FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for Global War on Terror Military Operations, International Affairs, and Other Purposes

FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for
Global War on Terror Military Operations,
International Affairs, and Other Purposes
Updated April 23, 2008
Stephen Daggett, Susan B. Epstein, Rhoda Margesson,
Curt Tarnoff, and Pat Towell
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division



FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for Global War on
Terror Military Operations, International Affairs, and
Other Purposes
Summary
During the 1st session of the 110th Congress, in calendar year 2007, the
Administration requested emergency FY2008 supplemental appropriations of $196.5
billion to cover costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for war-related
and other international affairs programs, and for some other activities. The request
included $189.3 billion for the Department of Defense, $6.9 billion for international
affairs, and $325 million for other agencies.
Through the end of December 2007, Congress provided $86.8 billion in
emergency funds for the Defense Department and $2.4 billion for international
affairs, though only $1.5 billion of that is now being counted against the
Administration request. These amounts were included in three bills –
!The first FY2008 continuing resolution, H.J.Res. 52, P.L. 110-92,
enacted on September 29, 2007, included $5.2 billion in emergency
funding for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles;
!The regular FY2008 defense appropriations act, H.R. 3222, P.L.
110-116, enacted on November 13, 2007, provided $11.6 billion
more in emergency funding for MRAPs;
!The FY2008 consolidated appropriations act, H.R. 2764, P.L. 110-
161, enacted on December 26, 2007, included $70 billion in
emergency funding for defense and $2.4 billion for international
affairs, of which $1.5 billion is allocated to requested programs.
Approval of these measures left unresolved the status of $102.5 billion in
FY2008 emergency funding for the Department of Defense, $5.4 billion for
international affairs, and somewhat under $300 million for other programs. Congress
is expected to consider these amounts in a second FY2008 supplemental
appropriations bill in the spring of 2008. For congressional action on that measure,
see CRS Report RL34451, Second FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for Military
Operations, International Affairs, and Other Purposes.
Through the fall of 2007, congressional action on supplemental FY2008 funding
was embroiled in the ongoing debate over Iraq policy. Initially, in mid-November,
the House approved a bill, H.R. 4156, providing $50 billion for military operations,
but the bill required that troop withdrawals from Iraq begin within sixty days and that
the President prepare a plan for withdrawing most troops by December 2008. That
bill failed when the Senate refused to close debate. In mid-December, the initial
House-passed consolidated appropriations bill included $31 billion for military
operations, but prohibited use those funds in Iraq except for force protection. The
Senate took up that bill and substituted a measure providing $70 billion without
conditions. The House then approved the Senate bill, which became law.
This CRS report reviews congressional action on FY2008 supplemental
appropriations through December 2007. It will not be updated.



Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Review of Congressional Action on FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations
Through December 2007........................................2
Administration Request.........................................2
FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations.............................3
Congressional Action through December 2007 on FY2008 Supplemental
Appropri at i ons ...........................................4
How Long Omnibus Appropriations Would Extend Army and Marine
Corps Operations.............................................6
$70 Billion “Bridge Fund” Will Allow the Army to Operate into June
Without Additional Funding.................................7
The Recurring Debate over the Impact of Delays in Providing
Supplemental Appropriations................................8
Supplemental Funding for International Affairs in the Final Consolidated
Appropriations Bill............................................9
FY2008 Defense Supplemental/Bridge Fund Alternatives.................10
A Comparison of Iraq Policy Provisions Considered in Action on
FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations........................12
Iraq Policy Provisions in the House-Passed Bridge Fund, H.R. 4156.12
Senate Rejection of the Levin-Reed and Feingold Amendments....13
Iraq Policy Provisions in the Enacted $70 Billion Bridge Fund.....13
Overview of FY2008 Supplemental Defense, International Affairs, and Other
Funding Requests............................................14
Emergency Spending Designation................................16
Supplemental Appropriations for Other Programs ...................17
Summary of FY2008 Defense Supplemental Appropriations...........17
Highlights of the FY2008 Defense Supplemental Request.................18
Why War-Related Supplemental Requests Have Grown...............19
Selected Elements of the Amended Defense Request.................22
International Affairs Emergency Supplemental Request...................23
State Department Operations....................................24
Congressional Action on State Department Operations...........25
Foreign Operations............................................26
Congressional Action on Foreign Operations...................26
Iraq Reconstruction Assistance..................................29
Administration Supplemental Request for Iraq Reconstruction.....29
Congressional Action on Iraq Reconstruction in FY2008
Consolidated Appropriations...........................31
Pending FY2008 Supplemental..............................31
Afghanistan .................................................32



The FY2008 original and amended emergency supplemental request33
Pakistan ....................................................35
The FY2008 original and amended supplemental request..........36
Sudan ......................................................36
FY2008 additional emergency supplemental request.............36
Mexico and Central America....................................37
West Bank and Gaza..........................................37
North Korea.................................................38
Other Humanitarian Assistance..................................38
Appendix. FY2008 Emergency Supplemental Request, State Department and
Foreign Operations............................................40
List of Tables
Table 1. Months of Army and Marine Corp Funding Available from Regular and
Emergency FY2008 Defense Appropriations........................7
Table 2. Congressional Action on FY2008 Supplemental Defense
Appropriations, H.R. 4156 and H.R. 2764*........................10
Table 3. Initial and Amended FY2008 Supplemental Defense, International
Affairs and Other Funding Requests*.............................15
Table 4. Regular and Supplemental/Bridge Appropriations for the Department
of Defense, FY2000 to FY2008.................................19
Table 5. War-Related Supplemental Appropriations/ Bridge Funds by
Account, FY2005-FY2008.....................................20
Table 6. War-Related Supplemental Appropriations/Bridge Funds by
Functional Category, FY2006-FY2008...........................21
Table 7. FY2008 Emergency Supplemental State Department..............25
Table 8. FY2008 Foreign Operations Emergency Supplemental............28
Table 9. FY2008 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq
R econs t ruct i on ..............................................32
Table 10. Afghanistan Reconstruction Assistance, FY2008................35
Table 11. Sudan Emergency Supplemental, FY2008.....................37



FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for
Global War on Terror Military Operations,
International Affairs, and Other Purposes
Most Recent Developments
During the first session of the 110th Congress, the Administration requested
$196.5 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008,
including $189.3 billion for military operations, $6.9 billion for international affairs,
and $325 million for other purposes. Through the end of December, 2007, Congress
had approved $86.8 billion of the total requested for defense and about $1.5 billion
of the amount requested for international affairs. Of the President’s total emergency
request, $102.5 billion for defense and $5.4 billion for international affairs remain
outstanding. Congress is expected to consider these remaining requests in a spring

2008 supplemental appropriations bill.1


The Administration initially requested emergency supplemental FY2008
appropriations for military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere along with
its regular FY2008 budget request in February 2007. It submitted an additional
request for $5.3 billion in emergency funding for MRAP vehicles in July, 2007, and
$45 billion budget amendment for emergency defense and international affairs
funding in October, 2007.
Congress began to consider FY2008 supplemental appropriations in earnest in
the fall of 2007. Throughout the fall, a key issue was what impact a continued delay
in providing funding for overseas military operations would have on the Army and
Marine Corps. Congress approved the regular FY2008 defense appropriations act,
P.L. 110-116, in November. The Army and Marine Corps used money in the regular
bill to finance both day-to-day peacetime activities and also war-related operations.
The high pace of operations in Iraq, however, meant that amounts in the base budget
for Army and Marine Corps operation and maintenance, in particular, were being
drained very quickly. Administration officials complained that, without
supplemental funding, the Army would run out of money by February and the
Marine Corps by early April.
A key issue then became how long the Army and Marine Corps could extend
operations in advance of supplemental funding, either with transfers of funds from


1 For a review of action on remaining FY2008 supplemental appropriations, see CRS Report
RL34451, FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for Military Operations, International
Affairs, and Other Purposes, by Stephen Daggett, Susan Epstein, Curt Tarnoff, Rhoda
Margesson, Catherine Dale, and Pat Towell.

other accounts or by slowing the pace of peacetime operations. The Defense
Department could also have extended operations by invoking the “Feed and Forage
Act,” which allows funding for some purposes in advance of appropriations, or by
using other measures.
Congressional approval of a $70 billion “bridge fund” for military operations
at least temporarily resolved the issue. Although the bill provided only about 37%
of the total amount the Administration had requested, it included most of what the
Defense Department had requested for the full year in Army and Marine Corp
operation and maintenance and military personnel accounts. Defense officials now
estimate that funding provided in the consolidated FY2008 appropriations act, P.L.
110-161, for Army military personnel and operation and maintenance, together with
amounts provided in the regular FY2008 defense appropriations act, P.L. 110-116,
will last until about the middle of June for personnel and until the end of June or
early July for operation and maintenance. The Defense Department could extend
operations further either by slowing the pace of obligations or by using available
authority to transfer funds from other accounts to the Army – up to $11.4 billion in
transfer authority is available.2 It could also invoke the Feed and Forage Act or use
other standing authorities to extend operations further.3
Review of Congressional Action on FY2008
Supplemental Appropriations Through
December 2007
Administration Request
The Administration submitted requests for FY2008 emergency supplemental
appropriations in three blocks.
!Along with the regular FY2008 budget that the White House sent to
Congress on February 5, 2007, the Administration requested $141.7
billion in emergency supplemental funding for the Defense
Department, $3.3 billion for the State Department and international


2 The regular FY2008 defense appropriations bill provides $3.7 billion of general transfer
authority which, subject to approval by the congressional defense committees, can be used
to shift funds between accounts. The consolidated appropriations act provides $3.7 billion
in the Iraqi Freedom Fund, which may be transferred to personnel, operation and
maintenance, or other accounts for operations either in Iraq or in Afghanistan and then
transferred back again. The consolidated appropriations act also provides authority, again
subject to congressional approval, to transfer up to $4.0 billion of the $70 billion in
emergency defense funding in the bill between accounts.
3 See below for a further discussion, and also see CRS Report RL33275, How Long Can the
Defense Department Finance FY2008 Operations in Advance of Supplemental
Appropriations?, by Stephen Daggett and Pat Towell and CRS Report RL33110, The Cost
of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11, by Amy
Belasco.

affairs, and $325 million for other agencies. By submitting the
defense request along with the President's FY2008 budget, the
Administration complied with Section 1008 of the FY2007 national
defense authorization act (P.L. 109-364), which required the
President’s budget to include a request for estimated full year costs
of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and a detailed justification of
the funds. The request constituted a Defense Department estimate
of the full-year costs of continuing operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan at about the same pace as in 2006. The Defense
Department acknowledged that the estimate was only a rough,
straight-line projection of current costs. By the time the budget was
submitted, the Administration was proposing a surge in troops to
Iraq that was not reflected in the budget, however, and it was
expected that the Administration would later provide revised cost
projections.
!On July 31, 2007,the White House requested an additional $5.3
billion for the Department of Defense to procure, outfit, and deploy
1,520 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles for the
Army and Marine Corps.
!On October 22, the White House sent Congress an amendment to the
FY2008 budget requesting an additional $45.9 billion for military
operations, economic and reconstruction assistance, embassy
security, and other activities mainly related to ongoing conflicts in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The request included $42.3 billion
for the Department of Defense for military operations and $3.6
billion for international affairs programs.4
In all, the Administration requested $195.6 billion in emergency supplemental
appropriations for FY2008, mainly for military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and
elsewhere and for related foreign affairs programs.
FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations
For the first several months of calendar year 2007, the main focus of
congressional debate over Iraq policy was not on FY2008 funding, but on
supplemental appropriations for FY2007. On March 9, the Administration submitted
a revised request for FY2007 supplemental appropriations. On May 1, the President
vetoed an initial FY2007 supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 1591, because of
Iraq policy provisions. Congress approved a compromise FY2007 supplemental


4 For the overall request see White House Office of Management and Budget, “FY 2008
Emergency Budget Amendments: Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom,
and Selected Other International Activities,” October 22, 2007, on line at [http://www
.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/amendment_10_22_07.pdf]. For an overview of
the defense request, see Department of Defense, FY2008 Global War on Terror Amendment,
October 2007, on line at [http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget
/fy2008/Supplemental/FY2008_October_Global_War_On_T error_Request.pdf].

appropriations bill, H.R. 2206, on May 24, and the President signed it into law, P.L.

