested by the Legislative6
!The Judiciary — $100 million, as requested by the Judiciary Branch,
for costs associated with additional case workload.7
6 This request was submitted on March 2, separate from the balance of the supplemental
7 This request was also submitted on March 2, separate from the balance of the supplemental
Immigration Provisions — Congressional Action8
The Administration did not include any immigration provisions in its requests,
but in floor debate, the Senate focused on three proposals, adopting the Mikulski
amendment to increase visas for foreign temporary non-agricultural workers and
failing to vote cloture and limit debate on the Chambliss and Craig amendments,
which proposed alternative approaches to dealing with foreign agricultural workers.
The Senate also adopted floor amendments on border security funding and
For its part, the House included the Real ID Act, which, among other things,
tightens standards for asylum and creates standards for drivers licenses when they are
used as a form of federal identification, provisions that could affect immigrants. The
Senate-passed bill did not include the REAL ID Act. The conferees retained the
immigration provisions passed by both chambers, with some re-working of certain
provisions as discussed below.
Real ID Act. The House-passed version of H.R. 1268 contained many of the
immigration provisions that had been in the House-passed Intelligence Reform and
Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004 passed in the 108th Congress that were dropped in
the final version (P.L. 108-454). Passed by the House on February 10, 2005, the Real
ID Act of 2005 (H.R. 418) included those House provisions which were then added
to the House version of H.R. 1268.9
Among other things, the REAL ID Act provisions makes the following major
!modify the eligibility criteria for asylum and withholding of
removal, a specific form of deportation that assumes that the alien
would be persecuted if forced to return to the country he or she fled;
!limit judicial review of certain immigration decisions;
!eliminate the Breach Bond Account which is used to fund detention
of aliens who violate the law and institute new practices for bonds
aimed at assuring the appearance of aliens for removal;
!provide additional waiver authority over laws to ensure the
expeditious construction of barriers and roads along land borders,
including a 14-mile wide fence near San Diego;
!expand the scope of terror-related activity making an alien
inadmissible or deportable, as well as ineligible for certain forms of
relief from removal;
!require states to meet certain minimum security standards in order
for the drivers’ licenses and personal identification cards they issue
to be accepted for federal purposes; and
8 This section was written by CRS analysts, Andorra Bruno and Ruth Wasem. See CRS
Report RL32044, Immigration: Policy Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs,
by Andorra Bruno.
9 For a legal analysis of H.R. 418, see CRS Report RL32754, Immigration: Analysis of the
major Provisions of H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005 by Michael Garcia, Margaret
Mikyung Lee, and Todd Tatelman.
!require the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into its aviation
security screening database the appropriate background information
of any person convicted of using a false driver’s license for the
purpose of boarding an airplane.
The conferees generally accept the Real ID Act, but modify the asylum and
withholding of removal, a type of deportation, and dropped the section on bonds.
The compromise more closely follows current standards that allow asylum seekers
to demonstrate multiple motives for their persecution. The compromise also
eliminates an annual 10,000 cap on the number of asylum recipients who can become
legal residents. The REAL ID Act provisions are in Division B of the conference
Mikulski Amendment. Senator Barbara Mikulski offered an amendment
based on the “Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act” (S. 352). The Mikulski
amendment increases the availability of visas for foreign temporary nonagricultural
workers, known as H-2B workers, by exempting returning H-2B workers from the
statutory cap of 66,000 annually, if the workers have already been approved and
successfully held the H-2B visa in the past three years. This provision would expire
at the end of FY2006.
The Mikulski amendment would cap at 33,000 the number of H-2B slots that
would be available during the first six months of a fiscal year. It also would require
DHS to submit specified information to Congress on the H-2B program on a regular
basis. In addition, the Mikulski amendment would impose a new fraud-prevention
and detection fee on H-2B employers, and would authorize DHS to impose additional11
penalties on H-2B employers in certain circumstances. On April 19, the Senate
voted to invoke cloture and limit debate on the Mikulski amendment and then passed
the amendment, as modified, by 94-6. The Mikulski amendment is Title IV of
Division B of the conference report.
Additional Visas. The conferees include two Senate-adopted amendments
to revise immigration law pertaining to employment-based immigration. One of
these amendments reserves 10,500 of the 65,000 temporary H-1B visas available
annually for Australian nationals to perform services in specialty occupations under
a new E-3 temporary visa. The other amendment would make up to 50,000
permanent employment-based visas available for foreign nationals coming to work
as nurses. These amendments are §501 and §502, respectively, of Division B, Title
V, of the conference report.
Additional Funds for Border Security and Immigration Control. The
conferees include $176 million for additional border patrol and $454 million for
10 For more information, see CRS Report RL32621, U.S. Immigration Policy on Asylum
Seekers by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
11 For more information, see CRS Report RL32621, U.S. Immigration Policy on Asylum
Seekers by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
immigration enforcement activities in response to the recommendation of the 9/11
Commission and action by the Senate.12 The House bill did not include these funds.
Craig Amendment, AgJOBS Bill. Provisions proposed by Senator Craig,
and based on S. 359, the “Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act
of 2005” (AgJOBS bill) were not included in the Senate bill. The provisions would
streamline the process of bringing in foreign workers under the H-2A temporary
agricultural worker program but the Senate failed to invoke cloture and limit debate,
an action requiring 60 votes and the amendment was determined to be non-germane.
Chambliss Amendment. Senator Saxby Chambliss offered an amendment
to H.R. 1268 entitled the “Temporary Agricultural Work Reform Act of 2005” that
was also not included in the Senate bill. Like the Craig amendment, the Chambliss
amendment would streamline procedures for bringing in H-2A workers, and create
a new temporary worker program, called the “blue card program,” which would be
open to current unauthorized agricultural workers who have been in the United States
since April 1, 2005, and meet other requirements. On April 19, the Senate failed to
invoke cloture and limit debate on the Chambliss amendment by a vote of 21 to 77
and the amendment was determined to be non-germane.
Cross-Cutting Issues in the FY2005 Supplemental
While Members raised concerns regarding individual elements of the
supplemental request, two matters cut across both the defense and foreign policy
portions of the proposal: 1) funds for Iraq and Afghanistan security forces; and 2)
“emergency” designation of selected requests.
Iraq and Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
Within the Defense Department portion of the supplemental, the Administration
requested $1.3 billion for Afghan security force assistance and $5.7 billion for Iraq
security forces. These funds would support training, equipping, and deploying of
military, protective services, and border personnel, and in the case of Iraq, police
training. The resources would be provided to and solely under the authority of the
Secretary of Defense to transfer to the Combined Forces Command — Afghanistan
and to the Multi-National Security Transition Command — Iraq. Although the
Defense request included some general allocations of where funds would be spent,
it did not include any details about plans for the number or type of forces, or the
schedule anticipated for training Iraqi or Afghan forces and in the request, all the
funds would be available for any expense related to training and equipping of those
forces until funds are expended. This request was similar to other recent DOD
requests for flexibility to use funds for a general purpose, such as support of allies in
or around Iraq and Afghanistan.
12 See Congressional Record, April 20, 2005, pp. S3966, 3983, 3988, 4079, 4084.
Although most of the past Iraq security forces assistance has been managed on
the ground by the Defense Department, the authority and control of funds remained
initially with the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), whose head reported to the
Secretary of Defense, and since June 28, 2004, with the State Department. The
supplemental proposal would shift this authority from the Department of State to
DOD, and move funds from the jurisdiction of the Foreign Operations
Appropriations Subcommittees to the Defense Subcommittees.
In approving $18.4 billion for the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF)
in P.L. 108-106, the FY2004 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation, Congress
earmarked $3.2 billion for security and law enforcement activities. As security
challenges increased through the first half of 2004 and the January 2005 Iraq
elections approached, the Administration, in September 2004, sought to re-prioritize
IRRF spending allocations to shift funds from lower priority activities to more
urgent, immediate needs. The White House proposed an increase for security and
law enforcement programs to $5.05 billion. Because the proposed transfers exceeded
authorities provided in P.L. 108-106, the Administration needed congressional
approval. Congress granted these transfers in P.L. 108-309, the first Continuing
Appropriations for FY2005.
Since late 2004, the Administration has programmed the Iraq security and law
enforcement funds to address a number of key activities, primarily managed by the
Defense Department, but with some responsibility granted to the Departments of
State and Justice and USAID:
!Police training and technical assistance — $1.8 billion (Departments
of State, Defense, and Justice).
!Border enforcement — $ 441 million (DOD).
!Facilities Protection Service — $53 million (DOD).
!Iraqi Armed Forces (IAF) facilities — $691 million (DOD).
!IAF equipment — $641 million (DOD).
!IAF training and operations — $433 million (DOD).
!Iraqi National Guard operations and personnel — $232 million
!Iraqi National Guard equipment — $92 million (DOD).
!Iraqi National Guard facilities — $359 million (DOD).
!Iraqi Security Forces Quick Response program — $120 million
!Commander’s Humanitarian Relief and Reconstruction — $86
million (DOD, Multinational Force-Iraq, and USAID).
For Afghanistan, security assistance funding since early 2002 has been provided
exclusively through the Foreign Operations Subcommittee regular Foreign Military
Financing (FMF) and Peacekeeping (PKO) accounts. FMF aid finances the
acquisition of military articles, services, and training, supports U.S. regional stability
goals, and enables friends and allies to improve their defense capabilities. Policy
direction and funding allocations fall under the responsibility of the State
Department, while DOD executes the program on the ground. Broadly, PKO
activities support non-U.N. voluntary operations, but in the case of Afghanistan,
Peacekeeping appropriations have been used to pay Afghan National Army (ANA)
salaries. Thus far, Congress has appropriated over $1.1 billion in FMF and PKO
support for Afghanistan, FY2002-2005. Similar to Iraq security assistance, FMF
funds have focused on ANA training and equipping. Unlike the Iraqi program,
Afghan police training and support has been funded separately out of the State
Department’s International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE)
account, and would remain under the State Department’s jurisdiction under the
supplemental proposal. The supplemental, however, seeks to shift the source of
ANA training and equipping from FMF/PKO accounts to DOD resources, and to
place authority of the program under the Secretary of Defense rather than the
Secretary of State.
During early review of the supplemental proposal, a number of concerns were
raised about this shift from the State Department to DOD for funding and
management of Iraqi and Afghanistan security forces assistance. Some noted that
this diverges from long-standing, historical practice of State Department and country
ambassador control of a key foreign policy tool in U.S. relations with allies and other
partner nations. While defense personnel may implement the programs, some argued
that it was important to maintain civilian authority over the program, especially over
foreign police assistance.
In response to these concerns, Secretary of State Rice defended the proposal by
noting that Iraq, in particular, is a unique, war zone situation where the United States
needs to maintain a coherent strategy for training and equipping Iraqi security, police,
and border forces. She said that often these personnel operate along side American
military forces and that it made sense to have the Defense Department in charge of
training. She also remarked that the situation in Afghanistan was different, and that
police training would remain under the jurisdiction of the State Department. But, she
added, Afghanistan also remains a war zone and it is important for Afghan security
forces to be fully integrated in their operational efforts. Secretary Rice further
pledged that the Administration had established the “tightest” possible coordination
mechanisms, placing the chief of mission in charge of ensuring close collaboration
between the agencies.13
Congressional Action. The conference version provides the full amount
requested for Iraq and Afghan Security Forces, as did the House-passed and Senate-
reported versions, but requires additional congressional oversight and involvement
of the Secretary of State. The conference bill requires that the Secretary of Defense
notify congressional defense committees at least five days in advance of any transfers
made from this appropriation and report to the same committees on a quarterly basis
regarding the details of all transfers. The bills further require that these funds are
available “with the concurrence of the Secretary of State.” The conference version
includes report language calling for extensive reporting on “strategies for success”
for Iraqi Security Forces but dropped the Senate-proposed statutory reporting
requirements and does not require additional reporting on the Afghan Security Forces
13 See exchange between Representative Kolbe and Secretary Rice during the February 16,
Supplemental Requests that May Fail to Meet the
Appropriations that are designated as “emergency” requirements do not count
against congressionally-set discretionary budget ceilings, formally or informally, but
add to costs incurred by the government and cause the current budget deficit to grow.
Several Members of Congress, including key appropriation committee leaders, put
the Administration on notice that they will look closely at the supplemental proposal,
especially for items that do not represent true “emergencies;” that is requirements that
did not exist or were unforseen during consideration of the regular FY2005
appropriations or that could wait and be debated during FY2006 appropriation
The FY2006 Administration request includes proposals to tighten the definition
of emergency requirements that exempt items from enforcement mechanisms in the
Budget Enforcement Act. The Administration is proposing that emergency
requirements be defined as “a necessary expenditure that is sudden, urgent,14
unforeseen, and not permanent.” The Administration also proposes that this
definition “encompass contingency operations that are national security related,” and
specifically says that “Military operations and foreign aid with costs that are incurred
regularly should be a part of base funding and, as such, are not covered under this15
This issue came up in recent hearings held by the Senate Budget Committee and
the Senate Appropriations Committees. In the Senate Budget Committee hearing of
March 1, 2005, some members questioned Administration witnesses about whether
all elements in the FY2005 supplemental were appropriately classified as emergency
spending — such as $5 billion for Army modularity and $300 million for recruiting
and retention — and other members argued that the definition of emergency16
spending should be one-time expenditures.
Within the foreign policy portion of the request, Members questioned the
“emergency” nature of several proposals. For some time, the State Department
recognized the need for construction of a new embassy in Baghdad but did not
propose funds in the regular FY2005 budget. Instead, the Department sought $658
million in the supplemental. Likewise, it was widely recognized in 2004 that
insufficient peacekeeping funds had been requested in the regular appropriation
proposal, yet the Administration did not amend its pending request to cover what it
now calls a $780 million gap in peacekeeping requirements.
14 Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2006 Analytical Perspectives, February
15 Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2006 Analytical Perspectives, February
16 Senate Budget Committee, transcript, Hearing on the Fiscal year 2006 Defense Budget
Request, March 1; see comments by Senator Conrad on p. 3 and Senator Allard on p. 28.
Additional assistance for Jordan, Pakistan, and Ukraine was also questioned by
some as to whether the needs represent a true emergency or could be addressed
during consideration of FY2006 funds. Portions of the Afghan reconstruction
supplemental request were also scrutinized, especially since the $2 billion proposal
follows about a $1 billion appropriation for FY2005 and a similar request for
FY2006. Further, the $400 million providing support for coalition members with
troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other “partner” countries in the war
on terrorism was also challenged as new initiatives that would be more appropriately
considered as part of the regular FY2006 appropriation process. Some argued that
longer-term tsunami related reconstruction assistance should be debated later in the
regular FY2006 Foreign Operations bill.
If not dealt with in the FY2005 supplemental under an “emergency” designation,
however, these foreign policy items could be added to pending FY2006 international
affairs appropriation requests that seek 13% higher spending compared with enacted
levels for FY2005. This would place additional pressure on the Administration to
defend an already sizable foreign policy increase that some believe will be closely
scrutinized by Congress.
Within the Defense request, some members questioned whether funds for the
Army’s modularity initiative launched in the fall of 2003 to create 10 additional
brigades that would be more deployable individually fits the emergency criteria.
Others questioned whether the funds for 30,000 additional Army personnel is
appropriately considered a temporary, emergency request rather than a longer-term
need. Funding for modularity and additional military personnel was approved,
however, by the conferees and both houses. Other members questioned whether the
cost of DOD’s military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is, in fact, unanticipated
or unpredictable since those operations are entering their third and fourth year
respectively, and monthly operational costs have averaged about $5 billion for some
Congressional Action. While the President won approval for most of his
supplemental request with an “emergency” designation, a few areas are not funded
due to the non-emergency nature of the program. In particular, P.L. 109-13 trims
funds for Afghanistan reconstruction by about $222 million, economic programs for
southern Sudan by $63 million, and U.N. peacekeeping contributions by $100
million. Conferees, like both the House and Senate, offset portions of the foreign
policy supplemental spending by rescinding $1 billion in FY2003 economic aid for
Turkey that has not been obligated.
During earlier debate on H.R. 1268, the House Appropriations Committee
determined that assistance for Jordan, Pakistan, Ukraine, the Palestinians, portions
of Afghanistan reconstruction, and USAID operating expenses in Iraq did not fit the
criteria for an emergency designation. Nevertheless, the Committee believed they
warranted support and offset these non-emergency items with the Turkey aid
rescission. The Committee’s report noted that emergency assignments were limited
to funds responding “to a situation which poses direct threat to life and property, is
sudden, is an urgent and compelling need, is unpredictable, and is not permanent in
The House-reported measure also denied funding for several foreign policy
activities that the Committee felt would be more appropriately addressed during the
regular FY2006 appropriations review. Most notably, the legislation excluded $570
million in reconstruction support and $66 million in counter-narcotics programs for
Afghanistan that the Committee said it would take up during debate on the FY2006
Foreign Operations measure. As mentioned above, however, folding these items into
consideration of the regular FY2006 spending bill is likely to intensify the challenges
of meeting the President’s $22.8 billion Foreign Operations appropriations request.
During House floor debate on March 16, lawmakers adopted an amendment by
Representative Upton prohibiting the use of funds in the bill for embassy security,
construction, and maintenance. Supporters argued, that among other things, the
Baghdad embassy request should have been proposed as part of regular FY2005 and
FY2006 appropriation bills and should not be assigned the emergency designation.
In the Senate, a parallel amendment offered by Senator Coburn, would have reduced
funding for the U.S. embassy in Iraq from $592 million to $106 million. The Senate
tabled the Coburn amendment 54-45.
Although several members questioned whether the Army’s modularity initiative
was a legitimate emergency expense, the House appropriators stated in their report
that they felt “compelled to fully fund the Army’s request,” in order to help the Army
face “significant challenges,” and “mitigate the stress on the current active-duty
For future funding of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the conference
bill retains sense of the Senate language that calls on the Administration to submit
by September 1, 2005, a budget amendment, by appropriation account, to cover
FY2006 military operations, as well as detailed cost estimates and an estimate of
costs in the following year.
Questions has also been raised by both houses and by the conferees about
whether military construction requests — which typically take some time to build —
fit the emergency category (see below). Senate appropriators questioned whether all
proposed military construction projects were appropriately emergency requests, and
cut several overseas projects for Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan which they
suggested should be considered during the regular defense authorization and
appropriations process when the issue of establishing a long-term U.S. presence
could be debated. During Senate floor debate, Senator Byrd also questioned whether
building a new prison facility in Guantanamo for detainees qualified as an
unanticipated emergency. An amendment to cut funding for Guantanamo was
defeated by a vote of 27 to 71.18
Unlike the House measure, H.R. 1268, as passed by the Senate, designated all
amounts as an emergency.
17 See H.Rept. 109-16, p. 6.
18 See S.Rept. 109-52, p.31ff for military construction cuts. For Byrd amendment, see
Congressional Record, p. S3515ff, vote on S3523, and section on Senate floor action below.
Defense Department Request
and Congressional Review
In the FY2005 Supplemental, the Administration requested a total of $74.96
billion. The Defense Department request was in addition to the $25 billion already
provided in the FY2005 DOD appropriations act (P.L. 108-287) for war-related costs
in the initial months of the fiscal year. Of that $25 billion, $2 billion was obligated
for FY2004 expenses, leaving $23 billion available for FY2005. That brings the total
amount anticipated by DOD for Iraq and Afghanistan and other expenses in FY2005
to $98.0 billion or 45% higher than the amount appropriated in FY2004.
Several major defense issues were raised during consideration of the FY2005
!increasing accountability for costs in the global war on terror;
!changing the composition of the Defense request;
!enhancing death benefits for service members;
!the emergency nature of investment funding for restructuring;
!oversight of flexible funds to support allies;
!implications of military construction funding.
Conference Action — Summary
In the conference report on H.R. 1268 (H.Rept. 109-72), the conferees close the
$2.0 billion gap between the House and Senate version by providing $75.86 billion
for the Defense Department — midway between the House total of $76.82 billion
and the Senate total of $74.78 billion which was close to the Administration’s
request. The conferees expand death benefits for survivors of service members who
die in combat or combat-related activities, adopting the eligibility standard in the
Senate bill for those who were to receive an additional $150,000 in life insurance
The conference version also provides $765 million to cover these higher
benefits that would be available both retroactively and in the future. However, these
new benefits would lapse as of September 30, 2005, unless the defense authorizers
include provisions in their consideration of the FY2006 defense request. The
conference version of H.R. 1268 also includes a new insurance rider for traumatic
injury protection that would provide from $25,000 to $100,000 both retroactively and
in the future; this provision will go into effect 180 days after enactment.19
As approved by both houses, the conferees provide the full $7.0 billion
requested to train Afghan and Iraqi security forces. The conferees chose, however,
to convert the detailed statutory reporting requirements in the Senate version report
to report language which calls on the Administration to develop and provide
Congress with “strategies of success” and performance indicators to assess the state
of security in Iraq and better judge how to allocate resources and the plans for U.S.
19 See sections 1012, 1013 and 1032 of H.R. 1268 in H.Rept. 109-72.
troop levels.20 The conference version retains Sense of the Senate language calling
on the Administration to submit its request for FY2006 military operations in a
budget amendment by September 1, 2005, and to provide overdue reports that are to
include detailed cost estimates.21
The conference version prohibits DOD from cancelling the C-130J transport
aircraft and from retiring the 12th carrier, the Kennedy, as proposed by the Senate.
The conference, like both houses, provides the full amount requested for the Director
of National Intelligence, including $181 million for a new building.
Resolution of Funding Differences. The conferees provide about $1.0 of
the $2.0 billion added by the House to DOD’s supplemental procurement request for
purchasing Army and Marine Corps trucks, tactical vehicles (e.g. HMMWVS), night
vision and other protective gear that DOD included in its FY2006 request that would
otherwise be included in DOD’s FY2006 request.
The conferees provide about $1 billion below the request for Operation and
Maintenance funds by cutting DOD’s request for funds to reimburse allies (lift and
sustain funds) and by transferring funds from the Afghan and Iraq Security Forces
Funds to cover Army training costs that the Army had requested separately.
The conferees cut DOD’s $1.4 billion request for military construction funds
by about $300 million because of concerns that the projects did not meet an
emergency criteria and that the projects could signal a long-term U.S. presence in the22
region when agreements with host nations have not yet been reached. The
conferees fund all projects in the United States to support unit restructuring plans of
the Army and Marine Corps and add funds for facilities to support Marine Corps
Expanding Military Benefits. The conference version increases benefit
levels and expands eligibility beyond that requested by the Administration.
!For benefits for survivors, the conferees provide higher benefits to
survivors of those who die either in combat areas or in combat-
related activities such as training, the standard proposed by the
Senate for the higher insurance levels.23 The bill includes $765
million to fund these benefits. Retroactive to October 7, 2001,
survivors of those eligible would receive an additional $238,000
20 Joint explanatory statement of H.Rept. 109-72 as reprinted in Congressional Record, May
21 See H. Report 109-72, “request for Future Funding for Military Operations in Afghanistan
22 See H.Rept. 109-72 in Congressional Record, May 3, p. H.2857ff. For a discussion of
these construction issues, see CRS Memo, “Military Construction in Support of Afghanistan
and Iraq,” by Amy Belasco, April 11, 2005, available from author.
23 See Sec. 1012 and Sec. 1013 of H.Rept. 109-72 in Congressional Record, May 3, 2005,
p. H. 2817.
above current levels. For the future, members could increase their
life insurance from $250,000 to $400,000 in $50,000 increments
with premiums paid by DOD for members in combat areas. Spouses
would have to be notified in writing if the service members opts for
less than the maximum level (see Table 5).
!The higher death gratuity would be available immediately but the
higher insurance levels would only go into effect 90 days after
enactment. For those who die in that intervening 90 days, DOD
would pay an additional $150,000 equivalent to the higher insurance
levels that would ultimately be available. Both the higher insurance
levels and the higher death benefit would, however, lapse on
September 30, 2005, unless the defense authorizers make changes in
the FY2006 defense authorization.
!The conference bill drops the Senate proposal to provide Federal
employees who are activated reservists with additional pay to make
up the difference between their military and civilian salaries but
includes meal and telephone services for soldiers recuperating from
Afghan or Iraq-incurred injuries but the provision lapses on
September 30, 2005.
!The conferees provide the Senate-proposed extension of basic
housing allowance for dependents of those who die in the Iraq and
Afghan theater for a year rather than six months — estimated to cost
$3 million cost in FY2005, $33 million through FY2010, but the
provision lapses on September 30, 2005.
!The conferees include the Senate-proposed traumatic injury
protection rider of up to $100,000 to service members enrolled in
Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) retroactive to October
7, 2001 for those injured in the Iraq and Afghan theaters that would
go into effect 180 days after enactment — estimated to cost $46
million in FY2005 and $106 million through FY2010.
!The conferees adopt the Senate-provision to provide travel for
family members of servicemembers hospitalized in the United States
for injuries but the provision lapses on September 30, 2005.
Actions Affecting Weapon System Plans. The conferees adopt the
Senate-proposal to prevent DOD from terminating the C-130J program, an aircraft
used for intra-theater lift and other missions. The Air Force plans to terminate the
C-130J program because of cost increases and problems in meeting requirements,
which could cost as much as $1.6 billion in termination costs. The Senate
amendment to require the Navy to keep 12 carriers rather than retire one as planned
until after completion of DOD’s Quadrennial Defense Review, and requires the Navy
to make available “necessary funding” from the amounts in the supplemental to
extend the life of the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy as “the Navy considers appropriate.”24
The Defense Department considers 11 carriers to be sufficient because ships are
being deployed for longer periods and have greater capability.25 The conferees also
adopt the Senate provision that prohibits DOD from spending funds for a winner-
take-all competition for the DD(X) destroyer as is being considered by DOD.
Accountability Concerns. The conferees state their concerns about
accountability in report language (see above) but drop the Senate-proposed statutory
reporting requirements for the Iraq Security Forces Fund. The conference bill retains
the Sense of the Senate language calling on the Administration to submit future war
costs in the Defense Department’s regular appropriations act, a provision also
included in the FY2004 Supplemental, and reiterates a requirement that DOD report
its costs for Iraq and Afghanistan, semi-annually as required in the FY2004
supplemental and the FY2005 DOD Appropriations Act.26
The conference version of H.R. 1268 provides the $7.0 billion requested for the
Afghan and Iraq Security Fund accounts and require that transfers of funds
!have the concurrence of the Secretary of State;
!are sent to defense committees five days in advance;
!are summarized in quarterly reports to the defense committees; and
!that DOD provide measures for stability and security in Iraq and
estimate planned rotations of U.S. forces rather than the statutory
reporting of the Senate version.27
!Both houses provide several hundred million less than requested for
coalition and other support for allies working with U.S. military
Senate amendments are listed in Table 2 and House amendments in Table 3.
Additional details on the issues above are in individual sections and a summary of
funding differences by account is in Table 5.
Senate and House Floor Amendments to Defense Request
During floor debate, the Senate considered some 35 amendments and the House
24 See H.Rept. 109-72, section, “Aircraft Carriers of the Navy.”
25 Inside the Air Force, “Senior USAF officer C-130J terminaition costs could exceed $2
billion,” March 4, 2005 and Washington Post, “Air Force to Require Lockheed Cost Details,
April 14, 2005.
26 Congressional Record, p. S3786ff.
27 Congressional Record, Apri119, p. S3891-3892.
28 For a complete list of amendments, see “Bill Status with Amendments” for H.R. 1268 on
[ h t t p : / / www.c ongr e s s . go v] .
Table 2. Defense-Related Amendments: Senate Floor
SponsorPurpose/Congressional Record page referenceStatus
KerryExtends payment of basic housing allowance for dependentsof active-duty service members who die on active duty. (p.Approved
KerryProvides $100,000 death gratuity to survivors of all active-Approved
(SA334)duty service members who die. (p. S3513, 3521) (voice)
Makes up the difference in civilian and military pay forApproved
Durbin federal employees who are activated for reserve duty. (p.(voice)
Sense of the Senate that veterans rated as unemployable beApproved
Reidconsidered eligible for concurrent receipt of VA benefits and(voice)
military retirement. (p. S3620)
Provides meal and telephone service benefits for active-dutyApproved
Obamaservice members recuperating from Iraq or Afghan-incurred (voice)
injuries. (p. S3641)
Authorizes travel and transportation of family members toApproved
Feingoldvisit members hospitalized in the United States for non-(voice)
serious illnesses (p. S3997)
ChamblissProhibits termination of procurement contract for C/KC-130Jtransport aircraft (p. S3965).Approved(voice)
DurbinRequires reports on Iraq Security Forces Fund (p. S3891)Approved(UC)
Provides traumatic injury protection insurance rider forApproved
Craig/Akakaservice members enrolling in Servicemembers Group Life(Voice)
Insurance (SGLI) (p. S4080)
Provides traumatic injury protection insurance riderApproved
DeWineretroactive to October 7, 2001 for service members enrolling(Voice)
in SGLI (p. S4081).
SalazarRenames the death gratuity fallen hero compensation (p.S3643)Approved(voice)
WarnerRequires report by 7/15/05 on property disposal process applying during current base closure round. (p. S3644) Approved(voice)
Prohibits implementation of certain orders on duties ofApproved
GrahamGeneral Counsel and Judge Advocate General of the Air(voice)
Force (p. S3643)
BayhAdds $213 million to buy additional uparmored HMMWVs(p. S4079, S4083)Adopted (61-38)
Stevens Provides amount requested for new building and additionalemployees for new Director of National Intelligence (p. 3532)Approved(UC)
ByrdSense of the Senate that war costs should be included inregular DOD appropriations. (p. S3786ff)Approved(61-31)
Requires Navy to keep 12th aircraft carrier until 180 days afterApproved
Warnerconclusion of Quadrennial Defense Review (p. S3981 and(58-38)
SponsorPurpose/Congressional Record page referenceStatus
ByrdCuts $36 million in military construction funds for detentionfacility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (p. S3513ff)Rejected (27-71)
MurrayProvides $1.98 billion for medical care for veterans (p.Ruled out of
Table 3. Defense-Related Amendments: House Floor
SponsorPurpose/Congressional Record page referenceStatus
Reduces and then increases Operation and Maintenance,
MoranDefense-wide by $1 million; with the intent to require theDefense Department to provide Congress with standards forApproved(voice)
success in Iraq. (p. H1458)
Prohibits the use of funds in the bill for purposes that wouldApproved
Markeyviolate the United Nations Convention Against Torture. (p.(420-2)
Prohibits the use of funds in the bill for contracts thatApproved
Velazquezcontravene small business participation goals in Sec. 15 (g)(2)(voice)
of the Small Business Act.
Adds $5 million to Operation and Maintenance defense-wide toRejected
Tierneybe used to create a commission to investigate contracting in(191-236)
Iraq. (p. H1455; H1486)
Motion to recommit bill with instructions to increase funds forRejected
HooleyO&M by $40 million and funding for Defense Health by $100(200-229)
WoolseyTransfers $186 million from regular defense appropriations billsto National Guard and Reserve personnel. (p. H1457)Withdrawn
Adds title, Hope at Home Act, providing that activated
reservists with federal jobs would receive the difference
Lantosbetween their military and civilian salaries, and provides taxWithdrawn
credits to private businesses which make up the difference in
income. (p. H1490).