110-28, on May 25. The bill provided $99.5 billion for the Department of Defense,


$6.1 billion for international affairs, and $14.5 billion for domestic programs (for a
full discussion, see CRS Report RL33900, FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations for
Defense, Foreign Affairs, and Other Purposes, by Stephen Daggett, Amy Belasco,
Pat Towell, Susan B. Epstein, Connie Veillette, Curt Tarnoff, and Rhoda Margesson,
updated July 2, 2007). The defense funding in the bill was in addition to a $70
billion “bridge fund” that Congress included in the regular FY2007 defense
appropriations act.
Congressional Action through December 2007 on FY2008
Supplemental Appropriations
Congressional action on FY2008 emergency supplemental funding began in
September and was not completed until the very end of the session shortly before
Christmas. Congress quickly provided funds for MRAP vehicles, and then debated
several different measures to provide partial year funding for overseas operations.
!At the end of September, Congress included $5.2 billion in
emergency funding for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP)
vehicles (most of the mount requested in July) in a provision
attached to the first FY2008 continuing resolution, H.J.Res. 52, P.L.

110-92, that the President signed on September 29, 2007.


!On November 8, 2007, the House and Senate approved a conference5
agreement on the FY2008 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 3222,
and the President signed the bill into law, P.L. 110-116, on
November 13. The measure provided $460 billion for baseline
Defense Department activities in FY2008, including $27.4 billion
for Army and $4.8 billion for Marine Corps operation and
maintenance, which may be used to finance both peacetime activities
and military operations abroad. The bill also provided an additional
$11.6 billion in emergency funding for MRAP vehicles. Except for
the MRAP money, however, the bill did not include funding to cover
additional costs associated with ongoing military operations in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
!On November 14, 2007, by a vote of 218-203, the House approved
a bill, H.R. 4156, entitled the “Orderly and Responsible Iraq
Redeployment Appropriations Act, 2008,” to provide $50 billion for
U.S. military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The
bill included enough money in Army and Marine Corps operating
accounts to sustain military operations in Iraq and elsewhere through
about April 2008. It also (1) required the President to commence the
withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq within 30 days of enactment of
the legislation and to provide within 60 days a plan for withdrawing


5 See CRS Report RL33999, Defense: FY2008 Authorization and Appropriations, by Pat
Towell, Stephen Daggett, and Amy Belasco.

most troops from Iraq by December 15, 2008; (2) limited the
mission of remaining U.S. forces in Iraq to force protection, training,
and pursuit of international terrorists; (3) prohibited deployment of
units that are not fully trained and equipped; and (4) extended
prohibitions on torture to all U.S. government agencies.
!On November 16, 2007, by a vote of 53-45, with 60 votes required,
the Senate refused to close debate on a motion to proceed to
consideration of H.R. 4156 as passed by the House, effectively
killing the measure. The Senate also rejected, by a vote of 45-53, a
motion to proceed to consideration of H.R. 2340, a substitute offered
by Senator McConnell, to provide $70 billion for the Defense
Department without requiring withdrawal from Iraq. (Ultimately,
however, with some revisions in the allocation of funds, the
McConnell amendment was approved as part of the final
consolidated appropriations act – see below.)
!Meanwhile, in a November 15, 2007, Pentagon press conference,
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned that the Army and Marine
Corps would have to begin implementing steps to limit operations
unless Congress approved additional funding very soon.6 Without
additional money, he said, the Army, would have to cease operations
at all Army bases by mid-February 2008, which would require
furloughs of about 100,000 government employees and a like
number of contractor personnel. Plans would have to begin to be
implemented in mid-December, he said. On November 20, the
Defense Department announced that it was transferring $4.5 billion
of funds to the Army and to the Joint IED Defeat Organization to
extend their operations. The Army, DOD said, would only be able
to operate with available funds, including the transfer, until February
23. Senior defense officials continued to warn that the Army and
Marine Corps would have to halt all but essential operations very
soon unless Congress approved additional funding.
!On December 17, 2007, the House brought up the foreign operations
appropriations bill, H.R. 2764, that had earlier been passed by the
House and then amended by the Senate, as a vehicle for FY2008
“omnibus” or “consolidated” appropriations. The House approved
two amendments to the Senate-passed bill. The first amendment,
approved by a vote of 253-154, struck the Senate foreign operations
language and inserted the text of conference agreements on 11 of the
12 FY2008 appropriations bills. In all, it provided $485 billion in
regular and emergency appropriations for programs covered by all
of the regular, annual appropriations bills except for defense. The


6 Department of Defense, “DoD News Briefing with Secretary of Defense Gates and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mullen from the Pentagon Briefing Room,
Arlington, Va.,” November 15, 2007 at [http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts
/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4089].

second amendment, approved by a vote of 206-201, provided $31
billion in emergency defense appropriations, mostly restricted to
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), which encompasses operations
in Afghanistan and elsewhere, excluding Iraq. Funding for Army
and Marine Corps operation and maintenance was made available
only for OEF, except for amounts for force protection that could be
allocated to any area.
!On December 18, 2007, the Senate took up the House-passed bill
and, by a vote of 70-25, adopted an amendment by Senator
McConnell to delete the House-passed $31 billion for OEF and to
provide, instead, $70 billion in emergency supplemental
appropriations for the Department of Defense for overseas
operations, without limits on where the money could be used and
without requiring a withdrawal of forces from Iraq.
!On December 19, 2007, the House considered H.R. 2764 as
amended by the Senate. By a vote of 272-142, the House approved
a motion to agree to the Senate amendment to the House-passed bill,
thus clearing the measure for the President.
!The President signed the consolidated appropriations bill into law,
P.L. 110-161, on December 26, 2007.
How Long Omnibus Appropriations Would Extend
Army and Marine Corps Operations7
Congress’s agreement to provide $70 billion for overseas military operations
resolved, at least for a few months, a dispute over war funding that had led the
Defense Department to announce plans to shut down Army and Marine Corps
operations early in 2008. In the absence of supplemental appropriations, the Defense
Department warned that money for Army operations would run out the end of
February and for the Marine Corps in March, even after a transfer of $4.1 billion to
the Army. On November 15, 2007, Secretary of Defense Gates said that the Defense
Department would have to "cease operations at all Army bases by mid-February next
year," which would result in furloughs of 100,000 civilian and another 100,000
contractor personnel.8


7 For a full discussion of how long available funds will sustain operations in FY2008, and
of alternatives for extending operations, see CRS Report RL34275, How Long Can the
Defense Department Finance FY2008 Operations in Advance of Supplemental
Appropriations?
8 Department of Defense, "DoD News Briefing with Secretary of Defense Gates and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mullen from the Pentagon Briefing Room,
Arlington, Va.," November 15, 2007, on line at
[http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4089].

$70 Billion “Bridge Fund” Will Allow the Army to Operate into
June Without Additional Funding
The $70 billion for defense in the consolidated appropriations act averted the
need for a shutdown until a least June 2008. It provided $35.2 billion for Army and
$4.0 billion for Marine Corp operation and maintenance accounts. These amounts
were in addition to $27.4 billion for the Army and $4.8 billion for the Marine Corps
in the regular FY2008 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-116). The
supplemental funding, added to regular appropriations, provides enough money to
sustain Army operations until about the end of June 2008 and Marine Corp
operations until the about end of August at projected rates of obligation. The Army
now says that it will exhaust the funds in its military personnel account by the middle
of June, before it runs out of operation and maintenance money (see Table 1 for a
calculation of the amount of time that appropriated amounts will last without
transfers of funds or other measures to extend operations).
Table 1. Months of Army and Marine Corp Funding Available from
Regular and Emergency FY2008 Defense Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
FY2008 FY2008 Average MonthsMonth
Base Budget FY2008 Total Funding of FundingFunding
Defense EmergencyAppropriations PerAvailableWould
Appropriations Appropriations (1) + (2) Month (3) ÷ (4)Run Out
Army Military Personnel$ 31,535$ 783$ 32,318$ 3,6628.8 Mid-June
Army Operation and$ 27,362$ 35,152$ 62,514$ 6,9888.9 End-June
Maintena nc e
Marine Corps Military$ 10,280$ 56$ 10,336$ 1,00610.3 Early-
P e r s o nne l August
Marine Corps Operation$ 4,792$ 3,966$ 8,758$ 80310.9 End-
and MaintenanceAugust
Source: CRS calculations based on FY2008 appropriations bills and FY2008 DOD budget request. Average funding
per month is the rate at which DOD would use up the amount of regular and emergency appropriations it requested i.e.,
it is the total requested for the year divided by 12 months. Actual monthly obligations of funds may vary substantially
from the average, however, particularly if the services defer funding in order to stretch funding further.
The Defense Department may be able to extend operations further, either by
transferring funds from other accounts to the Army and Marine Corps or, for the
O&M accounts, by slowing the pace of Army and Marine Corps operations. DOD
has available at least $11.4 billion of authority to transfer funds between accounts,
including $3.7 billion in general transfer authority provided in the regular FY2008
defense appropriations act, $3.7 billion appropriated to the Iraqi Freedom Fund and
available for transfer to personnel, O&M, or other accounts for operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and $4.0 billion of authority to transfer funds provided as defense
emergency appropriations provisions in the consolidated appropriations act.
Additional amounts may be available in cash balances of DOD working capital
funds. Transfers could conceivably extend Army operations for as much as another
month without slowing down operations, although this would reduce DOD’s



financial flexibility to respond to other unexpected needs. The Defense Department
could also extend operations by invoking the Feed and Forage Act, or by using other
authority to allocate financing of support activities among the services.9
The Recurring Debate over the Impact of Delays in Providing
Supplemental Appropriations
While Congress's agreement to provide a $70 billion FY2008 bridge fund
resolved the debate temporarily, it does not settle the underlying controversy. A
recurring issue for Congress has been how much flexibility the Defense Department
has to delay, if not to avoid entirely, shutting down operations when Congress does
not provide full-year defense appropriations. In the absence of supplemental
appropriations, the Defense Department may rely on funds in the regular defense
appropriations acts to finance both day-to-day peacetime activities and war-related
operations abroad. In FY2008, CRS calculated that these funds would be exhausted
by February for the Army and by early April for the Marine Corps, which is about
what the Defense Department projected. DOD's proposed transfer of $4.1 billion to10
the Army would have extend its operations for another two to three weeks.
Without supplemental appropriations, the Defense Department could have
extended operations for about another month by transferring limited additional
amounts to the Army and Marine Corps and by slowing down spending. The
Defense Department might have been able to sustain operations longer by invoking11
the Feed and Forage Act or by using novel, unprecedented measures, such as
assigning the Navy and Air Force to pay costs of Army support operations abroad.
Each of these alternatives might have extended operations for some time, but
each has limits and disadvantages as well. Use of additional sources of funding for
transfers would reduce DOD’s financial flexibility. Steps to slow down obligations
of funds might disrupt day-to-day operations. Use of the Feed and Forage Act to
finance ongoing military operations has, in the past, led legislators to worry that it
weakens congressional war powers. And the extensive use of Navy and Air Force
funds to support Army operations might erode congressional controls on the use of
funds. The potentially disruptive effects of these measures must be weighed against
the potentially disruptive effects of initiating a process to furlough personnel sooner
than might otherwise be necessary.