Requires that military personnel who are evacuated due to
Markeyinjuries continue to receive hazardous duty pay until they are re-Withdrawn
assigned. (p. H1495)
Prohibits obligating funds in the bill for national intelligence
activities in countries sponsoring terrorism until President
Obeyinforms congressional intelligence and defense communities ofWithdrawn
all clandestine military activities where U.S. government
involvement will be hidden.
Establishes a select committee of the House to investigatePoint of
Tierneyawarding and implementation of contracts in AfghanistanOrder
and Iraq. (p. H1452)
FilnerProhibits use of funds in the bill for reconstruction contracts inIraq unless employers agree to give preference to veterans. Point ofOrder
Sources: Congressional Record, March 15, p.H.1427-H.1500 and March 16, 2005, p.
Future Cost and Accountability Issues
As part of the current debate about U.S. involvement in Iraq, the long-range cost
of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and accounting for those costs continued to be
significant issues. The Administration has not provided a projection of DOD costs
for FY2006-FY2011 that was required by January 1, 2005, in the FY2005 DOD
Appropriations Act.29 The Congressional Budget Office recently published an
illustrative long-term cost estimate that assumes that military personnel deployed or
supporting operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and enhanced security for defense
installations remain at today’s level of about 300,000 through FY2006, then decline
gradually to 74,000 by FY2010, and remain at that level through FY2015.30 Based
on those assumptions, CBO estimated that the cost for DOD from FY2006-FY2010
would be $260 billion and the ten-year cost through FY2015 would be $393 billion.31
Typically, CBO’s estimates are lower than DOD requests.32
CRS has estimated that DOD has already received $201.2 billion for Iraq,
Afghanistan, and enhanced security through previous enacted appropriations. With
the $75.6 billion for war-related costs in the conference version of the supplemental,
if CBO’s estimate of $260 billion were to be accurate, DOD’s costs could total $537
billion by FY2010.
The Democratic staff of the House Budget Committee (HBC) recently issued
a report specifically projecting the future costs of the Iraq war (i.e. excluding
Afghanistan and enhanced security) under two scenarios. One scenario envisions that
the United States withdraws all forces from Iraq within four years or by 2009, a
scenario which Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld told reporters that he expected to be
the case.33 Based on that scenario, the study estimated Iraq costs could total $461
billion including $287 billion in DOD costs and $175 billion in interest costs of the
Federal government because of the additional borrowing necessary to pay for the war.
Assuming a more gradual withdrawal of forces for Iraq as assumed by CBO, this
analysis estimated costs through FY2015 would total $646 billion, including $430
billion in DOD costs and $217 billion in additional interest costs.34
29 See Section 9012 of P.L. 108-287; the President may waive the requirement if he certifies
that the cost may not be provided for “purposes of national security.”
30 CBO, Estimate of War Spending, FY2005-FY2015, February 1, 2005, available online at
[ ht t p: / / www.cbo.gov/ f t pdocs/ 60xx/ doc6067/ 02-01-War Spendi ng.pdf ] .
31 CBO, Estimate of War Spending, FY2005-FY2015, February 1, 2005, available online at
[ ht t p: / / www.cbo.gov/ f t pdocs/ 60xx/ doc6067/ 02-01-War Spendi ng.pdf ] .
32 CBO, Letter to Senator Kent Conrad, “Estimated Costs of Continuing Operations in Iraq
and Other Operations of the Global War on Terrorism,” June 25, 2004, p. 1.
33 New York Times, “Rumsfeld Sees an Iraq Pullout in Four Years,” December 7, 2004.
34 House Budget Committee, Democratic Caucus, “Iraq War Cost Estimate” Costs to Date
and Costs to Go,” February 15, 2005. [http://www.house.gov/budget_democrats/analyses/
Congressional Action. Although the Administration did not include any
funds for war-related expenses in the FY2006 defense request, the recently-passed
FY2006 budget resolution includes a reserve Fund of about $50 billion for FY2006
but no war-related funding for later years. In a recent estimate, CBO reported that
the deficit in FY2005 — including an estimate of war-related spending — would
total $394 billion in FY2005 and $370 billion to $375 billion in FY2006.35 Several
members expressed concerns about the lack of information about future costs of the
war and occupations. The conference version of H.R.1268 includes sense of the
senate language in Sec. 1024 that finds precedent for including the cost of ongoing
military operations in annual budget requests, calls on the President to submit a
budget amendment for FY2006 with detailed cost estimates for ongoing military
operations, and an estimate of cost for the next 12 months.36
Accountability Concerns. Attempts on the House side to add amendments
during markup and floor debate to set up investigating committees or a special
commission modeled on the World War II Truman Commission that would
investigate war-time contracting failed to be added to H.R. 1268. During floor
debate, members raised concerns about where and how the Department of Defense
has spent the $200 billion already appropriated for the “global war on terror” in light
of recent reports by auditors about misuse of funds and DOD’s lateness in submitting
reports on war costs. The conference bill includes Senator Byrd’s sense of the
Senate amendment to include war and occupation costs in DOD’s regular
appropriations, following various precedents, and to require DOD to submit reports
on costs that are overdue that passed by a vote of 61 to 31.37
DOD has not yet sent Congress two reports on war costs and other matters that
were required by statute and due on April 1 and October 31, 2004; nor has DOD
delivered an estimate of costs for FY2006-FY2011 that was due January 1, 2005.38
An amendment offered by Congressman Tierney to set up a select committee of the
House made up of 15 members to investigate the awarding and implementation of
contracts was ruled out of order and a follow-up amendment to provide $5 million
to be used for such a commission was rejected by a vote of 236 to 191 (see Table 3
The House later adopted by voice vote the Moran amendment which reduced
and then added $1 million to funding for Operation and Maintenance Defensewide
with the intent — as voiced on the floor — that these funds would be used by the
Defense Department to provide Congress with information about its standards for
success in Iraq. The conference version also requires that DOD submit a report on
uparmoring HMMWVS within 60 days and every 60 days thereafter until termination
of the Iraq conflict. In Section 1031, the conference bill includes Senate language
35 CBO, Letter to Senator Thad Cochran, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S.
Senate, March 4, 2005, p. 1.
36 Sec. 1024 in H.R. 1268, Congressional Record, p. H.2818
37 Congressional Record, April 18, 2005, p. S3786ff.
38 See P.L. 108-106, Sec. 1120, P.L. 108-287, Section 9010, and Sec. 9012; for debate,
Congressional Record, March 15, 2005, pp. H1444, H1449, H1453-H1459.
that prohibits obligation of funds to subject any person in custody or under U.S.
control to torture or cruel or degrading punishment.
Size and Composition of DOD Request
The Defense Department request for FY2005 — including the $25 billion in
funds previously provided in the FY2005 regular DOD Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-
287) — totaled $98.0 billion or over 45% more than the $65.1 billion provided in the
FY2004 Emergency Supplemental (P.L. 108-106). The total request included several
major types of expenses as shown in Table 4:
!Recurring costs for military operations a 17% increase from $60.2
billion in FY2004 to $70.5 billion in FY2005;
!Investment costs, a six-fold growth from $3 billion in FY2004 to
almost $18 billion in FY2005 to replace equipment damaged or lost
in battles, recapitalize equipment for units returning to the United
States who leave their equipment behind, and buy additional
equipment for units to improve capability or add force protection;
!Support for other nations, a five-fold increase from $2 billion to
$11.5 billion including funds to train and equip Afghan and Iraqi
security forces, funds to pay for cooperative operations in the war on
terrorism by Jordan and Pakistan (coalition support), DOD
counterdrug programs in Afghanistan, administrative costs in Iraq,
and the Commanders Emergency Response Fund (CERP), a program
providing funds directly to unit commanders to distribute for local
Much of the year’s operating costs were already been provided in the $25 billion
included in Title IX of the FY2005 DOD Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-287).
Combined with peacetime appropriations for FY2005, CRS estimated that DOD
could finance or cash flow war-related expenses through May 2005.39 Recently DOD
requested a transfer of funds to cover ongoing costs and raised concerns about its
needs for new funds. Of the total request, about 70% was for operational costs —
higher pay for active-duty forces who are deployed, the cost of activating reservists,
higher operating tempo costs, higher depot maintenance costs to repair equipment
reflecting wear and tear on equipment, and classified programs. In the FY2005
supplemental request, recurring costs for military operations increased by $10 billion
or 17%. About $3.5 billion was for higher than anticipated fuel costs, and another
$3.5 billion for higher operating tempo.
Military personnel costs were comparable to FY2004 reflecting force levels in
FY2005 similar to those the previous year. The Defense Department anticipated that
39 CRS calculation taking into account average peacetime and war-related obligation rates,
assumes DOD would use all 4th quarter peacetime Army O&M and military personnel funds
as well as remaining transfer authority (where DOD moves funds between appropriation
accounts with Congressional approval).
forces in Iraq will decline from a highpoint of about 160,000 before the Iraqi
elections to 138,000 or about 20 brigades. Force levels in Afghanistan are expected
to remain at about 18,000 or three brigades.40 DOD continued to provide little
information about the roughly 300,000 military personnel either deployed or
supporting Iraq and Afghan operations, as well as enhanced security for defense
installations. The justification did not say how many reserve personnel are expected
to be activated, on average, for FY2005, or the number of personnel likely to be
deployed more than once in three years for active-duty forces or more than once in
five years for reserves, the policy standard set by DOD. As of the end of FY2004,
one-third of all those deployed had served two or more deployments suggesting that
these DOD policies are currently not being met.41
The FY2005 Supplemental request included about $1.7 billion for the cost of
an additional 30,000 active-duty military personnel authorized by Congress for
FY2005 in order to reduce stress on current forces. Some Members suggested that
these additional personnel will be needed on a long-term basis rather than
temporarily because of Afghanistan and Iraq and hence that this expense should be
included in DOD’s regular budget rather than the supplemental.
The Defense Department argued that the additional personnel will only be
needed temporarily until additional units are created by the Army’s modularity
initiative in FY2007, additional military spaces are freed up through converting
military billets to civilian slots, and “re-balancing” or changing the skill mix of active
and reserve Army units to increase skills now needed in greater numbers is
completed. Military police, civil affairs and intelligence personnel billets are to be
increased while artillery personnel and others are decreased.
40 DOD, FY2005 Justification, p. 15.
41 Data from the Defense Manpower Data Center.
Table 4. DOD Funding: FY2004 Enacted and FY2005 Request
(in billions of dollars)
Type of CostFY2004P.L. 108-FY2005Total FY2005Request
[Brackets = entry not included in totals] EnactedSupp.287Title IX(Title IX +(net of Title
Military Operations Costs60.221.470.549.1
Operating Tempo 31.815.835.619.8
Fuel price increase0.01.03.52.5
Working Capital Fundsa0.00.50.90.4
Morale/ Welfare/ Recreation0.00.10.40.3
Classified/Other Global War on Terrorismb6.31.88.06.2
Military Constructionc 0.50.01.11.1
Replacing battle losses 00.01.81.8
Recapitalization and Procurement22.214.171.124.6
Marine Corps Force Structure Review Grp 0.00.00.40.4
Storm Damage Repair0.30.00.00.0
Support to Other Nations2.01.111.510.4
Ir a q
[Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, [5.0]0.00.00.0
security costs funded in foreign operations]
Iraq Security Fund0.00.05.75.7
Commanders Emergency Response Fund[. ]0.40.70.3
Train and Equip: Backfill0.00.20.20.0
CPA Operating Costs/Iraq Project andNA0.00.30.3
[Military Aid training of security forces[.7]0.00.00.0
funded in foreign ops]
Afghan Security Fund0.00.01.31.3
Commanders Emerg. Response Program0.10.10.0
Train and Equip: Backfill0.30.30.0
Afghan Freedom Spt. Act & Counterdrug0.10.00.50.5
Coalition Support (Includes Lift &Sustain)1.90.02.02.0
Special Operations Forces Ctr in Jordan0.00.00.10.1
FY2005 Already Enacted in Title IXNA24.9-24.9NA
FY2005 New RequestNANA74.974.9
Notes and Sources: See [http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2005_supp.pdf]
a. Excludes fuel price increase.
b. Includes both procurement and O&M funds.
c. Excludes military construction for modularity.
d. Includes military construction associated with modularity.
Congressional Action — Funds for Personnel and Operations. The
conference version provides about $500 million more than the request for military
personnel primarily to fund higher death benefits in the bill (see section below). Both
bills reduce DOD’s $31 billion in operation and maintenance (O&M) funding
(excluding Tsunami relief and the Afghan and Iraq Security Funds) by about $1
billion primarily by reducing the Administration’s request for funds to reimburse
allies for their participation in the “global war on terror” (see section below) and for
a duplicate request from DOD to provide train and equip funds in both the Army42
O&M account and the Iraq Security Forces Fund. Unlike previous supplementals,
DOD’s FY2005 request applied savings in FY2005 from $1.1 billion in peacetime
training of Army forces and $159 million training for Marine Corps forces to wartime
Higher Survivor Benefits
DOD’s FY2005 Supplemental request included $376 million to provide higher
death benefits to the families of those killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan44
including funds to pay higher benefits retroactively. Under the Administration’s
proposed language, for the future, the Secretary of Defense could designate those
areas where service members who died in action or as a result of related injuries or
illness would be eligible to receive a death gratuity of $100,000 rather than the
current $12,420 level. In addition, the Administration proposed to increase the limit
on Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) from the current $250,000 to
Both changes would be applied retroactively to October 7, 2001 for those who
died while serving in the Iraq and Afghan theater of operations; thus, survivors of
those killed would receive an additional $238,000 including $88,000 in a death
gratuity and $150,000 in higher insurance payments (see Table 5).45
There was considerable debate in Congress about who should receive these
proposed enhanced benefits. In testimony, General Myers, Chair of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and the Chiefs of the individual services each voiced personal opinions that
these enhanced benefits should be available to any service member who died
42 These proposed reductions are taken from Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (see
Table 6). Total for Operation and Maintenance includes funding for working capital funds,
Defense Health, and Drug Interdiction.
43 House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 109-16, March 11, 2005, p. 12.
44 DOD, FY2005 Justification, February 2005, p. 15; [http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/
45 Office of Management and Budget, FY2005 Supplemental, 2-14-05, p. 57 to P. 58.
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/supplemental_2_14_05.pdf] For a
complete discussion of benefits available to survivors of deceased service members, see
CRS Report RL32769, Military Death Benefits: Status and Proposals, by David F. Burrelli
and Jennifer R. Corwell. The additional insurance payment would be given to all survivors
regardless of whether the service member had signed up; 98% of active-duty members elect
regardless of the circumstances.46 Several bills have been introduced by members of
Congress to provide such benefits including the Standing with Our Troops Act of
FY2005 and the Heroes Act.47
Congressional Action — Conference Bill Increases Benefits. The
conference bill raises the level of life insurance from $250,000 to $400,000 and
increases the death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000 for survivors of service
members who die in combat or combat-related activities. The conferees adopt a
broader eligibility standard than proposed by the Administration which restricted the
higher benefits to Iraq and Afghanistan but narrower, in some cases, than was
included in other versions of H.R. 1268 (see Table 5).
Conference Eligibility Standard. The conference version adopts the same
eligibility criteria for both future and retroactive benefits and for both the higher
insurance levels and the higher death gratuity. In other words, retroactively,
survivors of all service members who die in combat or combat-related activities
would receive an additional $238,000 to match the higher insurance levels available
in the future (+$150,000) and the higher death benefits (+ $88,000). For those
eligible, the death benefit increases from $12,000 to $100,000 and members could
purchase life insurance of up to $400,000 rather than today’s $250,000. For those
serving in combat areas, DOD would pay the premiums for the additional $150,000
Retroactive Increase in Benefits. The House version gave an additional
$150,000 to survivors of active duty service member who dies from injury or illness
“in the performance of duty,” a coverage broader than ultimately adopted. It is not
clear who would have been covered under this new standard. In floor debate,
Congressman Obey (author of the amendment adopted) suggested that the House
version would cover deaths of active-duty members who die while “in the line of48
duty” but not those who die while off-duty, such as in a drunken driving accident.