9 See CRS Report RL34275, cited above, for a discussion of these alternatives.
10 Ibid.
11 The “Feed and Forage Act,” now codified at Title 41 U.S. Code Section 11, permits the
Defense Department to obligate funds in advance of appropriations for specific purposes,
including clothing, subsistence, quarters, fuel, and transportation. In the past, it has been
used to sustain overseas military operations in advance of appropriations. See CRS Report
RL34275, cited above, for a full discussion.

Supplemental Funding for International Affairs in
the Final Consolidated Appropriations Bill
The FY2008 state department, foreign operations appropriations bill is one of
11 regular FY2008 appropriations bills that were incorporated into the consolidated
appropriations act, H.R. 2764, P.L. 110-161. The bill provides not only regular
FY2008 appropriations for international affairs, but also emergency supplemental
funds, including part of the $6.9 billion that the Administration requested.
In all, the consolidated appropriations act provides $1,473.8 million for
programs in the Administration’s overall FY2008 emergency request for international
affairs, of which $965 million is for the State Department and $508.8 million is for
foreign operations are. This leaves $5.4 billion of the request still to be considered.12
Supplemental funds for State Department accounts in the consolidated
appropriations act include:
!$781.6 million for Diplomatic and Consular Programs — $575.0
million for operations and $206.6 million for worldwide security
protection;
!$468.0 million for Contributions to International Peacekeeping for
activities in Darfur, all of which the State Department counts for
requested emergency programs;
!$12.0 million for International Broadcasting, all of which the State
Department counts for requested emergency programs.
Supplemental funds for Foreign Operations accounts include:
!$115 million for Global Health & Child Survival;.
!$110 million for International Disaster Assistance; (IDA had been
requested for activities in Iraq);
!$20.8 million for USAID Operating Expenses for Iraq;
!$542.6 million for Economic Support Fund; ESF had been requested
for Iraq Afghanistan, the West Bank and Gaza, Pakistan, North
Korea, and Sudan;
!$200 million for Migration and Refugee Assistance; MRA had been
requested for refugee situations in Iraq and the West Bank and Gaza;
!$100 million for Foreign Military Financing; and
!$35 million for Peacekeeping Operations.


12 In all, the consolidated appropriations act provided $2.385 billion in emergency funding
for international affairs programs, including $1.262 billion for the State Department and
$1.123 billion for foreign operations. The State Department, with the concurrence of the
appropriations committees, allocated about $1 billion to programs not in the
Administration’s $6.9 billion emergency request. For information specifically on the
international affairs provisions of the bill, see CRS Report RL34276, FY2008 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for International Affairs, by Susan B. Epstein, Rhoda
Margesson, and Curt Tarnoff.

For a summary table that compares funding in the House bill to the request, see
Appendix A. For a discussion of funding for specific programs compared to the
request, see “International Affairs Emergency Supplemental” section, below.
FY2008 Defense Supplemental/
Bridge Fund Alternatives
Table 2 provides a summary of the main FY2008 defense supplemental
appropriations or “bridge fund” proposals, including the Administration request; the
November 14, House-passed bridge fund, H.R. 4156; the December 17 House-passed
$31 billion Operation Enduring Freedom supplemental in the FY2008 consolidated
appropriations bill, H.R. 2764; and the final, enacted amount in the McConnell $70
billion bridge fund as approved in the Senate on December 18 and in the House on
December 19 and as signed into law by the President on December 26.
Table 2. Congressional Action on FY2008 Supplemental
Defense Appropriations, H.R. 4156 and H.R. 2764*
(amounts in millions of dollars)
H o use - P a sse d
Operation
Enduring
Freedom Ena c t e d
Emergency M c Co nnell
H o use - P a sse d Appro pria t io ns Subst i t u t e
AmendedBridge FundH.R. 2764H.R. 2764
RequestH.R. 4156Division LDivision L
Percent Percent Percent
of of of
Amo unt Amo unt Request Amo unt Request Amo unt Request
Military Personnel17,839.51,003.45.6%330.51.9%1,072.26.0%
Army 12,317.6 713.7 5 .8% 311.5 2 .5% 782.5 6 .4%
Navy791.795.612.1%-- -- 95.612.1%
Marine Corps1,790.056.13.1%19.11.1%56.13.1%
Air Force1,415.9138.09.7%-- -- 138.09.7%
Army Reserve299.2-- -- -- -- -- --
Navy Reserve70.0-- -- -- -- -- --
Marine Corps Reserve15.4-- -- -- -- -- --
Air Force Reserve3.0-- -- -- -- -- --
Army National Guard1,136.7-- -- -- -- -- --
Operation and84,310.437,399.244.4%21,441.725.4%50,233.359.6%
M a int e na nce
Army 54,933.4 27,429.5 49.9% 17,798.0 32.4% 35,152.4 64.0%
Navy 6,252.7 2 ,071.6 33.1% 350.0 5 .6% 3 ,664.0 58.6%
Marine Corps4,674.72,429.352.0%2,010.743.0%3,965.684.8%
Air Force10,809.73,582.633.1%800.07.4%4,778.044.2%
Defense-Wide 6,402.8 1 ,330.5 20.8% 483.0 7 .5% 2 ,117.0 33.1%
Inspector General4.4-- -- -- -- -- --
Army Reserve196.761.231.1%-- -- 77.739.5%
Navy Reserve83.447.556.9%-- -- 41.749.9%



Marine Corps Reserve68.226.238.4%-- -- 46.267.7%
Air Force Reserve24.38.133.3%-- -- 12.150.0%
Army National Guard757.0378.450.0%-- -- 327.043.2%
Air National Guard103.334.433.3%-- -- 51.650.0%
Drug Interdiction &257.6-- -- -- 192.674.8%
Counter-Drug Activities
Afghanistan Security2,700.0500.018.5%2,530.093.7%1,350.050.0%
Forces Fund
Iraq Security Forces3,000.0500.016.7%-- -- 1,500.050.0%
F und
Iraq Freedom Fund207.53,168.01526.7%-- -- 3,747.31805.9%
Joint IED Defeat Fund4,269.01,638.538.4%4,269.0100.0%4,269.0100.0%
Procurement 67,321.4 5 ,141.8 7 .6% 2 ,345.0 3 .5% 6 ,059.9 9 .0%
Army
Aircraft2,125.5302.214.2%-- -- 943.644.4%
Missile641.8-- -- -- -- -- --
Weapons & Tracked7,289.71,574.221.6%1,176.016.1%1,429.419.6%
Combat Vehicles
Ammunition513.6154.030.0%-- 154.030.0%
Other Procurement34,931.61,976.15.7%524.81.5%2,027.85.8%
Ar my
Navy
Aircraft3,908.525.30.6%-- -- 48.51.2%
Missile318.3-- -- -- -- -- --
Ammunition Navy &609.9-- -- -- -- 304.950.0%
Marine Corps
Other Procurement1,870.688.34.7%-- -- 91.54.9%
Navy
Marine Corps5,519.7729.213.2%644.211.7%703.312.7%
Air Force
Aircraft3,946.2147.83.7%-- -- 51.41.3%
Missiles1.8-- -- -- -- -- --
Ammunition104.4-- -- -- -- -- --
Other Procurement4,621.742.10.9%-- -- 30.70.7%
Air Force
Defense-Wide768.2102.613.4%-- -- 274.735.8%
Rapid Acquisition Fund150.0-- -- -- -- -- --
Defense Health Program1,137.4649.057.1%114.610.1%575.750.6%
Research, Development,3,872.2-- -- -- -- -- --
Test, & Evaluation
Military Construction2,426.8-- -- -- -- -- --
Family Housing11.8-- -- -- -- -- --
Revolving &1,962.8-- -- -- -- 1,000.050.9%
Management Funds
Grand Total in Bill189,316.450,000.026.4%31,030.716.4%70,000.037.0%
Sources: Request from Department of Defense, Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Amendment Global War on
Terror Request: Exhibits for FY2008, October 2007. Bridge fund amounts by CRS from text of H.R.
4156 as passed by the House; H.R. 2764 from House Rules Committee; McConnell substitute from
Senate Amendment 3874 of December 18, 2007.
*Note: This table does not reflect $16.8 billion provided in the first continuing resolution, H.J.Res.
52, P.L. 110-92, and in the regular FY2008 defense appropriations act, H.R. 3222, P.L. 110-116, for
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. In all, Congress has provided $86.6 billion in
emergency FY2008 defense appropriations.



A Comparison of Iraq Policy Provisions Considered in Action
on FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations
The original, House-passed bridge fund, H.R. 4156, required a plan to withdraw
most U.S. military forces from Iraq by December 2008. The final, $70 billion
emergency funding legislation includes various reporting requirements, but no
change in Iraq policy. Other Iraq policy amendments were proposed as amendments
over the course of congressional debate. What follows is a brief overview of major
Iraq policy provisions included in the original House-passed bill and considered in
subsequent congressional action.
Iraq Policy Provisions in the House-Passed Bridge Fund, H.R. 4156.
The $50 billion bridge fund that the House approved on November 14, 2007,
included a requirement that the President begin to withdraw troops from Iraq within
30 days of enactment, and it set a target date of December 15, 2008, as a goal for
completing the withdrawal. It permitted a residual force to remain in Iraq for
protection of U.S. missions and personnel, training, and targeted attacks on terrorist
groups. The measure also included a requirement that deployed units be fully ready
and it extended prohibitions on torture that now apply to the military services to all
agencies of government.
On key Iraq-policy and related matters, H.R. 4156 –
!Stated the sense of Congress that the war in Iraq should end as
quickly and safely as possible and troops brought home;
!Extended prohibitions on the use of torture by Defense Department
personnel to other government agencies;
!Prohibited the use of funds in the bill to deploy any unit abroad
unless the President certifies 15 days in advance that the unit is
“fully mission capable;”
!Required the President within 30 days to begin an immediate and
orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq;
!Stated that the withdrawal from Iraq should be accompanied by a
comprehensive strategy to work with neighbors and the international
community to bring stability to Iraq;
!Set December 15, 2008, as a goal for completing the transition of
U.S. armed forces to a limited presence, though the date is not a firm
deadline;
!Restricted missions after the transition to protecting U.S. facilities,
armed forces, and civilians; providing limited training and related
assistance to Iraqi security forces; and engaging in targeted counter-
terrorism operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist
organizations in Iraq;
!Required quarterly reports beginning February 1, 2008, on plans to
achieve the transition of the U.S. mission in Iraq;
!Said that congressional consideration of additional funding shall not
begin until the first quarterly report on the transition of U.S. forces
is submitted;



!Required by February 15, 2008, a comprehensive regional stability
plan for the Middle East;
!Required additional quarterly reports, beginning on January 15, 2008
and continuing through the remainder of the fiscal year, that would
establish performance measures for military and political stability in
Iraq and specify a timetable for achieving the goals.
Senate Rejection of the Levin-Reed and Feingold Amendments. On
December 18, Senators Levin, Reed, Voinovich, Hagel, Snowe, Reid, and Salazar
offered an amendment to Senator McConnell’s bridge fund amendment that would
have added language expressing the sense of Congress that the U.S. mission in Iraq
should shift by the end of 2008 to one of training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi
security forces. The amendment would have inserted a new section, saying,
Sec. – It is the sense of Congress that the missions of the United States Armed
Forces in Iraq should be transitioned to the more limited set of missions laid out
by the President in his September 13, 2007, address to the Nation, that is, to
counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces,
in addition to the necessary mission of force protection, with the goal of13
completing that transition by the end of 2008.
By a vote of 50-45, with 60 votes required, the Senate failed to approve the measure
(though a majority supported it), and it was subsequently withdrawn. The
breakdown of the vote was the same as on earlier Iraq amendments in July, reflecting
no change in Senate support for, and opposition to, the war in Iraq.
Earlier on December 18, Senators Feingold, Reid, Leahy, Dodd, Boxer,
Kennedy, Kerry, Harkin, Whitehouse, Wyden, Durbin, Schumer, Obama,
Sanders, Menendez, Lautenberg, and Brown, offered an amendment that would
have required the President to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 90 days and
that would have cut off funding for operations in Iraq after nine months from the date
of enactment of the legislation.14 By a voter of 24-71, with 60 votes required, the
Senate refused to approve the measure, and it was then withdrawn.
Iraq Policy Provisions in the Enacted $70 Billion Bridge Fund. The
$70 billion “bridge fund” that Congress ultimately approved for FY2008 does not
include language requiring the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Instead, Section
609 of the measure required the Secretary of Defense to provide an extensive report
on “Progress Toward Stability in Iraq” within 60 days of enactment of the legislation
and every 90 days thereafter. The Administration interpreted these reporting
requirements as being fulfilled by ongoing quarterly reports on stability and security
in Iraq. Among other things, the report is required to include an explanation of “[t]he


13 Senate Amendment 3867 to Senate Amendment 3874, Congressional Record,
December 18, 2007, p. S15930.
14 Senate Amendment 3875 to Senate Amendment 3874, Congressional Record,
December 18, 2007, p. S15845.

criteria the Administration will use to determine when it is safe to begin withdrawing
United States forces from Iraq.”15
Overview of FY2008 Supplemental Defense,
International Affairs, and Other Funding Requests
Taken together, the Administration requested a total of $196.5 billion in
“additional” or “supplemental” appropriations for military operations, international
affairs, and other activities in FY2008. Most of the money was requested in the
Administration’s original budget for FY2008, submitted in February 2007. The
request included $141.7 billion for military operations abroad, $3.3 billion in
emergency funds for international affairs programs, and $325 million in emergency
funding for other agencies, including the Department of Energy for counter-
proliferation programs, the Coast Guard, and the Department of Justice.
Subsequently, on July 31, the White House sent Congress a budget amendment
requesting $5.3 billion for mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicle
procurement and deployment. And on October 22, the White House sent Congress
a budget amendment requesting an additional $45.9 billion in FY2008 for military
operations abroad and for a variety of international affairs programs. In all, the
Administration asked for a total of $189.3 billion in FY2008 for military operations,
$6.9 billion in supplemental funding for a variety of international affairs programs,
and $325 million for other agencies. Table 3 provides a summary of supplemental
requests in February, July, and October.


15 Quarterly reports on “Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq,” were initially required
by report language H.Rept. 109-72, the conference report, on FY2005 emergency
supplemental appropriations for defense, the global war on terror, and tsunami relief, H.R.
1278 (which became P.L. 109-13). The reporting requirement was refined and enacted into
law as Section 9010 of the FY2007 defense appropriations act, P.L. 109-298, and the reports
are sometimes referred to as the Section 9010 reports. Quarterly reports are available on
line at [http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/Iraq_Reports/index.html].

Table 3. Initial and Amended FY2008 Supplemental Defense,
International Affairs and Other Funding Requests*
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Init ia l July
F e brua ry M RAP October To t a l
Request Amendment Amendment Request
Department of Defense (Including Other Agency Intelligence Amounts)
Military Personnel17,070.3-- 700.517,770.8
Operation and Maintenance71,415.3748.08,729.580,892.8
Procurement 32,880.3 4 ,562.0 26,598.5 64,040.8
Research and Development1,957.330.0603.32,590.6
Military Construction907.9-- 955.61,863.5
Iraq Freedom Fund/Joint IED Defeat4,108.0-- 369.04,477.0
Defense Health Program1,023.8-- -- 1,023.8
Iraq and Afghan Security Forces4,700.0-- 1,000.05,700.0
Working Capital Fund1,681.4-- -- 1,681.4
Subtotal Department of Defense135,744.35,340.038,956.4180,040.7
Non-DoD Classified & Additional Funds5,920.6-- 3,355.09,275.6
Total Defense-Related141,664.95,340.042,311.4189,316.3
International Affairs
Department of Agriculture
P.L. 480 Food Aid-- -- 350.0350.0
Department of State and Foreign Operations
Diplomatic and Consular Programs1,881.6-- 401.42,283.0
Embassy Security, Construction, & Maintenance-- -- 160.0160.0
Contributions to International Organizations53.0-- -- 53.0
Contributions for International Peacekeeping-- -- 723.6723.6
Migration and Refugee Assistance35.0-- 195.0230.0
International Narcotics Control & Law
Enforcement [details in brackets are non-additive]159.0575.0734.0
[Iraq Criminal Justice Programs][159.0]-- -- [159.0]
[Mexico Counternarcotics and Law
Enforcement]-- -- [500.0][500.0]
[Central America Counternarcotics and Law
Enforcement]-- -- [50.0][50.0]
[Palestinian Authority Security Capabilities-- -- [25.0][25.0]
Economic Support Fund [details in brackets are
no n-additive] 1,111.0 1 ,106.0 2 ,217.0
[Iraq Reconstruction][772.0]-- -- [772.0]
[Afghanistan Reconstruction][339.0]-- [495.0][834.0]
[Iraq Private Sector Assistance]-- -- [25.0][25.0]
[Pakistan Tribal Areas Plan]-- -- [60.0][60.0]
[North Korea Assistance]-- -- [106.0][106.0]
[Palestinian Authority]-- -- [350.0][350.0]
[Sudan Elections]-- -- [70.0][70.0]
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and
Related Programs-- -- 5.05.0
International Disaster and Famine Assistance-- -- 80.080.0
AID Operating Expenses, Security61.8-- -- 61.8
Total, International Affairs3,301.4-- 3,596.06,897.4



Other Agencies
Department of Energy
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation63.0-- -- 63.0
Department of Homeland Security
Coast Guard Operating Expenses120.0-- -- 120.0
Department of Justice
Iraq and Afghanistan Training and Investigations4.1-- -- 4.1
Afghanistan Marshall Training and Assistance14.9-- -- 14.9
FBI Counterterrorism Intelligence & Training101.1-- -- 101.1
DEA Operation Breakthrough & Other8.5-- -- 8.5
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives Iraq Operations4.0-- -- 4.0
Federal Prison System Counterterrorism9.1-- -- 9.1
Total, Other Agencies324.7-- -- 324.7
Grand Total, All Requests145,291.05,340.045,907.4196,538.4
Sources: February request from Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the U.S. Government: Appendix,
February 2007, pp. 1141-1178. Amendments from Office of Management and Budget, FY2007 and FY2008
Supplementals, Amendments, and Releases, at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments.htm].
*Note: Amounts shown in brackets “[...]” are non-additive details of total amounts shown for each account.
Emergency Spending Designation
The Administration requested all of these funds, including the amounts in the
February budget and in the subsequent July and October budget amendments, with
legislative language that would designate the amounts as “emergency” spending.16
The intention was to exempt the funds from caps on spending in the FY2008
congressional budget resolution. Section 204 of the FY2008 budget resolution,
S.Con.Res. 21, provides that amounts designated as necessary to meet emergency
requirements “shall not be counted” against caps on discretionary spending act in the
House and shall not be subject to points of order for exceeding spending limits in the
Senate.
Technically, however, the terms “emergency” or “emergency appropriations”
may not apply to all of the money Congress may ultimately provide, particularly for
ongoing war-related expenses. While S.Con.Res. 21 exempts emergency amounts
from caps on spending, it also includes a restrictive definition of emergency spending
that might permit a point of order to be raised in the Senate against a measure that17


designates funds for ongoing activities, including the war, as an emergency.
16 The “emergency” language is requested as a general provision in OMB’s February budget
appendix, and the President’s cover letter conveying the October 22 request designates all
of the requested funds as emergency appropriations.
17 Section 206(a)(6)(A) requires that emergency funding must be
“(i) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or beneficial);
“(ii) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time;
“(iii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action;
“(iv) ... unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
(continued...)

Instead, the budget resolution permits limits on overall funding to be adjusted by up
to $124.2 billion for “overseas deployments and related activities.” That designation,
rather than “emergency” appropriations, may be invoked to permit some of the
requested spending to be considered without raising a point of order for exceeding
budget limits in the Senate.18
Supplemental Appropriations for Other Programs
Supplemental appropriations bills frequently provide substantially more money
than the White House requests, and bills sometimes become vehicles for significant
legislative initiatives as well. The FY2007 supplemental, for example, H.R. 2206,
P.L. 110-28, included substantial amounts for disaster relief, farm programs, low-
income energy assistance, and the SCHIP children’s health insurance program. It
also included a measure to increase the minimum wage.
It was widely expected that the appropriations committee would include
additional “emergency” funds for Hurricane Katrina recovery and for other purposes
in any FY2008 supplemental appropriations bill for the war. With the prospect that
the war supplemental would be delayed until January or later, however, appropriators
decided not to wait to address hurricane recovery and other issues, and instead
provided funding for several non-defense programs in the second FY2008 continuing
resolution (CR).
The second CR, which funds activities of the government from November 17
through December 14, 2007, was attached to the FY2008 defense appropriations bill,
H.R. 3222, P.L. 110-116, which the President signed into law on November 13. The
continuing resolution included
!$2.9 billion in additional funds for veterans health programs,
!$3 billion in community development funds for Louisiana to help
residents return to their homes,
!$2.9 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency
Disaster Relief Fund, and
!$500 million for wildfire management.
Summary of FY2008 Defense Supplemental Appropriations
As noted above, in the first continuing resolution and in the FY2008 defense
appropriations bill, Congress provided $16.8 billion for MRAPs. The FY2008
continuing resolution, H.J.Res. 52, P.L. 110-92, that was signed into law on
September 29, provided $5.2 billion for production and deployment of Mine
Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles for the Army and Marine Corps. This


17 (...continued)
‘(v) not permanent, temporary in nature.”
18 Moreover, an "emergency" designation by the President is no longer required. The
President was, in the past, required to agree with Congress to designate funds as
"emergency" appropriations in order to avoid triggering an automatic cut in spending if
outlays exceeded statutory limits. But legislative caps on spending expired after FY2002.

is almost all of the amount that was requested in the Administration’s July 31 budget
amendment. The FY2008 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 3222, P.L. 110-116, that
was signed into law on includes $11.6 billion for MRAPs, all designated as
emergency appropriations.
The $70 billion bridge fund in the omnibus appropriations bill that the President
signed on December 26 includes
!$39 billion for Army and Marine Corps operation and maintenance;
!$11 billion for O&M for the Navy, Air Force, and other components;
!$1.35 billion to train and equip Afghan security forces and $1.5
billion for Iraqi forces;
!$3.7 billion for the Iraqi Freedom Fund, which provides flexibility
to shift funds to meet evolving needs;
!$4.3 billion, the entire amount requested, for joint IED defense; and
!$6.1 billion for weapons procurement, less than 10% of the $67
billion requested.
The bill also permits up to $4 billion to be transferred between accounts in the bridge
fund. This may provide additional flexibility for the Defense Department to finance
operations in the future if funding is again delayed.
Highlights of the FY2008 Defense
Supplemental Request
The $189.3 billion requested for military operations in FY2008 continues a
trend of perennially larger and larger amounts of money being provided to the
Defense Department through supplemental appropriations that are over and above
also-increasing “base” budgets for defense. In all, supplemental appropriations for
DOD, together with war-related “bridge” funds provided as separate titles of regular
annual defense appropriations bills since FY2005, have grown from $62.6 billion in
FY2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, to $101.9 billion in FY2005, to $124.0 billion
in FY2006, to $171.3 billion in FY2007, and now still higher (see Table 4).