The cost of the higher benefit was also not clear and could range from $95 million
to $300 million according to Representative Obey, and up to $500 million more than
46 Senate Armed Services Committee, transcript, Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget,
February 17, 2005, p.78.
47 Senate Armed Services Committee, transcript, Hearing on Death Benefits for Survivors
of Military Personnel, February 1, 2005.
48 Congressional Record, March 15, 2005, p. H1466.
in the request according to OMB.49 Additional funds were not provided in the House
The Senate appropriators adopted a different eligibility criterion that would have
given $150,000 to survivors of members who die in the Afghan or Iraqi theater or to
those who die of “combat-related activities,” a standard currently defined in statute
to include hazardous duty, conditions simulating war or an instrumentality of war.50
The Senate bill added about $400 million to DOD’s military personnel accounts for
the broader benefits that would apply retroactively and in the future.
By voice vote on April 13, 2005, the Senate adopted the Kerry amendment,
which increased the death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000 for all active-duty
service members retroactively to October 12, 2001, broader than the House version
which provided the gratuity only to those who died in the Afghan and Iraqi theaters.
Future Increases in Death Benefits. In the House version, service
members in the future could increase their coverage under Servicemembers Group
Life Insurance (SGLI) from $250,000 to $400,000 (in increments of $50,000).
Service members who opt out of the full coverage had to get written concurrence
from his or her spouse. The Senate-reported bill also raised the maximum insurance
level to $400,000. The conference version, like the House and Senate bill and the
Administration request, all require that spouses be informed if the member opts for
insurance less than the maximum. The conference version adopted the Senate
proposal that for those serving in a combat zone, DOD — rather than the service
member — pay the premium for $150,000 in coverage.
The House-passed version of the bill also raised the one-time death gratuity
from $12,420 to $100,000 for all service members who dies in the future rather than
leaving it to the discretion of the Secretary of Defense to decide whose survivors
would receive the higher payment. The Senate-passed bill adopted the same
eligibility, rejecting the reported version which limited eligibility to those dying in
combat or combat-related activity (see Kerry amendment passed by voice vote).
49 See Sec. 1114 (b) in H.R. 1268 and CQ, “Panel Endorses $81.3 billion Emergency
Supplemental,” by Gayle S. Putrich, March 8, 2005. See DOD, FY2005 Justification,
February 2005 for Administration’s proposed language, p.57, and p. 15 for cost. For OMB
estimate, see Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy on
H.R. 1268, March 15, 2005;
Congressional Record, March 15, p.H1465-66 for Representative Obey’s later estimate.
During floor debate, this amendment was protected from challenge on points of order by an
amendment to H.Res 151, the rule governing consideration of H.R. 1268 by the Cole
amendment; see Congressional Record, March 15, 2005, p.H1429ff.
50 U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 1413a (e) (2).
Table 5. Proposed Changes in Death Benefits for Active-Duty Servicemembers
DeathCurrentDOD RequestHouse PassedSenate PassedConference Version
nefit La w
viceMembersRetroactive to October 7, 2001:Retroactive to October 7, 2001:Retroactive to October 7, 2001:Retroactive to October 7,
mbersmaySurvivors of members who die inSurvivors of members who dieSurvivors of service members who2001: Survivors of service
oup Lifepurchase upthe Afghan or Iraq theater receivein the “performance of duty” die in the Afghan or Iraq theater andmembers who die in the
suranceto $250,000$150,000.receive $150,000.who die as a result of combat orAfghan or Iraq theater and
GLI) in lifecombat-related activities receiveawho die as a result of combat
insurance inAfter enactment: Members mayAfter enactment: Members may$150,000.or combat-related activitiesa
$10,000purchase up to $400,000 in lifepurchase up to $400,000 in lifereceive $150,000.
increments.insurance in $50,000 increments.insurance in $50,000After enactment: Members may
iki/CRS-RL32783Effective date: As soon asincrements. Spouses must beinformed if member purchasespurchase up to $400,000 in lifeinsurance in $50,000 incrementsAfter enactment: Membersmay purchase up to $400,000
g/wpracticable.less than maximum.with premiums for $150,000 to bein life insurance in $50,000
s.orpaid by DOD for those in combatincrements with premiums for
leakzones. Spouses to be informed if$150,000 to be paid by DOD
member purchases less thanfor those in combat zones.
://wikimaximum.Spouses to be informed if
httpmember purchases less than
Effective date: 90 days aftermaximum.
enactment; lapses 9/30/05.
Effective date: 90 days after
enactment; lapses 9/30/05.
DeathCurrentDOD RequestHouse PassedSenate PassedConference Version
nefit La w
Survivors ofRetroactive to Oct. 7, 2001: Retroactive to Oct. 7, 2001: Retroactive to Oct. 7, 2001:Retroactive to Oct. 7, 2001:
atuitymembersSurvivors of members who die inSurvivors of members who dieSurvivors of all service membersSurvivors of service members
who diethe Afghan or Iraq theater receivein the Afghan or Iraq theaterwho die receive an additionalwho die in the Afghan or Iraq
receive$88,000.receive $88,000. $88,000.theater and who die as a result
$12,200. of combat or combat-related
After enactment: Survivors of thoseAfter enactment: Survivors ofAfter enactment: Survivors of allactivities receive an additionala
who die as a result of operations as all members who die receiveservice members who die receivea$88,000.
designated by the Secretary of$100,000.$100,000.
Defense receive $100,000.After enactment: Survivors of
Effective date: On or after dateEffective date: 90 days afterservice members who die in
iki/CRS-RL32783Effective date: As soon asof enactment.enactment; lapses 9/30/05.the Afghan or Iraq theater and
g/wpracticablewho die as a result of combat
s.oror combat-related activitiesa
://wiki Effective date: 90 days after
httpenactment; lapses 9/30/05.
: Department of Defense, FY2005 Supplemental Request for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), and Operation Unified Assistance, February
. 1268 engrossed as passed by the House, 3-16-05; [http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2005_supp.pdf]; Sec. 1113 - Sec. 1114 in H.R. 1268 as passed by
ouse and Sec. 1111 and Sec. 1112 as passed by the Senate on April 13, 2005. See Sec.1012 and 1013 in H.R. 1268, conference version.
ombat-related is defined in U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 1413a to include combat, hazardous service, conditions simulating war and an instrumentality of war. Those who die
in combat or combat-related activities before enactment of the higher insurance levels receive $150,000.
Other Benefits Increases. The conference bill adds a traumatic injury rider
to DOD’s life insurance policy that would provide from $25,000 to $100,000 that can
be purchased by members; benefits would be available retroactively. The provision
goes into effect 180 days after enactment. The conference bill rejects the provision
where the federal government would make up the difference between military and
civilian pay for reservists who are federal civilian employees. Other Senate proposals
to provide free mails and telephone benefits for recuperating service members and
expand eligibility for travel by family members are in the conference version (see
Table 2 above). DOD will need to draw funds from other activities to cover these
Recapitalization, Modularity and Construction Costs Grow
In the FY2005 supplemental, DOD requested a total of $17.8 billion for
investment, substantially above the $3 billion in the FY2004 supplemental (see
Table 3).51 This $17.8 billion included:
!$16.1 billion for procurement;
!$0.5 billion for research, development, test and evaluation projects
!$1.3 billion for military construction, $1 billion for construction
overseas, and $0.3 billion for the Army’s modularity initiative.
This funding was directed at several new DOD thrusts: a major push to provide
additional equipment for units not only to replace battle losses, but also to improve
capability, increase equipment, and add force protection equipment; accelerate the
Army’s plans to reorganize and reequip Army and Marine Corps units; and build
barracks and other facilities both within Afghanistan and Iraq and in surrounding
Procurement and Modularity Requests. The $16.1 billion in
procurement was for the following purposes: $1.3 billion to replace battle losses;
$5.1 billion to provide additional equipment for deploying and returning forces; $2.7
billion for additional force protection equipment; $4.1 billion for Army modularity
equipment; and $250 million for Marine Corps Force Structure Review Group
Initiative, a similar reorganizing initiative.
A major issue raised was the funding requested for the Army’s modularity
initiative that was originally announced by Chief of Staff General Schoomaker in
August 2003 as part of the Army’s transformation. Some Members questioned
whether this expense passes the test of emergency supplementals where funding is
requested for urgent and unanticipated requirements. The Army appears to have
accelerated its conversion plans announced last February, intending now to
reorganize not only three active brigades but also convert five rather than one brigade
and three National Guard brigades. This may explain part of the increase in funding
from the $2.8 billion in the February 2004 plan to the $5.0 billion in the new
51 This does not include classified programs funded in procurement for which no details are
supplemental. DOD announced that it plans to Fund the Army’s modularity initiative
in supplementals in both FY2005 and FY2006, and then transfer that funding to the
Army’s regular budget starting in FY2007.
Critics suggested that modularity expenses are more appropriately considered
a regular expenditure because they are a predictable, organizational change
announced over a year and a half ago. Therefore, these costs, according to some
analysts, should be included in DOD’s regular appropriations where they would
compete with other programs. The Army argued that the modularity initiative is
intended not only to transform Army units to be more lethal and more transportable,
but that the additional units will decrease the stress on Army forces by providing
more units to deploy.
The Army also requested many procurement items that would be used to
upgrade equipment or provide additional equipment for both deploying units and
returning units who are leaving their equipment behind. This type of expense is not
normally considered an incremental cost of contingencies as defined in DOD’s
financial regulations. DOD, in its justification material, argued that the additional
capabilities are necessary to deal with the dangers posed by the ongoing insurgency.
Some $2.7 billion of the procurement was for additional force protection equipment,
including not only additional armored Humvees, and add-on kits for other tactical
vehicles, but also a wide variety of other equipment for soldiers, such as night vision
goggles, and other devices intended to improve the military’s capability to deal with
improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
Military Construction Request.The new request also included $1.3
billion for military construction, about $1 billion overseas and about $0.3 billion
associated with the Army’s modularity initiative (e.g. providing additional barracks
for newly-formed units). Some of the military construction in and around Iraq and
Afghanistan was controversial because it was perceived to signal a long-term U.S.
presence, for example, replacing temporary tents with concrete barracks. Facilities
may also be constructed at a time when the U.S. has not negotiated bilateral
agreements with a permanent Iraqi government as is customarily the case for
overseas U.S. military construction projects. The justification for some projects —
for example, constructing a supply road in Iraq to link to a new Kuwaiti route that
avoids urban areas — was also less convincing than other projects, such as concrete52
billets, which were justified on safety grounds or force protection.
Congressional Action — Approach to Procurement Differs. The
conference bill includes over $1 billion of the $2.0 billion in additional funding
added by the House to DOD’s request. Procurement totaled $17.4 billion. Much of
the additional funds would accelerate Army purchases of trucks, upgrades to Abrams
tanks, additional uparmored HMWVVs, other force protection, and other equipment,
which would otherwise be funded in the FY2006 regular DOD appropriations bill.
That may make it easier to cut the FY2006 regular appropriations bill.
52 For a discussion of these construction issues, see CRS Memo, “Military Construction in
Support of Afghanistan and Iraq,” by Amy Belasco, April 11, 2005, available from author.
In its report, H. Rept.109-16, the HAC stated that these additions are intended
to fulfill “emergent requirements in force protection, force restructuring and
recapitalization ...” and to “accelerate programs for which funding has been
requested.”53 Although some would argue that these additions are justified because
they would be required later, others would argue that these items are not
appropriately categorized as emergency requirements.54
Full Funding of Army Modularity Request. The conferees, like both
houses, fully Fund the Army’s $5 billion request for modularity, accepting the House
rationale that the funds are “needed to mitigate stress on the current active duty
combat force by creating at least 10 additional combat brigades,” and that
supplemental funds would ensure that equipment would be available prior to
deployment for units “that will deploy to either Iraq or Afghanistan in the next two
troop rotations scheduled for later this year and in 2006.”55
Congressional Action — Military Construction Concerns. The
conferees mirrored the concerns of the House and Senate about the Administration’s
$1.0 billion request for overseas military construction — whether the projects fit the
emergency criteria and whether the projects signaled a long-term presence
prematurely rather than being projects of a temporary and expeditionary nature, is
appropriate.”56 The conference bill cuts overseas military construction by $300
million and adds $32 million to meet Marine Corps restructuring needs. The SAC
noted that it was more difficult for construction projects to meet the emergency test
of a supplemental because of the duration of the “global war on terror” and the long
lead times typical for construction.
The “expeditionary” nature of the U.S. presence suggests that temporary
facilities “should be the rule rather than the exception”in the committee’s view.57 In
those cases where there may be a case for an “enduring presence in the region,” that
should be part of a long-term plan, emergency appropriations would make emergency
funding less appropriate, the committee argues. The panel concluded that projects
which have that character “should be requested in the normal budget process, in
which both authorization and appropriations committees have an opportunity to
carefully consider the request.”58
53 House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 109-16, Making Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes,
March 11, 2005, p. 24.
54 House Appropriations Committee, Press Release, Full Committee Unanimously reports
War Supplemental, March 8, 2005; [http://appropriations.house.gov/]; and DOD, FY2005
Justification, February 2005. [http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2005_supp.pdf]
55 House Appropriations Committee, Press release, “Highlights of the War Supplemental,”
March 3, 2005; [http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.
56 S.Rept. 109-52, p. 31.
57 S.Rept. 109-52, p. 31.
58 S.Rept. 109-52, p. 31.
In light of these concerns, the conferees (like the Senate) cut four military
construction projects — a $57 million fuel tank farm and a $32 million prime power
generation plant at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, a $75 million aerial port in
Kuwait, and a $66 million project to improve the Al Dhafra Air Base in the United
Arab Emirates.59 The House had signaled its displeasure with DOD by prohibiting
obligation of some of the funds until DOD submitted an overdue comprehensive
master plan for basing of U.S. forces; DOD submitted the plan in mid-March 2005
but reportedly did not address Iraq. 60
New Flexible Accounts for Afghan and Iraqi Security Forces
The FY2005 supplemental proposed to establish two new accounts to train
Afghan and Iraqi security forces ranging from Army to police forces:
!$1.3 billion in the Afghan Security Forces Fund; and
!$5.7 billion in the Iraq Security Forces Fund.
For both funds, language of the request would have allowed the Secretary of Defense
to use the funds until funds are expended “notwithstanding any other provision of
law ... to provide assistance to the security forces of [Afghanistan or Iraq] including
the provision of equipment, supplies, services, training, facility and infrastructure
repair, renovation, and construction, and funding.”61 This language would have
exempted DOD from any restrictions applying to current training of foreign military
forces and would have allowed the Secretary of Defense or his designee to use these
funds for any purpose and for any type of security force — Army, national guard, or
police. Nevertheless, the Administration stated that it does not intend to use these
funds for training Afghanistan police forces, and requested $400 million elsewhere
in the supplemental for the State Department’s International Narcotics Control and
Law Enforcement office to support such police training.
The train and equip provision would effectively transfer policy and funding
authority from the Secretary of State, where authority for training foreign military
forces is currently lodged, to the Secretary of Defense. In recent testimony, Secretary
of State Rice supported this transfer and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld argued that
the authority reflects the current wartime situation. This transfer would remove this
traditional foreign policy tool from the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State.
The authority requested, and the DOD justification material provided, was
broader than currently available to the Secretary of State. DOD provided only an
illustrative breakdown of the funds but no details about the number and types of
personnel, the rate of training anticipated, the types of equipment to be purchased,
or the specific uses of the funds. The State Department, especially within its
quarterly report on the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, provided substantial
59 S.Rept. 109-52, p. 34 and p. 35.
60 See H.Rept. 108-342, p. 17 and H.Rept. 109-16 on FY2005 Supplemental, p.32.
61 Office of Management and Budget, FY2005 Emergency Supplemental Request, February
details regarding how it has used and plans to use in the future funds to train and
equip foreign military forces.