Table 4. Regular and Supplemental/Bridge
Appropriations for the Department of Defense,
FY2000 to FY2008
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Supplement a l/
Total DODRegularBridge
Appro pria t io ns Appro pria t io ns Appro pria t io ns
FY2000290,339 281,785 8,554
FY2001318,678 299,320 19,358
FY2002344,904 328,668 16,236
FY2003437,714 375,133 62,581
FY2004447,933 378,406 69,527
FY2005506,864 404,945 101,919
FY2006593,780 469,753 124,027
FY2007608,252 430,600 171,289
FY2008 (request)672,289 482,973 189,316
Source: CRS from Office of Management and Budget and House and Senate
Appropriations Committee data.
Why War-Related Supplemental Requests Have Grown19
The increases in funding for the war cannot be attributed to the pace of military
operations. Though the number of troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan has
fluctuated over time, and there was a “surge” of troops into Iraq in 2007, overall
troop levels have remained relatively stable. Instead, the increases are due in large
part to the growth of investments to repair or replace equipment lost or worn out in
military operations and also to upgrade equipment across for ground forces.
As Table 5 shows, the largest increases in funding have been for weapons
procurement, which has grown from about $19 billion in FY2005 to a requested $64
billion in the amended FY2008 request. Operation and maintenance funding has
grown also, much of that to repair equipment. And there have been increases, as
well, in funding to train and equip Afghan and Iraqi military forces. Supplementals
have also been used to finance costs of reorganizing the Army into a modular,
brigade-centered force and to pay for initial costs of increasing the Army and Marine
Corps by 92,000 troops by 2011.


19 For a much more extensive discussion of trends in supplemental appropriations, see CRS
Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror
Operations Since 9/11, by Amy Belasco, particularly the section entitled “Trends in War
Funding.” Also see CRS Report RL33999, Defense: FY2008 Authorization and
Appropriations, by Pat Towell, Stephen Daggett, and Amy Belasco, particularly the section
entitled “Issues in the FY2008 Global War on Terror Request.”

Table 5. War-Related Supplemental Appropriations/
Bridge Funds by Account, FY2005-FY2008
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Amended
Ena c t e d Ena c t e d Ena c t e d Request
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008
Military Personnel18,696.716,423.317,746.117,770.7
Operation and Maintenance46,520.959,230.072,257.780,892.8
Procurement 18,762.6 20,373.8 42,025.5 64,040.8
Research and Development587.3125.2635.82,590.6
Military Construction1,128.1214.81,670.21,863.5
IFF/JIEDDO 3,800.0 3 ,318.1 4 ,759.1 4 ,477.0
Defense Health Program893.61,153.62,091.21,023.8
Iraq and Afghan Security Forces6,985.04,915.112,948.75,700.0
Working Capital Fund3,021.73,033.11,120.51,681.4
Subtotal 100,395.8 108,787.0 155,254.8 180,040.6
Non-DoD Classified/Other Emergency492.45,740.314,244.89,275.6
To tal 100,888.3 114,527.3 169,499.6 189,316.3
Sources: FY2007 and FY2008 from Department of Defense, FY2008 Global War on Terror
Amendment, October 2007; FY2006 from Department of Defense, FY2007 Emergency Supplemental
Request for the Global War on Terror, February 2007; FY2005 CRS from House and Senate
Appropriations Committee data.
Table 6 shows the trend in funding according to functional categories that the
Defense Department has used. DOD’s functional breakdown shows large increases
in funding for force protection and smaller increases in support to foreign security
forces. The largest increases, however, have been for what the Defense Department
refers to as “reconstitution.” Early in the war, the Defense Department did not
support Army requests for funding to reconstitute the force, with Secretary Rumsfeld
and other officials citing uncertainly about what was needed. Congress, however,
insisted on adding funds for new equipment and asked the Army to provide
information on its requirements.



Table 6. War-Related Supplemental Appropriations/
Bridge Funds by Functional Category, FY2006-FY2008
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Amended
Ena c t e d Ena c t e d Request
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008
Continuing the Fight
Operations (Includes Plus-Up)67,158.076,148.476,868.7
Force Protection5,358.513,349.830,461.0
IED Defeat3,318.14,400.04,269.0
Military Intelligence Program1,499.73,443.73,706.0
Iraq Security Forces3,007.05,542.93,000.0
Afghan Security Forces1,908.07,406.42,700.0
Coalition Support1,200.01,422.21,700.0
CERP 923.0 956.4 1 ,219.4
Military Construction214.8940.01,694.5
Factory Restart-- 50.0100.0
Provincial Reconstruction Teams5,000.0100.0--
Reconstituting the Force
Reconstitution 19,199.8 36,349.1 46,366.8
Enhancing Ground Forces
BCTs / RCT-- 3,647.11,557.2
Grow the Force-- 1,498.8--
Restore the Force-- -- 5,403.9
Strengthening the Army Guard and Reserve-- -- 994.2
Non-DOD Classified & Additional Requests5,740.314,244.89,275.6
To tal 114,527.2 169,499.6 189,316.3
Sources: FY2007 and FY2008 from Department of Defense, FY2008 Global War on Terror
Amendment, October 2007; FY2006 from Department of Defense, FY2007 Emergency Supplemental
Request for the Global War on Terror, February 2007.
Traditionally, the term “reconstitution” has been used to refer to repairing and
replacing equipment lost or worn out in combat in order to restore the force to
approximately its pre-war condition. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, however,
preferred to use the term “reset” to describe what was needed. To reset the force
meant to return the force, not to its prewar condition, but to the condition that it
would have been in had planned changes in the force been carried on in the absence
of a conflict. The intent was not to add to funding requirements, but to refine and
perhaps reduce them. Secretary Rumsfeld argued, for example, that there was not
necessarily a need to restore stocks of Army prepositioned equipment to prewar
levels because plans to reduce overseas deployments might reduce prepositioning
requirements.
Now, the Defense Department has resumed using the term “reconstitution,” but
the concept appears to encompass much more than just restoring the force. In
particular, it appears to encompass substantial upgrades to the force, especially for
the Army and Marine Corps. The upgrades include measures to fix preexisting
shortfalls in some kinds of equipment, to add substantially to transportation and
communications equipment in combat units to reflect lessons about the way units



have operated in the war, and to more fully equip later deploying units with the same
equipment used in the theater in order to improve training. A large amount has also
been devoted to more fully equipping Guard and reserve units that, in the past, were
outfitted with older equipment retired from the active duty force, but that have now
become part of the rotation base for overseas operations and, so are seen to need
newer weapons and support systems. Taken together, these steps to upgrade the
force explain much of the increase in spending.
Congress has generally supported steps to upgrade ground forces, and legislators
have questioned only a relatively small share of requested increases in equipment
funding. In action on the FY2007 war supplemental, for example, there were
questions about the rationale for an Air Force request for two F-35 Joint Strike
Fighters, on which production is just beginning, to replace F-15 and F-16 aircraft lost
in combat operations, and a Navy request for one V-22 tilt rotor aircraft to replace
lost helicopters. In the end, the Administration withdrew those requests in a budget
amendment that realigned funding to reflect costs of the troop surge.20
Selected Elements of the Amended Defense Request
Funding for MRAPs is the largest single item in the amended defense request,
and Congress has already responded by providing virtually all of the money
requested. A few other elements of the amended request stand out.
!Costs of the troop surge: The October 22 budget amendment
included $6.3 billion to cover costs of maintaining five additional
Army brigade combat teams (BCTs) and one Marine regimental
combat team (RCT) in Iraq through December 2007 and then
returning to pre-surge levels. The budget assumes that the additional
units will be withdrawn beginning in January and that the force will
be reduced to the pre-surge level of 15 brigades by July.
!Other Iraq- and Afghanistan-related increases: The October 22
budget amendment included $1 billion in additional money for Iraqi
security forces and $100 million to expand a program to reopen
factories in Iraq. It also included $242 million for the Commanders
Emergency Response Program21 for Afghanistan. And it includes
$956 million, in addition to $739 million requested in February, to
construct facilities and roads in Iraq and Afghanistan.
!Additional funds for reconstitution: Aside from MRAPs, the largest
element of the October budget amendment is an addition of
$8.8 billion to the $37.6 billion requested in February to repair,
replace, and replenish equipment and supplies. The budget


20 See Office of Management and Budget, “FY2007 Supplemental Revisions: Department
of Defense (Global War on Terror),” March 9, 2007. The amendment is available on line
at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/amendment_3_9_07.pdf].
21 CERP allows field commanders to provide money for relatively small, local development
projects.

amendment includes $1 billion to improve Navy P-3 aircraft radar
detection equipment and smaller amounts for a wide range of other
programs.
!Restock inventories of equipment in non-deploying units: Under the
title “Restore the Force,” in addition to funds for reconstitution, the
October budget amendment includes $5.4 billion to restock
equipment inventories of combat support and combat service
support (CS/CSS) units that have had equipment taken away in order
to equip deployed and next-to-deploy combat and support units.
Defense Department officials have said that is only part of the
amount needed to make up shortfalls of inventories due to cross-
leveling of equipment as units have prepared to deploy.22
!Other requests: The budget amendment includes $2.5 billion for a
variety of other initiatives. These include $762 million for fuel price
increases; $416 million to accelerate the date for completing
construction of facilities to replace the Walter Reed Army hospital
from May 2011 to October 2010; $504 million for to improve other
Army medical facilities and services; and about $800 million for
soldier and family support programs, including programs to support
soldiers returning from combat tours.
International Affairs Emergency
Supplemental Request
On February 6, 2007, the Administration sent to Congress its regular FY2008
budget that included $35.1 billion for international affairs. At the same time, the
President sent Congress an FY2008 emergency supplemental request of $3.301
billion for international affairs. On October 22, 2007, the Administration amended
its supplemental request with $3.596 billion in additional spending. The total
FY2008 emergency supplemental request for international affairs spending amounts
to $6.897 billion. While the largest portion of the total request is for State
Department operations and foreign assistance in Iraq and Afghanistan, it also
includes sizeable requests for programs in Mexico, the West Bank and Gaza, North
Korea, Sudan, and Pakistan.
The State Department estimated emergency supplemental funding needs of
$3.220 billion for Diplomatic and Consular Programs (DCP) in Iraq and Afghanistan,
Worldwide Security Upgrades in Afghanistan, staff housing in Afghanistan,
Contributions to International Organizations, and Contributions to International
Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) for Darfur. Two-thirds ($2.1 billion) of the State
Department request was for Diplomatic and Consular Program funding for Iraq
Operations. Foreign Operations comprise $3.678 billion, including $350 million for


22 Source: Oral communication from Department of Defense Comptroller official, October

23, 2007.