According to DOD, the $5.7 billion for Iraqi security forces that would cover
costs through July 2006, may be distributed to:
!$3.1 billion for front line security forces including up to two
!$809 million for support forces;
!$1.5 billion for police and other forces;
!$180 million for “quick response” funding; and
!$104 million for institutional training.62
These funds would be in addition to the $5 billion already provided in Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction Funding that was provided to the State Department in the FY2004
Supplemental, and $210 million in “train and equip” funds provided through DOD.
There was considerable debate in Congress about the effectiveness of training
of Iraqi security forces thus far. In testimony on February 16, 2005, before the Senate
Appropriations Committee, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld reported that 136,000
Iraqi forces had been trained thus far, including 57,000 Ministry of Defense Forces
(army, national guard, intervention forces, special operations, air force and navy)
79,000 Ministry of Interior forces (police, civil intervention, emergency response
forces, border enforcement, highway patrols, dignitary protection, special police
commandos).63 DOD’s justification material stated that thus far, Iraq’s transitional
government has fielded over 90 battalions but that “All but one of these battalions,
however, are lightly equipped and armed, and have very limited mobility and
Congressional Action — Conferees Oversight Concerns. The
conferees drop the Senate’s statutory reporting requirements for the Iraq Security
Forces fund in favor of report language. Both the SAC and the House approve DOD
request for $1.3 billion to train and equip Afghan security forces and $5.7 billion to
train and equip Iraqi security forces but add several reporting requirements.
Although the proposed language would still provide the funds to the Secretary of
Defense “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” the funds would be available
until the end of FY2006 rather than until expended.
In addition, DOD would need to have the concurrence of the Secretary of State
on the use of the money and to notify congressional defense committees in writing
62 Department of Defense, “Iraq/Afghanistan Security Forces: DoD’s FY05 Supplemental
Request,” February 2005; and DOD, FY2005 Justification, February 2005, p. 78-79.
63 Senate Appropriations Committee, transcript, Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2005
Emergency Supplemental, February 16, 2005, p. 30-31.
64 Department of Defense, FY2005 Supplemental request for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF),
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), and Operation Unified Assistance, February 2005
(hereinafter, DOD, FY2005 Justification), p. 78;
five days in advance of transfers from the funds, and report on transfers quarterly.
The original DOD language did not include any notification or reporting
requirements. DOD would still have the prerogative to distribute these funds to any
activities related to training and to any type of security forces from the Army to
police as well as being able to receive contributions from other nations for these
purposes. The detailed statutory reporting requirements in the Senate version of H.R.
Flexible Funds to Provide Support to Allies
In addition to its requests for $7.0 billion in flexible funds for Iraq and
Afghanistan security forces, the Administration requested $2.9 billion in other types
of support for allies in the “global war on terrorism.” Those funds included:
!$1.37 billion for coalition support to “key cooperating nations,” who
provide logistical and military support;
!$627 million for “Lift and Sustain” funds for security forces in Iraq,
Afghanistan and other nearby nations;
! $825 million for the Commander’s Emergency Response Program
(CERP) in which military commanders Fund local projects;
!$250 million to reimburse the services for providing equipment to
the Afghan Army;
!$99 million to set up a new Special Operations Training Center in
!$257 million for DOD’s counternarcotics program.65
Since the 9/11 attacks, DOD has received substantial funds in these flexible accounts
that may be distributed to U.S. allies in and around Iraq and Afghanistan to reimburse
them or provide logistical support for their participation in the “global war on terror.”
Although the DOD request would have required concurrence of the Secretary of State
and 15-day advance notification to congressional committees reporting for coalition
support — as was included in previous supplementals — the request included no
reporting for funds provided for “lift and sustain,” for the Commanders Emergency
Support Program, or for DOD’s counternarcotics programs. The State Department
also receives counternarcotics funds (see below).
Congressional Action — Conferees Cut Support to Allies. The
conferees reduce DOD’s request for funds to reimburse allies by several hundred
million but less than proposed by the House. For example:
!the conferees provide $500 million for “lift and sustain,” an
additional source of funds for Afghan, Iraq, and neighboring security
forces rather than the $600 million requested and in the Senate
version and the $300 million in the House bill;
65 Department of Defense, FY2005 Justification, p. 80-81.
!the conferees provide $1.2 billion for “coalition support” for
Pakistan, Jordan, and other cooperating nations in the “global war on
terror,” $150 million less than the request but above the House level;
!both bills support the $854 million request for the Commanders
Emergency Response Program (CERP), a program where unit
commanders dispense funds locally. 66
DOD Request for FY2005 by Appropriation Account
Table 6 below shows DOD’s estimate and Congressional action of the FY2005
Supplemental request. To provide context, the table shows total DOD needs for
FY2005 including both the amount provided in Title IX and the current FY2005
Emergency Supplemental Request, as well as DOD’s obligations, or contractual costs
in FY2004 based on accounting reports. In FY2004, DOD obligated all of the funds
The lion’s share of the request was for the Army, a reflection of the
predominant role of ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The greatest difference
between FY2004 and FY2005’s estimate was the amounts requested for investment
accounts — procurement, RDT&E, and military construction — and DOD’s request
for $7.0 billion to train and equip Afghan and Iraqi forces.
The conferees provide $1 billion more for the Army compared to the request and
the Senate level but less than the House’s add of $1.8 billion. Similarly, the Marine
Corps receives about $$300 million more than the request and the Senate level but
less than the $630 million proposed by the House. Both services play the major role
in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Navy’s request is cut by $300 million. The totals for
Defense-wide and the Air Force are close to the request (see Table 6 below).
66 House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 109-18, p. 12 and p. 14.
Table 6. Defense Department FY2005 Supplemental Request and Prior Funding
(billions of dollars)
Service/AccountFY2004ObligationsTitle IX,P.L. 108-287Total Based onFY2005 RequestPassedSenate PassedConference
CIAL ACCOUNTS SUBTOTALNA3.80010.7856.9856.9856.9856.985
han Security Forces FundNANA1.2851.2851.2851.2851.285
ecurity Forces FundNANA5.7005.7005.7005.7005.700
iki/CRS-RL32783. Pers. :Defense SubComm. (SC)11.9720.91614.21511.75711.78013.60913.609
s.orers.: Quality of Life SubComm (QOL SC)NANA1.5421.5421.542Included aboveIncluded above
leakerve Pers, Army0.0000.0000.0400.0400.0400.0400.040
://wikinal Guard Personnel, Army0.0000.0000.4290.4290.4290.2910.291
httpM, Army: Defense SC29.90813.55030.81717.20117.36616.76816.980
M, Army: QOL SCNANA0.0660.0660.066Included aboveIncluded above
M, Army Reserve0.0000.0000.0080.0080.0080.0210.026
M, Army Nat’l Gd0.0000.0000.1890.1890.1890.3270.327
t Proc, Army0.0000.0000.4590.4590.4590.4590.459
sile Proc, Army, 05/070.0000.0000.2940.2940.3410.2800.310
s & Combat Tracked Vehicles 0.4570.0502.4752.4252.6792.4062.551
er Proc, Army0.9540.7556.0715.3166.5505.5366.251
Service/AccountFY2004ObligationsTitle IX,P.L. 108-287Total Based onFY2005 RequestPassedSenate PassedConference
TOTAL 3 .8 1 8 0 .5 0 4 5 .4 3 8 4 .9 3 5 4 .5 6 2 4 .9 3 9 4 .6 0 3
y Personnel, Navy0.8570.0280.5530.5250.5340.5350.535
erve Personnel, Navy 0.0000.0000.0090.0090.0110.0090.009
ation and Maintenance2.5550.3673.7913.4243.0313.4313.031
iki/CRS-RL32783M, Navy, Tsunami0.0000.0000.1240.1240.1240.1240.124
g/wM, Navy Reserve0.0000.0000.0750.0750.0750.0750.075
s.ort Proc, Navy0.2110.0000.2000.2000.2000.2000.200
leaks Proc, Navy0.0000.0000.0720.0720.0720.0660.066
://wikimmo, Navy & MC0.0000.0790.2130.1340.1420.1340.140
httper Proc, Navy0.1890.0300.1160.0860.0780.0780.078
T&E, Navy 0.0070.0000.1790.1790.2020.1790.204
RINE CORPS SUBTOTAL2.8462.0577.2795.2225.8555.2895.655
y Personnel, MC0.9180.2421.4881.2461.2521.3581.358
erve Personnel, MC0.0000.0000.0040.0040.0040.0040.004
ion and Maintenance, MC1.5671.6652.6350.9700.9820.9700.982
M, MC, Tsunami0.0000.0000.0030.0030.0030.0030.003
M, MC Reserve0.0000.0000.0250.0250.0250.0250.025
Service/AccountFY2004ObligationsTitle IX,P.L. 108-287Total Based onFY2005 RequestPassedSenate PassedConference
rement, Marine Corps0.3600.1503.1242.9743.5882.9293.283
y Personnel, AF3.2720.0651.3811.3171.4731.6851.600
erve Personnel, AF0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
nal Guard Personnel, AF0.0000.0000.0010.0000.0000.0000.000
ion and Maintenance, AF6.1310.4196.5505.6025.7695.5295.627
iki/CRS-RL32783M, AF, Tsunami0.0000.0000.0300.0300.0300.0300.030
g/wt Procurement, AF0.0530.0000.2690.2690.2790.2690.277
leaker Proc, AF0.2860.1102.9442.8342.6592.6542.578
http Con, AF0.0000.0000.3020.3020.3010.1410.141
M, Defensewide, Tsunami0.0000.0000.0290.0290.0290.0290.029
ice of Inspector General 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
g Interdiction (for transfer)NA0.0000.2570.2570.2570.2270.242
ense Health: HAC QOL & SAC Defense 0.8880.6830.8590.1760.1760.2260.211
ense Health, Tsunami0.0000.0000.0040.0040.0040.0040.004
Service/AccountFY2004ObligationsTitle IX,P.L. 108-287Total Based onFY2005 RequestPassedSenate PassedConference
eas Humanitarian, Tsunami0.0000.0000.0360.0360.0360.0360.036
ional Gd & Reserve Equipment 0.0390.0500.0500.0000.0000.0000.000
ense Working Capital Fund0.0021.4782.7891.3111.4111.3111.511
ing Capital Fund, Navy0.0020.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
iki/CRS-RL32783ional Defense Sealift Fund0.0000.0000.0320.0320.0320.0320.032
g/w. Agencies, Special Ops & Other2.5840.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
s.orsferred to Coast Guard0.000-0.100-0.1000.0000.0000.0000.000
://wikieral Transfer Authority: FY05 Supp[3.000][1.500][6.500][5.000][2.000][2.000][3.000]
httperal Transfer Authority: FY05 DOD
atio ns [NA] [3.500] [6.000] [6.000] [5.500] [5.685] [6.185]
ense Cooperation Transfer Account0.0000.0000.0000.0120.0120.0000.000
cission - Iraq Freedom Fund0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.000-0.050
TAL DEFENSE DEPARTMENT65.63524.90099.94474.96776.82774.72675.864
TAL NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNCTION65.69724.900100.19475.21877.07774.97676.114
: CRS calculations based on Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Consolidated Department of Defense (DoD) Terrorist Response Cost Report (Revised), FY2004
emental Appropriation As of September 30, 2004; P.L. 108-287; Department of Defense, FY 2005 Supplemental Request for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring
OEF), and Operation Unified Assistance, February 2005; and H.Rept.109-18, Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2005, March 11, 2005, H.Rept. 109-
Foreign Policy Supplemental Request and
The President sought $6.3 billion in FY2005 supplemental funding supporting
a broad range of foreign policy activities:
!U.S. diplomatic costs in Iraq
!Afghanistan reconstruction and counternarcotics programs
!Darfur humanitarian relief and peace implementation aid in Sudan
!War on Terrorism assistance, including funds for Jordan and
!U.N. peacekeeping contributions
!Broadcasting programs in the Middle East
!Tsunami recovery and reconstruction
If enacted as proposed, FY2005 total spending for foreign policy programs would
have increased by roughly 50% over levels approved the international affairs budget
immediately prior to the 9/11 attacks. Even with Congressional reductions to the
foreign policy portion of the supplemental, FY2005 international affairs spending,
including the supplemental, is 41% higher than before 9/11 (see Table 7).
Table 7. Foreign Policy Budget, FY2001-FY2006
(billions of dollars)
F Y 2001 F Y 2002 F Y 2003 F Y 2004 F Y 2005 F Y 2005Supp F Y 2005 F Y 2006
Tot a l Tot a l Tot a l Tot a l Enacted Conf . Tot a l Request
$24.409 $25.455 $33.490 $49.618 $29.727 $4.782 $34.509 $33.635
Sources: OMB, Department of State, CRS calculations.
Congressional Action — Summary
Conference Consideration. As reported on May 3, and subsequently
approved in the House and Senate, H.R. 1268 provides $5.78 billion in new
appropriations for State Department, foreign aid, tsunami relief, and other foreign
policy activities. This represents a $512 million, or 8% reduction to the President’s
$6.3 billion request. Conferees, as had earlier House and Senate-passed versions of
H.R. 1268, offset part of these costs by rescinding $1 billion in FY2003-appropriated
funds for aid to Turkey that had not yet been obligated.67 As a result, the “net”
67 Congress appropriated $1 billion in the FY2003 Emergency Supplemental (P.L. 108-11)
appropriation for foreign policy programs in H.R. 1268 is $4.78 billion, or $1.5
billion below the request. The entire amount is designated as emergency
Beyond congressional decisions to reduce selected supplemental requests, the
conference agreement and the $512 million cut may have significant implications for
Congress’ consideration later this year of regular FY2006 appropriations for Foreign
Operations and the State Department. In some cases, House and Senate
Appropriation Committees had expressed the view that some supplemental requests
did not require immediate funding and could be addressed during the debate on
FY2006 appropriation bills. This is particularly relevant to the funds proposed for
Afghanistan reconstruction and economic aid programs in southern Sudan. Earlier,
Congress approved a budget resolution for FY2006 (H.Con.Res. 95) that assumes a
reduction in the President’s foreign policy funding request of about $2.4 billion, or
7%. If House and Senate Appropriation Committees add to the pending FY2006
request some of the items not approved in the FY2005 supplemental conference
agreement, the challenge of meeting the budget resolution target for international
affairs program will be an even greater challenge.
House Consideration. H.R. 1268, as passed by the House on March 16,
approved $4.92 billion for additional foreign policy programs. This level was $1.37
billion less than requested. During House Appropriations Committee markup on
March 8, the panel excluded items that it felt were not well justified, could be funded
by other international donors, or did not require immediate funding and could be
considered as part of the regular FY2006 appropriation. The House Committee
further redesignated $995 million as non-emergency spending and offset these costs
by rescinding $1 billion in unspent economic aid appropriated in FY2003 for Turkey.
This brought the “net” total for foreign policy programs in the House version of H.R.
1268 to $3.92 billion. During House floor debate, Members approved an amendment
by Representative Jackson adding $100 million in humanitarian relief for the Darfur
region in Sudan.
that could be used by Turkey to guarantee loans of about $8.5 billion to bolster its ailing
economy. With substantial economic recovery during the past two years, Turkey has not
drawn on the $1 billion loan guarantee funds.
Table 8. Foreign Policy Amendments: House Floor
SponsorPurpose/Congressional Record page referenceStatus
JacksonAdds $100 million in disaster and refugee aid for the Darfurregion of Sudan. (p. H1467)Approved(voice)
MaloneyIncreases by $3 million the Tsunami Relief and RecoveryFund, and to decrease by $3 million ESF funds. (p. H1467)Approved(voice)
UptonProhibits the use of funds in the bill for embassy security,construction, and maintenance. (p. H1482, H1486)Approved(258-170)
TancredoProhibits the use of funds in the bill for tsunami relief. (p. H1479)Rejected(voice)
WeinerProhibits the use of funds in the bill for aid to Saudi Arabia. (p. H1484, H1487)Rejected(196-231)
Prohibits the use of funds in the bill for the PalestinianRejected
WeinerAuthority and for West Bank and Gaza projects. (p.(voice)
KellyProhibits funds for aid to the Nigerian government. (p.H1489)Withdrawn
Senate Consideration. The Senate passed its version of H.R. 1268 on April
21, providing $5.74 billion in new appropriations for foreign policy activities, a level
about $350 million less than the President’s request, but over $800 million more than
passed the House. Like the House, the Senate version of H.R. 1268 offset the foreign
policy total by rescinding $1 billion in FY2003-enacted economic aid for Turkey,
bringing the “net” amount down to $4.74 billion. But unlike the House, the Senate
measure designated the entire foreign policy portion as an “emergency”
appropriation. The Senate considered over 20 amendments related to foreign policy
items in the supplemental, altering the Committee-reported bill in several key ways.
In particular, the Senate, in adopting two amendments offered by Senator Byrd
and Senator Ensign, shifted about $550 million from international peacekeeping and
Iraq and Afghanistan mission operations to bolster U.S. border security. Conversely,
the Senate added $320 million in food assistance to provide additional resources for
humanitarian crisis in Darfur and elsewhere, and to replenish food aid accounts
which had previously been diverted for emergency purposes. Eight amendments
were approved concerning tsunami-affected countries, including a provision allowing
up to $45 million, as requested, debt deferral or rescheduling. Among other
amendments, the Senate:
!fully funded the request for the State Department’s Office of
the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization and for
the ready-response corps, offset by a reduction for the Global
War on Terrorism Partners Fund;
!added $5 million for democracy programs in Lebanon, offset
by a further reduction in the Partners Fund;
!added $20 million in aid to Haiti; and
!designated $90.5 million in peacekeeping funds for Darfur.
The Senate rejected one amendment — by Senator Coburn — that would have
reduced funding for the U.S. embassy in Iraq from $592 million, as proposed by the
Committee, to $106 million. See Table 9 for further information on other
Table 9. Foreign Policy Amendments: Senate Floor
SponsorPurpose/Congressional Record page referenceStatus
McConnellAdds aid to combat the avian flu virus to the purposes forwhich the Tsunami Recovery & Reconstruction Fund canApproved
(No. 402)be used. (p. S3542)(UC)
ObamaMakes mandatory a $25 million “soft”earmark forprograms to prevent the spread of the avian influenzaApproved
(No. 422)virus (p. S3619) (UC)
LeahyBroadens the provision for using $5 million forenvironmental recovery activities in all tsunami-affectedApproved
(No. 404)countries (p. S3542)(UC)
LeahyMakes obligations from the Tsunami Recovery &Reconstruction Fund subject to congressional notificationApproved
(No. 405)five days in advance of obligation. (p. S3542)(UC)
McConnellPermits up to $45 million for costs associated with thedeferral and rescheduling of debt owed by tsunami-Approved
(No. 491)affected countries. (p. 3811)(UC)
LandrieuEarmarks $25 million to assist children and others inApproved
(No. 414)tsunami-affected countries. (p. 3993-95)(UC)
DurbinProvides $10 million for programs creating new economicopportunities for women in tsunami-affected countries. Approved
(No. 489)(p. S 4000)(UC)
BennettProvides $20 million for microcredit programs inApproved
(No. 425)tsunami-affected countries. (p. S4001)(UC)
Increases the amount available to the Office of the
LugarCoordinator for Reconstruction & Stabilization to $17.2Approved
(No. 403)million (as requested); offsets this amount by reducing(UC)
funds for the GWT Partners Fund (p. S3542)
SalazarAdds $5 million for democracy programs in Lebanon;offsets this amount by reducing funds for the GWTApproved
(No. 370)Partners Fund (p. S3619)(UC)
LeahyMakes certain State Department funds appropriated forApproved
(No. 423)FY2005 subject to reprogramming. (p. S3619)(UC)
SponsorPurpose/Congressional Record page referenceStatus
LeahySense of the Senate regarding the restoration ofApproved
(No. 492)democracy in Nepal (p. S3811)(UC)
LeahyEncouraging Ecuador to protect the biodiversity of theApproved
(No. 548)Galapagos. (p. 3881)(UC)
KohlIncreases from $150 million to $470 million food aid. (p.Approved
(No. 380)S3966-68; S3970) (UC)
CorzineEarmarks $90.5 million of Contributions to Int’lPeacekeeping for peacekeeping & humanitarian aid inApproved
(No. 368)Darfur. (p. S4080) (UC)
Corzine/To impose sanctions against perpetrators of crimesApproved
Brownbackagainst humanity in Darfur. (p. S4005-07)(UC)
LeahyProvides $5 million to assist families & communities ofAfghan civilians who have suffered losses due to militaryApproved
(No. 493)operations. (p. S4000)(UC)
DeWineProvides $20 million for aid programs in Haiti. (p. S4001)Approved
ByrdProvides $390 million for U.S. border security; reducesfrom $767 million to $358 million funds for U.S. missionApproved
(No. 516)operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. (p. S3983-84; 3988)(65-34)
EnsignAdds $147 million for U.S. border patrol agents; reducesContributions to Int’l Peacekeeping by $147 million. (p.Approved
(No. 487)S4079, S4084, S4087)(UC)
CoburnReduces from $592 million to $106 million funds for theTabled
(No. 471)U.S. embassy in Iraq. (p. S3971-76; S3981; S3984-85)(54-45)
Key Provisions in Conference, House, and Senate Bills. Major
recommendations included in H.R. 1268 as agreed to by conferees, and previously
passed by the House and Senate, include:
!Afghanistan reconstruction and police training — $1.78 billion,
$262 million less than requested. This level fell between the House-
passed measure ($1.4 billion) and the Senate ($2.05 billion). The
conference agreement further fully funds counter-narcotics activities,
but reduces policy training by $40 million.
!Darfur humanitarian aid — at least $238 million, roughly the
amount proposed by the President. The conference agreement,
however, adds $90 million in food aid world-wide, some of which
might be available for Darfur, and permits the transfer of $50 million
in support of African Union peacekeeping operations in the region.
The House measure had increased the funding level for Darfur to
$342.4 million. The Senate version approved $242 million, as
requested, but added an additional $320 million in food assistance,
some of which could be used in Darfur, and $90 million that could
have been transferred to meet humanitarian and peacekeeping needs.
!Sudan peace implementation aid — $37 million, as had been
included in the House measure. Conferees delete $63 million in
rehabilitation and reconstruction funding. The Senate bill had
included the entire $100 million request.
!Palestinian aid — $200 million, as requested and passed in earlier
House and Senate votes. The conference measure sets aside $50
million, similar to the Senate version, for Israel to help facilitate the
movement of Palestinian people and goods in and out of Israel.
Conferees recommended that none of the funds be available for
direct financial support to the Palestinian Authority.
!Pakistan military aid — $150 million, as requested.
!Jordan economic and military aid — $200 million, as requested.
!Iraq embassy — $592 million, $66 million below the request. This
is the same level as in the Senate bill, while the House measure
included an amendment that baring the use of the funds for
construction of the embassy.
!Peacekeeping — $680 million, $100 million below the request. The
conference amount is higher than both the House ($580 million) and
Senate ($442 million). The Senate figure could have been reduced
further due to an authority to transfer $90.5 million for African
Union peacekeeping support in Darfur and humanitarian needs in
!Tsunami relief and prevention — $656 million for relief and $25.4
million for prevention, the same as in the Senate bill. The House-
passed amount was slightly higher. The conference agreement
provides authority (but not the $45 million requested) to defer and
reschedule debt owed by tsunami-affected countries. The House bill
had not granted such authority.
!Partners Fund and Solidarity Fund — No funds are provided for the
Partners Fund ($200 million proposed), while the full $200 million
request for the Solidarity Fund is included. In addition, the
conference agreements adds $30 million for other Global War on
Terror security assistance, as determined by the President. The
House had denied all funding for these purposes, while the Senate
approved $225.5 million for the two contingency funds.
!Ukraine aid — $60 million, as requested and including in the Senate
measure. The House had approved $33.7 million. In addition,
similar to the Senate, the conference agreement provides $10 million
for other regional aid requirements in Belarus and the North
!Haiti assistance — $20 million, of which $2.5 million for criminal
case management, case tracking, and the reduction of pre-trial
detention in Haiti, similar to the Senate position. The $20 million
had not been requested or included by the House.
!Iraqi families and communities affected by military operations —
$20 million for civilians who have suffered losses due to military
activities, similar to a Senate-added provision. These funds will be
drawn from the $18.44 billion appropriated in P.L. 108-106, the
FY2004 emergency supplemental for Iraq reconstruction.
Each of these elements and others are discussed in more detail below. Table 10
(below) summarizes the spending request.
U.S. Diplomatic and USAID Operations in Iraq
The supplemental request included a total of $1.37 billion for U.S. Mission
operations in Baghdad ($690 million), the construction of a new embassy compound
($658 million), USAID operating expenses in Iraq ($24 million) and USAID
Inspector General costs in Iraq ($2.5 million).
For U.S. Mission operations and embassy construction, the supplemental funds
are intended to cover costs for the balance of FY2005 and most expenses in FY2006.
Previously, Congress appropriated in several spending measures $991 million for
Mission operations for FY2004 and FY2005, of which $769 million remained for this
year. The Administration estimates that the State Department will need $1.06 billion
in FY2005 to manage activities of about 1,000 American personnel located in
Bagdad and four regional offices. The State Department sought $290 million for
Mission operations, including logistics and security, for the rest of FY2005, and $400
million for “extraordinary” security and logistical expenses in FY2006. The regular
FY2006 budget, submitted to Congress on February 7, 2005, includes $65 million
that will serve as a “funding base for basic embassy operations” and assumes that the
U.S. Mission in Baghdad will reach a “basic operations” status at some point in the
The State Department plans to build the new embassy over the next 24 months
and argues that it needs the entire funding now so Mission staff can move out of
temporary facilities as quickly as possible as promised to the new Iraqi government.
The $658 million sought represents the entire estimated construction costs, plus
“reasonable” contingency amounts to manage possible risks of the project.
According to the Department, planning for the new embassy would be completed by
68 Department of State, FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations Financial Plan, February
2005, pp. 21-22; and remarks of Joe Bowab and Eric Hembree, Deputy Assistant Secretaries
of State for Resource Management, during a State Department news briefing, February 14,
March 15, 2005, with an anticipated contract award date of mid-May 2005, subject
to passage of the supplemental. Under this time schedule, the project would be
completed in May 2007.69 Critics note, however, that Congress has already
appropriated about $20 million in previous supplementals specifically for
construction of the embassy. Moreover, they say, plans for a new facility were far
enough along in calendar 2004 that the Administration should have amended its
FY2005 regular appropriation request to accommodate the sizable funding additions
needed for embassy construction. To them, the proposal does not meet the test of an
Congressional Action. The conference agreement on H.R. 1268 provides
$690 million for Iraq Mission operations and USAID operating and IG costs, $27
million less than requested. Conferees further settled on $592 million for
construction of a new embassy in Baghdad, a level $66 million below the request.
Conferees added a $250,000 earmark for a contribution to a scholar-rescue program
that would bring Iraqi and Afghan scholars, whose lives are threatened in their home
countries, to the United States and place them in host universities.
The matter of funding for a U.S. embassy in Baghdad was one of the most
contentious elements of the supplemental debate. Initially, the House Appropriations
Committee had recommended a reduction of $66 million for embassy construction
(the same as in the conference agreement), stating that even with this cut, remaining
funds would be sufficient for the compound to be constructed within the
Administration’s two-year schedule. During floor debate, however, the House
adopted (258-170) an amendment by Representative Upton, prohibiting the use of
any funds in the bill for embassy security, construction, or maintenance. Supporters
of the amendment argued that since planning for a new Baghdad facility had been
underway for at least a year, this should not be funded as an emergency requirement.
Instead, the Administration should have submitted a proposal for consideration in the
regular FY2005 appropriation or requested funds in the regular FY2006 spending
measure. Before adoption of the Upton amendment, the White House had expressed
concern over the Committee’s $66 million cut for embassy construction. Officials
argued that full funding of the $658 million request was important for a “secure work
and living environment for Americans serving in Baghdad,” and that construction
postponement would delay the movement of U.S. staff into “more safe, secure, and
The Senate supported State Department construction plans for a graduated
design that could be scaled back as requirements in Baghdad change. The $592
million provided — $66 million less than the request — was, in the Committee’s
view, sufficient given reduced mission staffing levels. During floor debate, the
Senate tabled (54-45) an amendment by Senator Coburn that would have reduced
funding for the embassy to $106 million, an amount that supporters of the
69 FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations Financial Plan, pp. 25-29.
70 For further information, see CRS Report RS21867, U.S. Embassy in Iraq.
71 OMB, Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1268. March 15, 2005, p. 2.
amendment argued was needed immediately, but contended that the balance could
be addressed in regular appropriation bills.
H.R. 1268, as passed in the Senate, also cut funds for State Department
operating costs in Iraq and Afghanistan. A floor amendment by Senator Byrd set
funding for diplomatic and consular programs at $357.7 million, about $400 million
below the President’s request for both missions. This reduction came as an offset to
fund additional U.S. border security needs in the Byrd amendment.
Afghanistan Reconstruction, Counternarcotics,
Police Training, and Other Activities
The supplemental proposed $2.046 billion for Afghanistan out of foreign policy72
budget accounts. By comparison, enacted FY2005 appropriations for economic,
law enforcement, and security assistance to Afghanistan total about $1 billion, and
between $1 billion and $1.1 billion is proposed for FY2006. The Administration
argues that the supplemental is necessary in order to support the newly elected Karzai
government plan for the upcoming Parliamentary elections and to complete high
impact projects that could be done in the near term.73 The supplemental funds for
Afghanistan are divided into several components.
!U.S. Mission operations and security — $60 million.
!Infrastructure and economic development — $795.8 million. These
funds would be used to continue ESF-funded secondary road
construction ($125 million), power transmission and generation
capacity ($300 million), health sector reforms and services ($69
million), school construction and teacher training ($68 million),
Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) infrastructure ($75
million), clean water and agriculture projects ($82 million), and
other reconstruction activities.
!Capacity-building of the Afghan government, including
strengthening democratic institutions — $265 million. This would
cover government salaries, infrastructure, support for parliamentary
elections, and other rule of law and democracy promotion activities.
Included is $25 million to complete the Kabul airport.
!Anti-terrorism training and protection — $17.1 million for providing
security for President Karzai. Congress approved $18.8 million in
the regular FY2005 Foreign Operations appropriations for similar
programs funded under the Non-Proliferation, Anti-Terrorism,
72 Elsewhere, in the DOD portion of the supplemental, the Administration sought $1.285
billion to assist Afghan security forces and an additional $257 million for drug interdiction
and counter-drug activities in Afghanistan and Central Asia. Furthermore, there was $7.6
million requested for Drug Enforcement Agency participation in U.S. counternarcotics
activities in Afghanistan.
73 FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations Financial Plan, p. 1.
Demining, and Related Programs (NADR) account for Afghanistan.
For FY2006, the State Department seeks an additional $18.4 million
for NADR account activities.
!Police training — $400 million. These funds are intended to
accelerate on-going efforts that will be expanded further by FY2006
requested appropriations. Activities include Task Force Police
training ($285 million), police equipment ($74 million), and salary
payments ($40 million).