P.L. 480 food assistance. Nearly half of the total foreign operations package was
allocated for assistance in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Bush Administration has increasingly requested emergency supplemental
funds for international affairs budgets. Some budget experts and others have
criticized the Administration for relying too heavily on supplementals, and that some
items, particularly relating to Iraq and Afghanistan, have become routine and should
be incorporated into the regular appropriations cycle. The Administration counters
that given the nature of rapidly changing overseas events and unforeseen
emergencies, it is necessary to make emergency supplemental requests for what it
claims are unexpected and non-recurring expenses.
State Department Operations23
In February 2007, the original FY2008 State Department portion of the
emergency supplemental request consisted of $1.882 billion for Diplomatic and
Consular Programs, all for operations in Iraq, and $53 million for Contributions to
International Organizations (CIO). The Administration amended this supplemental,
adding nearly $1.3 billion: $401.4 million for Diplomatic and Consular Programs
(DCP), $160 million for Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM),
and $723.6 million for Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities
(CIPA). Total emergency funds requested for FY2008 for the State Department’s
Administration of Foreign Affairs equal $3.220 billion in addition to the regular
budget request of $7.317 billion for the Administration of Foreign Affairs (Table 7).
The Mission in Iraq consists of about 1,000 direct-hire Americans representing

12 U.S. government agencies.24 For the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account,


the Department requested a total of $2.283 billion, of which $2.120.6 billion was for
emergency needs in Iraq. In addition, $402.6 million of carryover funds were
available, for a total of $2.523 billion for Iraq operations. Of this sum, $978.7
million would pay for security needs, such as local guards ($151.6 million),
compound guards ($164.0 million), regional security ($167.3 million), personal
security details ($301.4 million), armored vehicles ($41.2 million), physical and
technical security, such as vehicle barriers and bomb detective dogs ($8.7 million),
equipment, such as bullet proof vests, ammunition, and masks ($6.4 million), other
support, such as special agents traveling to Iraq and counterterrorism training ($28.1
million), and overhead cover protection to bolster rooftops ($110.0 million). Another
$907.1 million would go toward Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), paying
salaries ($187.6 million), operations ($63.8 million), living accommodations and
medical support ($72.1 million), information technology ($60.3 million), vehicles
($3.3 million), security ($516.8 million) and leases of space in Baghdad ($3.2
million).
The Administration also sought $162.4 million for worldwide security upgrades
in Afghanistan. Of this amount, $80 million would pay for securing facilities,


23 Prepared by Susan B. Epstein, Specialist in Foreign Policy.
24 For more information, see CRS Report RS21867, U.S. Embassy in Iraq.

including overhead (roof) protection; $38 million would be for high threat protection
teams and support for the election process; $36.5 million would fund unbudgeted
security costs for other agencies; and $7.9 million would buy fully armored vehicles
for the embassy and PRTs. Other expenses covered by the FY2008 emergency
supplemental request for the Department of State included $160 million for U.S. staff
housing in Afghanistan under the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance
account, $53 million for U.S. assessments for U.N. activities related to combat
terrorism, and $723.6 million for U.S. Contributions for International Peacekeeping
activities in Darfur.
Table 7. FY2008 Emergency Supplemental State Department
(millions of U.S. dollars)
FinalState Dept
TotalSupp.State DeptPending
RegularFY2008H.R. 2764FY08FY08
Request Supp. PL110- Supp Supp
Activity FY2008 Request 161 Allo ca t io n Request
Total State Operations7,317.1b3,219.61,261.6965.02,254.6
Diplomatic & Consular4,942.72,283.0781.6575.01,708.0
Programs Iraq Operations(2,120.6)(575.0)(575.0)(1,545.6)
Worldwide Security(964.8)(162.4)(206.6)(0.0)(162.4)
P r o tectio n
Embassy Security,c
Construction & Maintenance1,599.4160.0 0.0160.0
Contributions to
International Organizations1,354.453.0 0.053.0
Contributions to
International Peacekeeping1,107.0723.6468.0390.0333.6
Broadcasting668.2 12.012.0
To tal 9 ,003.5 3 ,219.6 1 ,261.6 977.0 2 ,254.6
a. These numbers differ from those in P.L. 110-161 because the Department of State applied some of the
supplemental funding to FY2008 base funds or because, in some cases, Congress provided supplementals
for activities not requested by the Administration.
b. Includes other funds not listed in this table.
c. Includes worldwide security upgrade funds for embassies.
Congressional Action on State Department Operations. Congress
provided both regular funding and supplemental funding for the Department of State
and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) in Division J of the Consolidated
Appropriation Act (P.L. 110-161). The enacted law contains $1.262 billion in
supplemental funds for the Department of State — $781.6 million for State’s
Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP) and $468.0 million for U.S.
Contributions to International Peacekeeping (CIPA). In both accounts, the
emergency supplemental amounts are significantly less than what the Administration
had requested. Of the $781.6 million for D&CP, $575.0 million is specified for Iraq



operations and $206.6 million is for worldwide security protection (WSP).
According to State Department officials, the Department applied the $206 million to
the FY2008 base request, resulting in $162.4 million to be still pending for WSP in
Afghanistan. The appropriation does not require any specific allocation for the
CIPA emergency supplemental funds, although the measure states that “not less than
$550.4 million be used to establish a new United Nations/African Union hybrid
peacekeeping mission to Darfur (UNAMID).” According to Department of State
officials, $390 million is allocated for Darfur and $78 million for FY2008 U.N.
Peacekeeping funds. Still pending is $333.6 million for Darfur, according to
Department sources.
Emergency supplemental funds for the BBG total $12.0 million in the
consolidated appropriation. No funds for international broadcasting were requested
in the Administration’s emergency supplemental request. While the provision lists
general funding allocations for BBG, no requirements for specific allocation of the
supplemental funds is mentioned.
Foreign Operations25
The Foreign Operations portion, totaling $3.678 billion, of the supplemental
request was sent to Congress in two tranches. A $1.367 billion request accompanied
the President’s budget on February 6, 2007. An amended request for $2.311 billion,
including P.L. 480 food aid, was sent to Congress on October 22nd. Approximately
one-third of the request was made up of $2.217 billion in Economic Support Funds
(ESF) for Iraq ($797 million), Afghanistan ($834 million), West Bank and Gaza
($350 million), North Korea ($106 million), Sudan ($70 million) and Pakistan ($60
million). (See Table 8 for full request.)
Anti-narcotics emergency supplemental funding for FY2008 totaled a requested
$734 million, the largest portion allocated for Mexico and Central America ($550
million). Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) totaled $230 million, mainly for
Iraqi and Palestinian refugees. International Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA),
totaling $80 million, would fund programs in Iraq to assist internally displaced
persons (IDPs). The request also includes $5 million for the Afghanistan Presidential
Protection Service from the Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related
Programs (NADR) account. A $350 million request for P.L. 480 food aid would
support programs in the Horn of Africa, Kenya, Sudan, and a $30 million
contingency fund to anticipate future needs elsewhere.
Congressional Action on Foreign Operations. Congress approved
$1.123 billion in emergency supplemental funds for foreign operations in the
omnibus bill in addition to regular FY2008 funding. In many instances, the amounts
approved for emergency funds are less than that requested, making it difficult to
ascertain what parts of the request will be funded. For example, the White House
had requested approximately $2.2 billion in ESF funds for six recipients, but the
legislation is not explicit, in every instance, as to where these funds should be


25 Prepared by Connie Veillette, Specialist in Foreign Assistance.

directed, presumably leaving some discretion to the Administration. Supplemental
funds approved by Congress include
!$115 million for Global Health & Child Survival (no CSH funds
were requested);
!$110 million for International Disaster Assistance ($80 million had
been requested for activities in Iraq);
!$20.8 million for USAID Operating Expenses ($61.8 million was
requested for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan);
!$542.6 million for Economic Support Fund ($2.2 billion had been
requested for Iraq Afghanistan, the West Bank and Gaza, Pakistan,
North Korea, and Sudan);
!$200 million for Migration and Refugee Assistance for Iraqi
refugees and Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, and the West Bank
and Gaza ($230 million was requested);
!$100 million for Foreign Military Financing (no FMF funds were
requested); and
!$35 million for Peacekeeping Operations (no PKO funds were
requested).
No supplemental funds were provided for counter-narcotics programs requested
for Mexico and Central America, and the West Bank and Gaza.



Table 8. FY2008 Foreign Operations Emergency Supplemental
(millions of U.S. dollars)
Fina l
FY2008Total Supp FY08 Pending
RegularSupp.HR2764SuppFY08 Supp
Co unt ry /Acco unt Request Request PL110-161 Allo ca t io n Request
Afghanistan1,067.1a839.0na 839.0
ESF693.0834.0
NADR21.75.0
USAID Operating Expenses(16.0)
Iraq391.8a956.0na 956.0
ESF298.0797.0
INCLE75.8159.0
Mexico — Central America 220.4a550.00.0 — 550.0
Init ia t i v e
INCLE31.7550.0
West Bank/Gaza77.0a375.0na 155.0220.0
INCLE3.525.0
ESF63.5350.0155.0
Pakistan785.0a60.0 na 60.0
ESF382.960.0
North Korea2.0106.0na 53.053.0
ESF2.0106.053.053.0
Sudan679.2a70.0 na 70.0
ESF245.970.070.0
Horn of Africa/Kenya(110.0) (110.0)
PL4807.0(110.0)0.0
Southern Africa(135.0)(135.0)
PL480(135.0)0.0
M igratio n/refug ee 773.5 230.0 200.0 200.0 30.0
Intern’l Disaster Assist.297.380.080.080.0
PL4801,219.4350.00.0 — 350.0
USAID Operating Expenses609.061.8na20.841.0
To tal 6 ,121.7 3 ,677.8 1 ,123.4 508.8 3 ,169.0
Notes: Figures do not include State Department Operations. Acronyms: ESF-Economic Support
Fund; INCLE-International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement; IDFA-International Disaster and
Famine Assistance; MRA-Migration and Refugee Assistance; NADR-Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism,
Demining, and Related Programs; and PL480-Food for Peace; USAID-U.S. Agency for International
Development.
a. Country totals include other accounts for which supplemental funds were not requested.
b. Some supplemental funds were not designated in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying
H.R. 2764 with regard to destination, and are marked asna.” As more information becomes
available, this table will be updated.



Iraq Reconstruction Assistance26
Until the passage of the omnibus FY2008 appropriations bill, nearly $42 billion
in U.S. funds had been appropriated to support all facets of Iraq reconstruction.
Almost all this funding was appropriated in annual supplemental legislation. For
FY2008, the Administration made no request for security assistance in its regular
Defense budget proposal, but asked for roughly $392 million under State and Foreign
Operations appropriations. In both the June 2007-approved House and September
2007-approved Senate versions of the FY2008 State and Foreign Operations
legislation (H.R. 2764), Congress rejected the Administration request for Iraq.
Therefore, funding for Iraq reconstruction in FY2008 was expected to come almost
entirely from an emergency supplemental measure.
Administration Supplemental Request for Iraq Reconstruction. The
Administration’s FY2008 emergency supplemental appropriations request, revised
on October 22, 2007, included $4.9 billion in funding for Iraq reconstruction.
Reconstruction aid has two main components — security aid funded with
Department of Defense (DOD) appropriations and political/economic/social sector
assistance funded with State and Foreign Operations appropriations.
The request for DOD reconstruction appropriations totaled about $3.7 billion.
It would chiefly fund the training and equipping of Iraqi troops under the Iraq
Security Forces Fund (ISFF) and reconstruction grants provided under the
Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP). The CERP allows military
commanders to support a wide variety of economic activities at the local level, from
renovating health clinics to digging wells to painting schools, provided in the form
of small grants. CERP also funds some infrastructure efforts no longer supported
with other U.S. assistance, such as repair or provision of electric generators and
construction of sewer systems. Commanders are able to identify needs and dispense
aid with few bureaucratic encumbrances. More recently, the CERP has paid salaries
to the so-called Sons of Iraq (formerly known as the Concerned Local Citizens),
mostly Sunnis who are joining with U.S. forces to provide security.
The October budget revision added a $100 million request to the DOD-funded
Iraq Freedom Fund account for the Task Force to Improve Business and Stability
Operations in Iraq. The Task Force, funded at $50 million under the previous
supplemental appropriations legislation, seeks to stimulate the economy and create
employment for Iraqi citizens by rehabilitating some of the roughly 200 state-owned
enterprises that comprised a large portion of the Iraqi economy prior to the U.S.
occupation. News reports have suggested some difficulty with the program, resulting
from the lack of electricity, the insecure environment, and a lack of enthusiasm from
U.S. companies that had been expected to invest in the facilities, among other
reasons. 27


26 Prepared by Curt Tarnoff, Specialist in Foreign Affairs. For more detailed discussion of
the U.S. program of assistance to Iraq, see CRS Report RL31833, Iraq: Reconstruction
Assistance.
27 “U.S. Falters in Bid to Boost Iraqi Business,” Washington Post, August 24, 2007; “In Iraq,
(continued...)

Under the State and Foreign Operations appropriations budget, the FY2008
emergency supplemental request would direct $1.2 billion toward Iraq — $797
million in the Economic Support Fund (ESF), $159 million in the International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INCLE), and $195 million in the Migration and
Refugee Assistance (MRA), and $80 million in the International Disaster and Famine
Assistance (IDFA) accounts. ESF is the primary source of funding for the assistance
provided by the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), which have grown under
the surge to 31, including 13 newly established ePRTs (embedded PRTs) embedded
with U.S. combat battalions and concentrated mostly in Baghdad and Anbar
province. The ePRTs are intended to help stabilize areas secured by U.S. and Iraqi
forces by supporting local small-scale, employment-generating, economic projects,
using ESF-funded community development grants, job training and micro-loan
programs, among other activities. PRTs also utilize ESF to increase the capacities
of local government officials to spend Iraqi-owned capital funds allocated by the
Iraqi government for infrastructure programs. At the national level, ESF supports
Ministerial capacity development, agriculture and private sector reform, and the
strengthening of democratization efforts.
The October budget revision added another $25 million to the ESF supplemental
request and proposed authorization language to allow the Administration to establish
a new Iraq enterprise fund based on the model created for east Europe and the former
Soviet Union. Enterprise funds are U.S. government-funded private sector-run
bodies that primarily provide loans or equity investments to small and medium
business. In the former communist countries, enterprise funds also encouraged
growth of the private sector, including support for mortgage lending markets and
establishment of private equity funds. The most successful example, the Polish
Fund, made many profitable investments, helping companies grow that otherwise
were unable to obtain financial support in the period just after the fall of communism.
Some of the funds, however, have been much less successful, either by taking on
poor investment risks, or unable to locate promising businesses because of the poor
business climate or competition from other private sector funding sources. Some
observers question the usefulness of the funds because their ostensible development
purpose seems often to conflict with pressures for economic profit.
The INCLE account largely would support rule of law and corrections programs.
The Administration request was expected to fund prison construction, something that
Congress has sometimes cut from previous requests. The request was also intended
to extend judicial reform and anticorruption efforts to the provinces. The MRA
request would address the continuing refugee crisis in the region; an estimated 2.0
million Iraqis have fled the country and another 2.2 million have been displaced due
to sectarian violence and instability. The IDA program would provide medical care,
food, shelter and other relief to refugees and displaced people.
FY2008 emergency funds were also requested for operational costs (not
included in the reconstruction aid total) for staffing and administering reconstruction
programs: $679 million for PRT and $45.8 million for USAID operations.


27 (...continued)
One Man’s Mission Impossible,” CNN Money.com, September 4, 2007.

Congressional Action on Iraq Reconstruction in FY2008
Consolidated Appropriations. In its consideration of the regular and
supplemental requests for Iraq reconstruction, Congress treated the two facets of
reconstruction — security and economic — quite differently. On the one hand,
Congress did provide a substantial part — $1.9 billion — of the Administration’s
$3.7 billion Defense appropriations supplemental request for security reconstruction
aid. It appropriated half of the request for the Iraq Security Forces Fund and nearly
half of the request for the CERP.
On the other hand, with a few discrete exceptions — all involving humanitarian
programs — Congress, in section 699K of Division J (the State and Foreign
Operations part of the omnibus appropriations), specifically rejected almost all
regular or supplemental economic assistance to Iraq, providing only about $250
million. It approved efforts to fund humanitarian demining ($16 million, drawing on
regular NADR funds), assist refugees and internally displaced persons (drawing on
supplemental MRA funds), and offer disaster relief (drawing on supplemental IDFA
funds), and it provided $5 million for the Marla Ruzicka War Victims Fund, and $10
million for the rescue of Iraqi scholars (drawing on regular ESF funds, but the latter
reportedly not yet allocated).
In the end, Congress appropriated 24% of the total International Affairs budget
supplemental request for Iraq reconstruction, which, with FY2008 regular and DOD
emergency appropriations brings Iraq reconstruction funding since 2003 to $44.8
billion. However, until the 2nd tranche of the supplemental is considered, U.S.
funding for PRT operations and programs and a wide range of other programs
designed to support the surge and enhance the capacity of the Iraqi government to
address its own needs will have to rely on available FY2007 funds.
Pending FY2008 Supplemental. The Administration is seeking the
remainder of its emergency Iraq reconstruction aid request — about $1 billion in
unenacted Foreign Operations appropriations and $2 billion in unenacted Defense
appropriations — when the 2nd tranche is deliberated in Spring 2008.



Table 9. FY2008 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
for Iraq Reconstruction
(millions of U.S. dollars)
International Affairs (Budget Function 150 Accounts)
H.R. 2764
(P L110-161) P e ndi ng
Admini stration Em ergency F Y 2008
Request Allocation Supp.
Economic Support Fund (ESF)797.05.0797.0
International Narcotics Control and Law
Enforcement (INCLE)159.0 0.0 159.0
Migration and Refugee Assistancec
(MRA)195.0 149.530.0
International Disaster Assistance (IDA)80.0 80.0 d
TOTAL 150 Account1,231.0 234.5986.0
Department of Defense (Budget Function 050 Accounts)
Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF)3,000.01,500.01,500.0
Commander’s Emergency Responseafe
Program (CERP)609.7370.0359.7
Iraq Freedom Fund (for Task Force to
Improve Business)100.0 — 100.0
TOTAL 050 Account3,709.71,870.01,959.7
GRAND TOTALbb
150 & 0504,940.02,104.52,945.7
Sources: Department of State and DOD FY2008 Congressional Budget Justifications; H.R. 2764.
a. The total CERP request of $1,219.4 million is for both Iraq and Afghanistan. The amount included
here assumes that at least half will be used in Iraq.
b. Not included are requests of $45.8 million in USAID Iraq operational expenses (OE) and $679
million for PRT OE. H.R. 2764 provided USAID with $20.8 million in OE.
c. H.R. 2764 provides $200 million for MRA account (total account request was $230 million).
d. H.R. 2764 provides $110 million for Iraq and other countries affected by disasters. Total IDFA
account request was $80 million.
e. The total unenacted FY2008 CERP request of $719.4 million is for both Iraq and Afghanistan. The
amount included here assumes that at least half of the request is for Iraq.
f. Congress appropriated up to $500 million for the CERP. According to the SIGIR, Iraq has been
allocated $370 million as of end January 2008.
Af ghani stan28
Background. Afghanistan’s political transition was completed with the
convening of a parliament in December 2005, but in 2006 insurgent threats to


28 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy, and
Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs.

Afghanistan’s government escalated to the point that some experts began questioning
the success of U.S. stabilization efforts. In the political process, a new constitution
was adopted in January 2004, successful presidential elections were held on October
9, 2004, and parliamentary elections took place on September 18, 2005. The
parliament has become an arena for factions that have fought each other for nearly
three decades to debate and peacefully resolve differences. Afghan citizens have
started to enjoy new personal freedoms, particularly in the northern and western
regions of the country, that were forbidden under the Taliban. Women are beginning
to participate in economic and political life, including as ministers, provincial
governors, and senior levels of the new parliament. The next elections are planned
for 2009.
The insurgency, led by remnants of the former Taliban regime, escalated in

2006, after several years in which it appeared the Taliban was mostly defeated. U.S.


and NATO military commanders have had recent successes in counter-insurgency
operations, but the Taliban continues to present a considerable threat to peace and
security in parts of Afghanistan. Slow reconstruction, corruption, and the failure to
extend Afghan government authority into rural areas and provinces, particularly in
the south and east, have contributed to the Taliban resurgence. Political leadership
in the more stable northern part of the country have registered concerns about
distribution of reconstruction funding. In addition, narcotics trafficking is resisting
counter-measures, and independent militias remain throughout the country, although
many have been disarmed. The Afghan government and U.S. officials have said that
some Taliban commanders are operating across the border from Pakistan, putting
them outside the reach of U.S./NATO forces in Afghanistan. In 2007, the
Administration unveiled the Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZ) in
Afghanistan and the border regions with Pakistan, an initiative to stimulate economic
activity in underdeveloped, isolated regions.
The United States and partner stabilization measures focus on strengthening the
central government and its security forces and on promoting reconstruction while
combating the renewed insurgent challenge. As part of this effort, the international
community has been running PRTs to secure reconstruction. Despite these efforts,
weak provincial governance is seen as a key obstacle to a democratic Afghanistan
and continues to pose a threat to reconstruction and stabilization efforts.
The FY2008 original and amended emergency supplemental
request. The Administration requested $339 million in ESF for Afghanistan
reconstruction assistance in the FY2008 emergency supplemental in February 2007.
Other parts of the supplement request for Afghanistan included increases in embassy
operations and security. The Administration amended the FY2008 supplemental
request in October 2007 for a total request of $839 million for reconstruction, which
included several provisions intended to continue U.S. efforts to stabilize Afghanistan
and continue economic reconstruction efforts.29


29 Funding figures obtained from the FY2008 Revised Emergency Proposal dated October
22, 2007; the proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2008 (“Additional 2007 and 2008
Proposals”) submitted in February 2007; and the Supplemental Appropriations Justification
(continued...)