!Counternarcotics (eradication and interdiction) — $260 million. Of
this total, $95 million would cover costs already incurred to begin
crop eradication, establish a National Interdiction Unit, and support
public information programs. The balance of $165 million would
expand efforts for eradication ($89 million), interdiction ($51
million), law enforcement ($22 million), and public information ($3
million). Authority is also sought to transfer up to $46 million of the
amount to ESF programs, presumably in support of alternative
!Counternarcotics (alternative livelihood programs) — $248.5
million. A portion ($139 million) of this amount would replenish
reconstruction and development aid accounts that had been drawn on
previously to address alternative livelihood activities. The balance
($110 million) would be used to expand programs into a total of
In total, including Defense Department and DEA accounts, the FY2005 supplemental
sought $773 million for counternarcotics in Afghanistan and Central Asia.
Congressional Action. Conferees approved $1.78 billion for Afghan
programs covering U.S. mission costs, reconstruction, counter-narcotics, police74
training, and security for President Karzai. This level is about mid-way between
Senate ($2.05 billion, the same as the request) and House ($1.4 billion) amounts.
The conference measure redistributes the funds differently than had been requested.
U.S. mission operations, counter-narcotics activities, and President Karzai’s security
detail are fully funded, while conferees reduced police training from $400 million to
$360 million. The most debated element of the Afghanistan request was the portion
for economic reconstruction. The conference measure trims about $220 million of
the President’s $1.1 billion request, finding that some projects did not fit the
“emergency” nature of the supplemental. The conference level, however, assumes
full funding for health programs and expenses of provisional reconstruction teams.
Conferees recommend $5 million for women-led NGOs in Afghanistan and $5
million for displaced persons, as provided by the Senate, and earmarks $2.5 million
74 In the DOD portion of H.R. 1268, conferees approved an additional $1.285 billion for
Afghan security forces and $242 million for DOD drug interdiction activities in
Afghanistan. Conferees further included $7.6 million for DEA programs in Afghanistan and
to assist families and communities of Afghan civilians who have suffered losses due
to military operations. The Senate bill had included a $5 million earmark for this
In earlier action, the House-passed bill rejected $46 million for aerial eradication
efforts and denied funding for several reconstruction projects, including money for
the Kabul Airport, a new law school in Kabul, a power plant, industrial parks, a
courthouse, and a community housing project. Some of the projects, the House
Appropriations Committee noted, will be reviewed during consideration of the
regular FY2006 Foreign Operations appropriations. In its report on H.R. 1268, the
Committee said that it expected that some of these projects could be financed by
other countries, the Asian Development Bank, and the World Bank.
The Senate measure shifted $46.5 million of the request from operation and
maintenance (O & M) of a helicopter fleet to eradicate illicit crops to a pilot program
to train local Afghan police forces. The Committee noted in its report that an earlier
reprogramming proposal for procuring the helicopters had been denied, making the
O & M funds unnecessary.
Sudan North-South Peace Support
The Administration requested $100 million for immediate support of the
January 9, 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the government in
Khartoum and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement in the south. In justifying
the request, the State Department noted that when FY2005 appropriation decisions
were finalized, a peace accord was uncertain. The supplemental programs, officials
said, would help ensure that the peace agreement is effectively implemented.75
Most of the supplemental proposal targeted needs in southern Sudan. The
proposal included $22 million for assisting the National Commissions required under
the peace accords and supporting governance and political party development, $10
million for security sector reform in southern Sudan, $63 million for rehabilitation
and reconstruction, primarily in southern Sudan, and $5 million for UNHCR,
International Organization for Migration, and NGO repatriation programs for
Sudanese refugees. The $100 million total supplemental requested for Sudan
compares with about $200 million allocated for all activities in FY2005 and $112
million proposed for FY2006.
The supplemental proposal for Sudan also reflects a new initiative proposed
more broadly in the regular FY2006 budget request for post-conflict, fragile
countries. The Administration recommends shifting assistance that has traditionally
been channeled through USAID’s Development Assistance account to the Transition
Initiative (TI) account. TI funds are available under more flexible programming
authorities than regular development assistance, and according to the Administration,
will permit more effective and better targeted types of support that post-conflict
states require in the near-term. Four countries — Sudan, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and
Haiti — are scheduled for this funding transfer in the FY2006 request. Included in
75 FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations Financial Plan, p. 6.
the $100 million, the supplemental proposal also seeks $63 million for Sudan
rehabilitation and reconstruction under the TI account.
Congressional Action. While fully supporting the requests for security,
governance, and refugee repatriation programs, the conference agreement, like the
House-passed bill, does not include $63 million for reconstruction programs in
southern Sudan. The Senate measure provided the full $100 million requested for
programs related to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.76
Darfur Region and Eastern Chad
The supplemental sought $242 million for emergency humanitarian relief for the
Darfur region of Sudan and for eastern Chad. These funds would add to the roughly
$375 million currently allocated or planned for emergency programs with existing
FY2005 funds. As the crisis worsened throughout 2004, the demands for a broader
U.S. response exceeded those assumed in the FY2005 budget request, according to
the Administration. The supplemental request included $48.4 million in refugee aid,
$44 million for both replenishing previously expended disaster relief funds and
meeting new emergency shelter, clean water, and medical requirements in the region,
and $150 million in food aid. The food aid request was intended to relieve some of
the current pressure on the enacted FY2005 food assistance budget in meeting not
only the needs in Darfur, but in a number of crisis situations around the world.
Congressional Action. Conferees approved at least $238 million for Darfur-
related support (roughly the level requested), although this total could climb if the
Administration decides to allocate additional food aid to the region or transfer
peacekeeping funds for the African Union’s operation in Darfur. The conference
agreement adds $90 million in food aid that can be used globally to address
emergency shortfalls. Some of this additional amount could be used in Darfur if the
situation warrants. The Senate bill had added more — $320 million — in food
assistance, amounts that also could be used worldwide, including Darfur. Conferees
also permit the transfer of $50 million in support of African Union peacekeeping
operations in the region. These funds would be drawn from the State Department’s
assessed U.N. peacekeeping account from which U.S. contributions might be drawn
for a U.N. mission in Darfur.
Previously, the House-passed supplemental added $100 million — for a total
of $342.4 million — to the Administration’s request for humanitarian assistance to
the Darfur region. The initial House Committee draft bill had provided $92.4
million. During Appropriations Committee markup, the House panel voted 32-31 to
approve an amendment by Representative Jackson to restore $150 million in food
assistance that had been requested but not made part of the Chairman’s draft bill.
Earlier, however, the Committee had rejected (29-30) a more expansive amendment
by Representative Jackson that would have provided the additional food aid, plus
$100 million for more refugee and disaster relief in the Darfur region. Subsequently,
76 The Senate bill, however, directed that $2.5 million of the $63 million in Transition
Initiative funds be used for the management of criminal cases, case tracking, and the
reduction of pre-trial detention in Haiti.
during debate on March 15, the House adopted by voice vote an amendment by
Representative Jackson adding the same $100 million for Darfur that had been
rejected in Committee.
H.R. 1268, as passed in the Senate, provided $242.4 million directly for
humanitarian aid for the Darfur region and eastern Chad, the same as the request. In
addition, two floor amendments could have pushed this figure higher. As noted
above, an amendment by Senator Kohl added $320 million in food assistance for
Darfur and to meet other emergency and non-emergency food aid needs around the
world. A second amendment by Senator Corzine made available $90.5 million out
of the Contributions to International Peacekeeping account specifically for Darfur.
Of this total, $50 million could be transferred to support African Union peacekeeping
activities in the region, while $40.5 million could be transferred for additional
humanitarian relief needs in Darfur.
Global War on Terrorism-Related Programs
The Administration proposed $750 million in direct aid for Jordan, Pakistan,
and other coalition partners in the war on terrorism, some of which has been
challenged for representing an open-ended contingency resource that lacks sufficient
controls and congressional oversight.
!Jordan economic and military aid — $200 million. These funds,
which would be evenly split between economic and military aid, are
justified as necessary to help Jordan offset the costs of hosting Iraq
training initiatives, address increasing threats from Iraqi insurgents
and problems on the Syrian and Saudi borders, and high oil prices.77
The supplemental package would come on top of $452 million
already appropriated for Jordan in the regular FY2005 appropriation
and $456 million requested for FY2006.
!Pakistan military aid — $150 million. As part of a multi-year, $3
billion Presidential aid pledge to Pakistan, the Administration
requested in the regular FY2005 appropriation $700 million for
Pakistan, $300 million of which would support military activities.
Congress directly appropriated $148.8 million (post rescission) of
the military aid request and authorized the President to draw an
additional $150 million from prior-year unobligated appropriations.
The Administration thus far has not acted on the transfer authority,
arguing that it does not want to adversely affect other key aid
programs. Instead, the President sought an additional direct
appropriation of $150 million that he did not receive in the FY2005
enacted spending measure. The Administration’s Pakistan aid
request for FY2006 again totals $700 million, with $300 million
proposed for military aid.
77 FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations Financial Plan, p. 4.
!Solidarity Fund — $200 million. The supplemental proposed $200
million in military and security assistance for countries that have
deployed troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to meet “extraordinary”
defense costs of such operations. According to State Department
officials, the funds would not be used to directly reimburse these
countries for costs sustained in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such
reimbursements are provided through DOD’s Coalition Support
Fund. Rather, the Solidarity Fund would help partners address
general budget problems related to their presence in both countries
by repairing or replacing defense articles and supporting a number
of countries currently or about to deploy forces.78
!Global War on Terrorism Partners Fund — $200 million. This new
account would provide economic aid to countries supporting the
U.S. in the Global War on Terror. It would be constructed as a
contingency Fund, exempt from restrictions and conditions in any
other provision of law, from which the Secretary of State could
transfer resources to any Federal agency in support of the objectives
of the Fund. Secretary of State Rice told the Senate Appropriations
Committee on February 17, 2005, that the need for such a Fund
became clear after the regular FY2005 appropriation had been
submitted. She noted that a number of countries, although not
deploying troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, had taken steps, such as
securing their borders from terrorist infiltration, to take pressure off
These proposals to support coalition partners have raised a number of concerns
among Members of Congress. Some question whether circumstances have changed
to justify additional aid to Jordan and Pakistan, especially given the large aid
packages approved for both countries in the regular FY2005 appropriation and
congressional approval of a transfer authority to accommodate $150 million in
military aid for Pakistan. Others also ask why financial support for countries with
troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan was not part of the FY2005 regular
request or proposed for FY2006. Another concern relates to possible redundancy
78 State Department news briefing, February 14. Examples of countries that might benefit,
according to these officials, would include Fiji, Poland, Ukraine, El Salvador, Bulgaria, and
Romania. During testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee on February 17,
Secretary of State Rice stated, for example, that Poland had spent nearly $500 million in
troop deployment costs.
79 Selected examples of the types of aid that would be provided under the Partners Fund
include basic development assistance for Yemen, which is uprooting Al Qaeda members in
its country; election and governance support for the Krygyz Republic which hosts a coalition
airbase; development, governance, and border control aid for Morocco, a close U.S. ally;
poverty-focused assistance for El Salvador, a country that has deployed troops to Iraq;
judicial reform, anti-corruption, and law enforcement support for Mongolia, another
coalition member supplying troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; and development assistance for
Djibouti, a nation providing the United States with the only military base in sub-Saharan
Africa. (FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations Financial Plan, February 2005, pp. 17-19.)
between the proposals outlined above and the roughly $2.2 billion in the DOD
portion of the supplemental for similar support to coalition partners.
The request for creation of the Global War on Terrorism Partners Fund drew
particular challenges from several Members due to its broad flexibility and lack of
specificity for how the funds would be directed.80 This request followed recent
efforts by the Administration to gain congressional approval of a flexible contingency
Fund that could be drawn on to respond to complex foreign emergencies. Congress
has rejected these types of requests four times in the past three years. The
Administration seeks $100 million for a Conflict Response Fund for FY2006,
although the focus of that account would be on post-conflict and weak states, not
partners in the War on Terror.
Congressional Action. The conference agreement fully supports the
Solidarity Fund with $200 million, plus adds an additional $30 million peacekeeping
funds to meet other Global War on Terror purposes. Conferees, however, do not
approve resources for the Partners Fund. In addition, the conference measure, like
House- and Senate-passed bills, provides the full amount requested for additional
assistance to Pakistan and Jordan.
Previously, the House had denied the $400 million requested for the Partners
Fund and the Solidarity Fund, while the Senate bill provided partial funding. The
Senate measure included the full $200 million in peacekeeping resources for the
Solidarity Fund, recommending the assistance be provided to Poland, Romania,
Bulgaria, El Salvador, Ukraine, Mongolia, Georgia, Lithuania, Slovakia, the Czech
Republic, and Albania. The Senate-reported bill provided $40 million for the
Partners Fund, urging support for Yemen, the Krygyz Republic, Morocco, El
Salvador, Mongolia, and Djibouti. During floor debate, however, the total for the
Partners Fund was reduced to $26.5 million in order to increase amounts for the State
Department’s Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization and to
add $5 million for democracy programs in Lebanon.
U.N. Peacekeeping Operations
The Administration sought $780 million to support a number of existing,
recently established, and prospective U.N. peacekeeping missions. According to
officials, in addition to the $484 million FY2005 enacted peacekeeping
appropriation, there remains a $780 million “gap” in current funding requirements.
This, officials said, occurred because new U.N. operations — in Cote d’Ivoire,
Burundi, and Haiti — and an anticipated operation in Sudan arose after the FY2005
budget was submitted in early 2004. The Administration, however, did not seek a
budget amendment during congressional consideration of the regular FY2005
appropriation. The conference committee on the Commerce, Justice, and State
Department funding measure noted its concern that the U.S. had voted to support the
expansion or the creation of new U.N. operations without submitting a plan for
80 See remarks raised by several Representatives and Senators during hearings with
Secretary of State Rice on February 16 and 17, 2005, before the House and Senate
covering the costs of such commitments. The Administration’s FY2006 request was
$1.035 billion, an amount that reflects these new and expanded U.N. peacekeeping
Congressional Action. Conferees include $680 million for U.N.
peacekeeping missions, $100 million less than requested. The approved amount
could be cut further if the President used $50 million for African Union peacekeeping
operations in Darfur, as the legislation permits. The conference total is higher than
either House- or Senate-passed bills. The House supplemental provided $580
million, including the use of up to $55 million for the establishment of a Sudan war
crimes tribunal. H.R. 1268, as passed by the Senate, included $533 million, after two
floor amendments shifted $147 million to support enhanced U.S. border security.
Unlike the House, however, the Senate measure denied funds for a Sudan war crimes
tribunal. The conference agreement makes no mention of appropriations for the
In his State of the Union address on February 2, 2005, the President announced
a $350 million aid package for the West Bank and Gaza, $200 million of which is
proposed in the FY2005 supplemental. The FY2006 request includes the balance of
$150 million. The funds would be available, notwithstanding any provision of law,
and the Administration says that some of the funds — although none in the
supplemental request — would be channeled directly to the Palestinian Authority
(PA), including support for training and equipping civilian security services.
Existing law includes several restrictions and conditions on aiding the PA related to
concerns over accountability, transparency, and corruption. Secretary of State Rice
defended the proposal, including the need for direct PA funding, arguing that the U.S.
needs to move quickly to help the Palestinians prepare for governing Gaza following81
Israeli withdrawal. Regular U.S. assistance for the West Bank and Gaza has
averaged about $75 million annually and generally channels aid through non-
governmental organizations. The President, however, waived restrictions on direct
aid to the PA in December 2004 and July 2003 in order to permit a portion of U.S.
assistance to support Palestinian Authority costs.