The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act funded most government
operations for which regular FY2008 appropriations bills — 11 in all — had not been
enacted. Although emergency funds for military operations in Afghanistan were
appropriated as part of the bridge supplemental in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act ($1.753 million), the supplemental request of $839 for reconstruction was not
appropriated.
Key elements of the FY2008 emergency supplemental requests include funding
for the ESF. In addition to the $339 million for ESF in the initial supplemental
request, the amended supplemental included additional funding for democratic
governance and reconstruction efforts to continue security and development strategy,
which would be allocated as follows:
!$275 million to strengthen provincial governance and
responsiveness to the Afghan people. Funding would support a wide
range of programs, preparation activities for the 2009 election and
ongoing programs, such as the National Solidarity Program ($40
million), the Afghanistan Reconstruction Fund ($25 million), and
the Provincial Governance Fund ($50 million);
!$50 million as part of an effort to invest in basic social services,
such as health and education, particularly in rural areas; and
!$170 million for economic growth and infrastructure, including the
development of power sector projects ($115 million); road projects
($50 million) focused on those segments that are of strategic military
importance and provide key connections between the central and
provincial government capitals; and funding to support
Reconstruction Opportunity Zones ($5 million) in designated
economically isolated areas and to create employment alternatives.
In addition to ESF funding, the request includes:
!$5 million in Non-proliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and
Related Programs (NADR) to support the Afghan leadership through
the Presidential Protection Service.


29 (...continued)
Fiscal Year 2008 prepared by the Department of State and USAID.

Table 10. Afghanistan Reconstruction Assistance, FY2008
(millions of U.S. dollars)
Final
ActivityTotal FY2008 Supp H.R. 2764Pending FY2008
(appropriation account)Supp RequestPL110-161Supp Request
Infrastructure aid (ESF)834.0— 834.0
Nonproliferation (NADR)5.0 — 5.0
Total839.0 — 839.0
Source: FY2008-FY2009 budget materials.
Notes: Data in this table reflect ongoing and FY2008 proposed funding for programs the same as or
similar to those requested in the FY2007 supplemental. The total line does not represent total aid or
mission operations for Afghanistan. Excluded from this table is proposed funding requested for FBI
operations in Afghanistan.
Acronyms: ESF-Economic Support Fund, NADR-Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and
Related Programs.
Pakistan30
The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) are considered strategically
important to combating terrorism while continued terrorist and militant activities in
the frontier region remain a threat to the United States and its interests in
Afghanistan. The Government of Pakistan has developed a FATA Sustainable
Development Plan to be implemented over 10 years. In support of this plan, the State
Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development have put forward a
five-year $750 million development assistance strategy for the frontier region (a
pledge of $150 million per year) that complements the Government of Pakistan’s
plan.31 The U.S. objectives are to improve economic and social conditions in the
FATA in order to address the region’s use by terrorists and militants. Programs
would include governance, health and education services, and economic
development, such as agricultural productivity, infrastructure rehabilitation, credit,
and vocational training.
On November 3, 2007, President Musharraf imposed emergency rule and
suspended Pakistan’s constitution. In light of these events, the Administration
announced a review of U.S. assistance. However, no action was taken in 2007 and
in February 2008, Pakistan held what was reported to be a reasonably credible
national election that seated a new civilian government. On April 9, 2008, Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice determined that a democratically elected government had
taken office in Pakistan on March 25, 2008, which permitted the removal of coup-
related sanctions on Pakistan and the resumption of assistance.


30 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy.
31 For more detail on Pakistan, see CRS Report RL33498, Pakistan-U.S. Relations by K.
Alan Kronstadt.

The FY2008 original and amended supplemental request. The
Administration did not request funding for Pakistan in its original FY2008
emergency supplemental request in February 2007. In the FY2008 regular budget,
the President asked for $90 million for the frontier region development plan, which
left a gap of $60 million in the overall U.S. pledge of $150 million. The FY2008
amended supplemental request for $60 million for ESF would address this funding
gap and meet the full pledge as follows: Investment in governance and planning ($13
million); health and education programs ($15 million); and local economic
development ($32 million). The $60 million emergency supplemental request is in
addition to the regular appropriations from various accounts in the FY2008 budget.
Sudan32
No funding was requested for Sudan in the original FY2008 emergency
supplemental in February 2007. The Administration sought a total of $868.6 million
in the amended emergency supplemental for Sudan, most of which was for
humanitarian and peacekeeping support in the Darfur region. Under the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, Sudan received $334.8 million in the regular FY2008 budget and
also $468 for the African Union/United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur
(UNAMID) peacekeeping mission.
FY2008 additional emergency supplemental request. Major elements
of the FY2008 amended emergency supplemental included the following:
!A $70 million request in ESF for Sudan to support upcoming
national elections that are to take place before July 2009, as
determined in the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement between
north and south Sudan. The assistance will focus on strengthening
political parties, drafting the electoral law, supporting an electoral
commission, promoting civic education, and supporting election-
related institutions and processes. The United Nations estimates that
the elections could cost nearly $400 million because of the logistical
hurdles in conducting elections in a post-conflict environment. $70
million remains in the pending FY2008 emergency supplemental;
and
!$723.6 million in support of the African Union/United Nations
Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) in the amended FY2008
supplemental. In the Consolidated Appropriations, $468 million was
appropriated; $333.6 remains in the pending FY2008 emergency
supplemental.


32 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy.

Table 11. Sudan Emergency Supplemental, FY2008
(millions of U.S. dollars)
F Y 2008 Finala
SuppSupp Pending
ActivityRequestH.R. 2764FY2008 Supp
(appropriation account)TotalPL110-161Request
UNAMID (CIPA)723.6468.0333.6
Economic Support Fund (ESF)70.0— 70.0
Total$868.6 $403.6
Source: FY2008- FY2009 budget materials.
Notes: The Total line does not represent total aid or mission operations for Sudan.
Acronyms: CIPA-Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities; ESF-Economic Support
Fund .
Mexico and Central America33
The emergency supplemental request included $550 million to meet the first
installment of a reportedly $1 billion-plus anti-narcotics package for the Mexico and
Central America Security Initiative. Composed entirely of funds from the
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement Account (INCLE), the
initiative is to address criminal gang and drug trafficking activities and to support
improved justice systems and rule of law programs. Mexico would see $500 million
of the initial package for border security technology and transport for law
enforcement and to improve judicial and prison systems. Countries in Central
America would receive $50 million to improve border security, deter the smuggling
of drugs, arms, and persons, and improve the justice sector and gang prevention
programs. Regular funding for Mexico totaled $65.4 million in FY2007 and a
requested $45.1 million in FY2008. The countries of Central America received
$134.8 million in FY2007 and are proposed to receive $146.5 million in FY2008.
Congress did not include this request in the FY2008 omnibus act.
West Bank and Gaza34
The FY2008 emergency supplemental request included $375 million to support
the Palestinian Authority (PA) government. The focus is on rule of law, economic
growth, and governance issues. The supplemental request was in addition to $77
million requested in the regular FY2008 budget and comes after a new PA
government was formed without Hamas control. Consisting largely of ESF funds,
$40 million is to address governance issues, $20 million would improve health care
services, $130 million is to support job creation, infrastructure, trade and investment,


33 Prepared by Connie Veillette, Specialist in Foreign Assistance. For more information, see
CRS Report RL34215, Mexico’s Drug Cartels, and CRS Report RL32724 Mexico-U.S.
Relations: Issues for Congress, by Colleen Cook.
34 For more information, see CRS Report RL34074 The Palestinian Territories: Background
and U.S. Relations, and CRS Report RS22370 U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians.

and agriculture programs, and $150 million would consist of budget support in the
form of a cash transfer. An additional $25 million in INCLE funds would be used
to train and equip the Presidential Guards and National Security Force, and $35
million in MRA funds would be for Palestinian refugees in the West Bank and Gaza
and in refugee camps in Lebanon.
Congress included $542.6 million in emergency ESF and allocated $155 million
of those funds to the West bank and Gaza. No emergency INCLE funds were
provided. A total of $200 million in emergency MRA was provided; the request was
$230 million, which included $35 million for the West Bank and Gaza.
North Korea35
The Administration proposed $106 million in ESF funds for North Korea as a
result of commitments made as part of the Six Party Talks. In February 2007, North
Korea agreed to shut down and eventually abandon the Yongbyon nuclear facility,
to allow International Atomic Energy Agency monitors back in the country and to
disable all existing nuclear facilities. In return, the United States and other Six Party
Talks members (South Korea, China, Russia and Japan) agreed to provide 1 million
metric tons of heavy fuel oil, or the equivalent in other assistance, as North Korea
meets its commitments. The U.S. share is one-quarter of the 1 million metric tons,
or equivalent assistance. The total cost for the U.S. commitment is $131 million.
The President authorized $25 million in FY2007 supplemental funds, leaving $106
million that would be provided with the FY2008 supplemental funding.
The omnibus bill provided $53 million in ESF funds for North Korea but does
not designate them as emergency.
Other Humanitarian Assistance36
Although proposed aid packages for specific countries anticipate and identify
some humanitarian needs, the Administration also seeks funding for what it describes
as unmet or unforeseen humanitarian needs, including $350 million in additional P.L.
480 - Title II assistance to meet emergency food needs in the Darfur region of Sudan
and eastern Chad and elsewhere worldwide, including places such as southern Africa,
and the Horn of Africa and Kenya.
In addition, the Administration’s original request asked for $230 million for
Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) for anticipated and unanticipated refugee
and migration emergencies, of which $195 million was requested for humanitarian
assistance to Iraqi refugees. This was an increase of $160 million for Iraqi refugees;
$35 million was requested in the earlier version of the FY2008 emergency
supplemental request. In addition, $35 million was requested for the emergency
needs of Palestinian refugees in Gaza and West Bank, and for Palestinian refugee


35 For more information, see CRS Report RL33590, North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons
Development and Diplomacy.
36 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy.

camps in Lebanon. $200 million was appropriated for MRA in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, of which $195 was allocated for Iraqi refugees. $30 million (of
the original $230 million request) remains as part of the pending FY2008
supplemental request for assistance to Iraqi refugees.



CRS-40
Appendix. FY2008 Emergency Supplemental Request,
State Department and Foreign Operations
(millions of U.S. dollars)
FY2008 TotalFY08 SuppState Dept State Dept.
FY2008 BaseSupp FundsFunds enactedFY08 SuppPending FY08
AccountRequestRequested in P.L. 110-161EstimateSupp estimates
State Department
Diplomatic & Consular Programs4,942.72,283.0781.6
Embassy Security, Construction, Maintenance792.5160.0
Contributions to International Organizations1,354.453.0
Contributions to International Peacekeeping1,107.0723.6468.0
Board for International Broadcasting618.812.0
iki/CRS-RL34278Total, State Department8,196.63,219.61,261.6
g/wForeign Operations
s.or
leak Economic Support Fund3,319.62,217.0542.6
International Narcotics Control/Law Enforcement634.6734.0
://wiki Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining464.05.0
http Migration and Refugee Assistance773.5230.0200.0
International Disaster Assistance*297.380.0110.0
USAID Operating Expenses609.061.820.8
Global Health/Child Survival115.0
Foreign Military Financing100.0
Peacekeeping Operations35.0
Total, Foreign Operations6,098.03,327.81,123.4
Total, State and Foreign Operations14,294.66,547.42,385.0
P.L. 480 Food Aid1,319.4350.0
Notes: Table does not include all accounts in the State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations bills. Accounts listed are those
for which emergency supplemental funds were requested.
* The International Disaster Assistance account was previously called International Disaster and Famine Assistance.