Congressional Action. The conference agreement provides the full $200
million requested and approved by the House and Senate for the Palestinians, but
with significant restrictions and resource allocation requirements. Of the total
amount, $50 million will support Israeli-built checkpoints aimed at reducing the
bottlenecks at these checkpoints and facilitate the movement of Palestinian people
and goods in and out of Israel. Conferees further specify projects, managed by
NGOs, for which funds are available. The measure further recommends $3.5 million
for the Holy Family Hospital in Bethlehem and $2 million for healthcare activities
undertaken by Hadassah, the Women’s Zionist Organization of America. The $50
million set-aside for Israel and the other earmarks were recommended by the Senate,
but not included in the House bill.
81 Testimony before the House Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, February
In addition, conferees state that the bill does not include any direct financing for
the Palestinian Authority, and that the President’s waiver that he exercised in
December 2004 to provide such direct aid to the PA with FY2005 regular
appropriations does not extend to the supplemental funds. It appears, however, that
the President could issue a new waiver, based on authority granted in the General
Provisions of Division D of P.L. 108-447, the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations
Act. During earlier consideration of H.R. 1268, the House had prohibited use of any
supplemental funds for direct aid to the PA. The Senate bill had not included such
a restriction, although the Senate Appropriations Committee reminded the
Administration of existing conditions on West Bank/Gaza aid and PA restrictions
included in the FY2005 Foreign Operations appropriations (P.L. 108-467), and that
they would apply to supplemental funds as well. Unlike the House-passed measure,
however, the Senate provision would have allowed the President to use the national
security waiver authority provided in P.L. 108-467 for direct aid to the PA with
supplemental funds if he made such a determination in the future.
Following the recent elections in Ukraine, the Administration proposed $60
million in supplemental economic support for Kiev. The additional resources would
support anti-corruption and rule of law programs ($19 million), economic reforms
($13 million), civil society outreach ($10 million), HIV/AIDS activities ($4.5
million), nuclear safety ($5.5 million), parliamentary election assistance ($5 million),
and political transition aid for the new government ($3 million). These amounts
would come on top of the $79 million regular appropriation for FY2005. The State
Department proposes $88 million for FY2006.
Congressional Action. The conference agreements provides the full $60
million request for Ukraine, the same as the Senate, but above the House-passed level
of $33.7 million. In its report on H.R. 1268, the House Appropriations Committee
stated its intent that the funds be used for programs that will demonstrate quickly
U.S. support for the Yushenko government and assist in the upcoming parliamentary
elections. The Senate bill recommended an increase of $3.65 million in planned
support for Ukrainian civil society organizations. Conferees further add $5 million
each for democracy programs in Belarus and for humanitarian and conflict mitigation
needs in Chechnya, Ingushetia, and elsewhere in the North Caucasus. The Senate
had included a similar provision.
Broadcasting to Arab and Muslim Audiences
The supplemental included $4.8 million for the Voice of America, the Middle
East Broadcasting Networks, and the International Broadcasting Bureau supporting
programming in the Middle East, South Asia, and Europe, especially in countries
with significant Muslim and Arab populations. An additional $2.5 million would
support an upgrade of transmitting systems located in Tajikistan and boost
broadcasting signals to Pakistan and Central Asia.
Congressional Action. The conference bill, like the Senate measure, fully
supports both items. The House had included the $4.8 million for broadcasting
activities, but rejected the request for transmitting systems upgrades.
Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization
In mid-2004, the State Department created a new Office of the Coordinator for
Reconstruction and Stabilization (O/CRS), an entity designed to strengthen U.S.
capacity to prepare for and respond to post-conflict reconstruction situations and to
help weak states. The supplemental included $9.4 million for start-up personnel
costs of the Office that was not budgeted in the regular FY2005 appropriation. The
request for FY2006 proposes about $24 million to expand the O/CRS by 57
positions. The supplemental request further included $7.8 million to development
an initial corps of civilian staff to create a ready-response capacity within the State
Congressional Action. Conferees settled on $7.7 million for the Office of
the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, with the expectation that funds
will be used for personnel in Washington and Sudan. This is less than half the
amount requested. Through an amendment by Senator Lugar, the Senate had
supported the entire $17.2 million requested, while the House had recommended $3
million, exclusive for the Coordinator’s Office.
Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction
The tragedy of the December 26, 2004 tsunami that took the lives of perhaps as
many as 200,000 people in 12 southeast Asian, South Asian, and east African nations
has elicited over $12 billion in aid pledges and commitments from governments,
multilateral institutions, and private individuals. The United States made an early
pledge of $350 million for immediate relief efforts, but the Administration increased
this amount by seeking $600 million in its request for a $950 million FY2005
supplemental. Of this total, $120 million would replenish USAID emergency aid
accounts that had been drawn in support of the initial American government
response. Likewise, the supplemental also proposed $226 million to make similar
reimbursements to Defense Department accounts that were used in the immediate
aftermath of the tsunami.
The largest portion of the Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction supplemental
account — $581 million — would be used for small transition and longer term large
infrastructure activities. Of this amount, up to $45 million could be used to provide
debt relief to the affected countries if their governments request such debt reduction.
An additional $22.6 million would support creation of tsunami warning systems in
the region, activities carried out by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey. Out of the total $950 million
request, $701 million falls under international affairs budget accounts managed by
USAID and the State Department.
Congressional Action. The conference agreement reduces the Tsunami
Recovery and Reconstruction Fund by $45 million, the amount proposed for possible
debt relief for tsunami-affected countries. The legislation, however, grants authority
for the Administration to defer or reschedule debt owed by these nations. The Senate
measure also supported this debt relief authority while the House had not included
it. Additional earmarks for specific tsunami-related activities included in the
conference bill are:
!$5 million for environmental recovery activities, as recommended
by the Senate;
!$10 million for projects creating new economic opportunities for
women, as recommended by the House;
!$1.5 million for programs that protect women and children from
violence, trafficking, and exploitation, as suggested by the Senate;
!$1.5 million for the needs of people with physical and mental
disabilities, less than the $12 million recommended by the Senate;
!$20 million for microenterprise programs, similar to a Senate
!$12.5 million for projects focusing on the needs of children;
!$25 million to prevent and control the spread of the Avian influenza
virus, similar to a Senate recommendation.
Conferees did not include a Senate earmark of $3 million for teacher training
programs in Aceh and Sri Lanka where there has been a high death rate among
Previously, tsunami relief issues were a particular focus of debate during House
floor consideration of H.R. 1268. The House defeated (voice vote) an amendment
by Representative Tancredo that would have barred the use of any funds in the bill
for tsunami relief. The amendment’s author believed that the more than $1 billion
in private donations for victims of the tsunami represent a significant outpouring of
American support for relief and recovery efforts, and that given existing budget
constraints and disaster needs in the U.S., further American taxpayer funds were not
warranted. Opponents noted that a portion of the request would repay foreign aid
accounts from which immediate tsunami relief assistance had been drawn, and would
disrupt these other aid activities if funds were not restored. Moreover, they argued,
the enormity of the tsunami destruction, extensive loss of life, and the long-term
reconstruction requirements justified the full U.S. government pledge.
In further debate, the House adopted (voice vote) an amendment offered by
Representative Maloney that increased the Tsunami Fund by $3 million. Although
not directly stated in the text of the amendment, the intent of its supporters was to
provide $3 million for a U.S. contribution to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA)
related to organization’s work in tsunami-affected countries. In order to cover the
additional costs of responding to unanticipated tsunami disaster needs, UNFPA
issued a $28 million “flash appeal” to which supporters of the amendment hope the
United States would respond with a $3 million contribution. Other Members noted,
however, that the text of the amendment did not direct the Administration to use the
$3 million as a UNFPA contribution, but only to supplement the Tsunami Recovery
and Reconstruction Fund.82 Conferees do not include the extra $3 million added by
the Maloney amendment and make no reference to UNFPA in the conference report.
U.S. funding for UNFPA has been a controversial issue for some time because
of the organization’s continuing programs in China, where most agree that coercive
family planning and involuntary sterilization activities have been applied by the
government for many years. The Bush Administration determined in July 2002 that
UNFPA was in violation of U.S. law (the “Kemp-Kasten provision” in annual
Foreign Operations appropriations) banning contributions to organizations that are
involved in the management of coercive family planning programs. Executive
branch determinations have blocked U.S. transfers to UNFPA, FY2002-FY2004, and
a review of the FY2005 funding status is expected later this year.83
82 The Maloney amendment offset the additional tsunami funds by reducing the
appropriation for programs funded under the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account by $3
million. The effect of this reduction would have been to cut funds for either Afghanistan
reconstruction activities, economic aid to Jordan, or Sudan peace implementation programs,
each that would receive assistance from the supplemental’s ESF account. Aid to the
Palestinians, which was also provided through the ESF account, would not have been
effected because H.R. 1268 included a specific earmark for the Palestinians.
83 For more information regarding UNFPA and U.S. contributions, see CRS Report
RL32703, The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate.
Table 10. Foreign Policy Funds in FY2005 Supplemental
(in millions of dollars)
Ir a q :
U.S. Mission operations (DCP)$690.0$690.0 $280.5a $663.5
New Embassy Compound in Baghdad$658.0$592.0b $592.0$592.0
USAID operating expenses (USAID/OE)$24.4$24.4 $24.4 $24.4
USAID Inspector General (USAID/IG)$2.5$2.5 $2.5 $2.5
U.S. Mission operations (DCP)$60.0$55.5 $60.0a $60.0
Police training (INCLE)$400.0$400.0 $444.5 $360.0
Counternarcotics (INCLE)$260.0$194.0 $215.5 $260.0
Counternarcotics related activities (ESF)$248.5c.c.c.
Reconstruction & Democratic institu-$1,060.8$739.2 c. $1,309.3 c.$1,086.6 c.
tions/Government capacity building (ESF)
Anti-terrorism training and protection$17.1$17.1 $17.1$17.1
Subtotal, Afghanistan$2,046.4$1,405.8$2,046.4 $1,783.7
Suda n/Da rf ur:
Refugee relief for Darfur and Chad (MRA)$48.4$98.4 $48.4 $48.4
Humanitarian relief for Darfur (IDFA)$44.0$94.0 $44.0d$40.0
Emergency food aid for Darfur (PL 480)$150.0$150.0 $470.0 e $240.0 e
Peacekeeping for Darfur (PKO) — — ff
Peace implementation aid for southern$22.0$22.0 $22.0$22.0
Security sector reform-southern Sudan$10.0$10.0 $10.0 $10.0
Rehabilitation/reconstruction, mainly in$63.0$0.0 $63.0 $0.0
southern Sudan (TI)
Repatriation of Sudanese refugees (MRA)$5.0$5.0 $5.0 $5.0
Subtotal, Sudan/Darfur$342.4 $379.4 $662.4 $365.4
Other Global War on Terror Related:
Global War on Terrorism Partners Fund$200.0$0.0 $25.5$0.0
Aid for coalition partners with troops in$200.0 $0.0 $200.0 $200.0
Iraq & Afghanistan-Solidarity Fund (PKO)
Global War on Terror aid (PKO) — — — $30.0
Jordan econ. & military (ESF & FMF)$200.0$200.0 $200.0 $200.0
Pakistan military aid (FMF)$150.0$150.0 $150.0 $150.0
Subtotal, Other Global War on Terror $750.0 $350.0 $575.5 $580.0
Palestinian economic aid (ESF)$200.0$200.0 $150.0$200.0 g
Israel (ESF) — — $50.0g
Ukraine economic assistance (FSA)$60.0$33.7 $60.0$60.0
Belarus/North Caucasus (FSA) — — $10.0 $10.0
Office of the Coordinator for$17.2$3.0 $17.2 $7.7
Reconstruction & Stabilization (DCP)
Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Fund$15.0 $0.0 $15.0 $7.5
Peacekeeping, mainly for operations in$780.0$580.0 $533.0h $680.0h
Haiti and Africa (CIPA)
Refugee admissions backlog (MRA) — — $25.9$26.0
Africa refugees needs (MRA) — — $29.1$41.0
Africa emergencies (IDFA) — — — $50.0
Haiti economic aid (ESF) — — — $20.0
Lebanon democracy programs (ESF) — — $5.0 $5.0
Middle East Broadcasting (BBG)$4.8$4.8$4.8 $4.8
Broadcasting system upgrade (BBG)$2.5 $0.0$2.5 $2.5
Reduction in ESF account — ($3.0) — —
Subtotal, Other$1,079.5 $818.5 $902.5 $1,114.5
Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction:
Replenish USAID for immediate response$120.0$120.0 $120.0 $120.0
Recovery and reconstruction, of which up$581.0 $539.0 $536.0 $536.0
to $45 million for debt reduction
Replenish DOD’s immediate response$226.1 $226.1 $226.1 $226.1
Tsunami warning system (NOAA and US$22.6$22.6 $25.4 $25.4
Subtotal, Tsunami Recovery and$949.7 $907.7 $907.5 $907.5
Reco nst r uct io n
Less, non-Foreign Policy funds($248.7) ($248.7) ($251.5) ($251.5)
Net, Foreign Policy Tsunami Recovery$701.0 $659.0 $656.0 $656.0
Rescission of FY2003 Turkey aid — ($1,000.0)($1,000.0)($1,000.0)
TOTAL, Foreign Policy Funds$6,294.2$3,921.6 $4,742.2 $4,782.0
* Account acronyms: BBG = Broadcasting Board of Governors; CIPA = Contributions for
International Peacekeeping Activities; DCP = Diplomatic and Consular Programs; ESF = Economic
Support Fund; FMF = Foreign Military Financing; FSA = Assistance for the Independent States of the
Former Soviet Union; IDFA = International Disaster and Famine Assistance; INCLE = International
Narcotics & Law Enforcement; MRA = Migration and Refugee Assistance; NADR = NOAA =
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and
Related Programs; PKO = Peacekeeping Operations; PL 480 = Food for Peace; TI = Transition
Initiative; USAID/OE/IG = US Agency for International Development Operating Expenses and
a. The Senate-passed bill reduced the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account by $400 million
from the requested level but did not specify whether the reductions would come from Iraq or
Afghanistan mission operations. In this table, the entire amount is taken from the Iraq mission
b. H.R. 1268, as passed by the House, included $592 million for a new U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
However, an amendment adopted during floor debate prohibited the use of any funds in bill for
embassy security, construction, and maintenance.
c. Counternarcotics ESF funds included in Reconstruction/Democracy totals in House, Senate, and
d. In addition to this amount, the Senate bill earmarked $40.5 million for disaster relief activities in
Darfur that could be transferred from the Contribution to International Peacekeeping account,
listed below. The conference bill does not include this transfer authority, but provides a direct
disaster relief appropriation of $50 million (see below) for other emergencies in Africa.
e. The Senate bill added $320 million in food aid, some of which would be available for Darfur, but
some (to the maximum extent possible) would be available to restore funds that had previously
been diverted to respond to the tsunami disaster and to the situation in Darfur. The conference
agreement also provides a higher level — $90 million more — for food aid that, like the Senate
bill, is available to replenish accounts from which emergency food relief had been diverted. It
is likely that not all of the $240 million food aid appropriation will be for Darfur relief.
f. The Senate bill and the conference agreement provided that up to $50 million for Africa Union
peacekeeping operations in Darfur could be transferred from the Contribution to International
Peacekeeping account, listed below.
g. The conference agreements provides $200 million for Palestinian aid, of which $50 million should
be available to Israel to improve the movement of people and goods between Palestinian areas
h. The Senate bill reduced the peacekeeping account by $147 million in order to offset appropriations
for additional border patrol agents. In addition, the Senate measure provided that $90.5 million
could be transferred to support emergency and peacekeeping activities in Darfur. The
conference agreement provides that up to $50 million can be transferred from this account to
support Africa Union peacekeeping operations in Darfur.