Order Code RL33900
FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations for
Defense, Foreign Affairs, and Other Purposes
Updated May 2, 2007
Stephen Daggett, Amy Belasco, Pat Towell, Susan B. Epstein,
Connie Veillette, Curt Tarnoff, and Rhoda Margesson
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Bart Elias
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations for Defense,
Foreign Affairs, and Other Purposes
Summary
On May 1, the Congress formally presented to the President a House-and-Senate
passed version of H.R. 1591, a bill providing supplemental appropriations for
FY2007 and setting target dates for withdrawing most U.S. military forces from Iraq.
That evening, the President vetoed the bill. On May 2, by a vote of 222-203, with
approval of 2/3 required, the House failed to override the veto. House and Senate
leaders are now considering what steps to take next. House appropriators have
discussed a possible 60 day extension of funds for military operations. Leading
Republicans have discussed a possible compromise that would establish benchmarks
for progress by the Iraqi government. It remains unclear if an agreement that did not
restrict funding in some way would be acceptable to the Democratic majority.
On Iraq policy, the now-vetoed conference agreement requires the Secretary of
Defense to begin redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 1, 2007, with a goal of
completing the redeployment within 180 days (i.e., by the end of December, 2007),
unless the President determines that Iraq has met specific security and political
benchmarks. If the President determines that Iraq has met the benchmarks, the bill
requires redeployment to begin by October 1, 2007, with a goal of completing the
redeployment within 180 days from then (i.e., by the end of March, 2008).
After redeployment, the bill permits U.S. forces to be deployed in Iraq only to
protect U.S. citizens and facilities; for customary diplomatic purposes; for targeted,
limited-duration missions against global terrorist organizations; and to train and
equip Iraqi security forces. The agreement also prohibits obligation of half the
economic aid to Iraq in the bill until the Iraqi government meets political benchmarks
and commits $10 billion to reconstruction. The bill includes House provisions
requiring the President to certify that military units achieve, or to waive, goals for
unit readiness and time between deployments.
On spending, the bill provides $21 billion more than the Administration
requested, including $7 billion more than originally requested for defense (of which
$3.1 billion is for base realignment and closure), about $250 million more than
requested for international affairs, $3.5 billion more than requested for Gulf Coast
hurricane relief (the request included $3.4 billion for FEMA), and over $10 billion
for domestic programs for which the Administration requested no funds. The
unrequested domestic funding includes $1.8 billion for veterans health, $2.25 billion
for homeland security, $663 million for pandemic flu preparedness, $3.5 billion for
agricultural disaster relief (though the agreement drops controversial small amounts
for spinach growers and peanut storage), $650 million for state children’s health
insurance, $500 million for fire fighting, $425 million for secure rural schools, and
$400 million for low-income energy assistance.
The bill also includes an increase in the minimum wage and a package of $4.8
billion over ten years of offsetting tax cuts for small businesses.

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview of the Administration Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Elements of the Supplemental Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Highlights of the Conference Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Highlights of House Appropriations Committee Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Highlights of House Floor Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Highlights of Senate Appropriations Committee Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Highlights of Senate Floor Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Brief Overview of Major Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Iraq Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Effect of a Delay in Approving Supplemental Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Additions of Unrequested Funding for Domestic Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Designations of “Emergency” Spending in Defense and
International Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Using Defense Supplemental Funding to Offset Costs of Higher
Domestic Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Military Medical Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Additions to the Defense Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Keeping Open Walter Reed Army Medical Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Potential Limitations on U.S. Military Operations in and Around Iraq . . . . . . . . 19
Iraq Deployment Restrictions in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appropriations Riders and Military Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Congressional Restrictions on Previous Military Operations . . . . . . . 22
House Supplemental Iraq Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Iraqi Government Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Troop Readiness Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Related Action: Senate Troop Withdrawal Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Senate Supplemental Iraq Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
‘Comprehensive Strategy’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Benchmarks for the Iraqi Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Debate Deferred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Senate Floor Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
FY2007 Defense Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
House, Senate and Conference Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Military Personnel and Health Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Operation and Maintenance Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Oversight Concerns About Spending for Afghan and Iraq
Security Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Congressional Changes to Procurement and RDT&E Accounts . . . . . 35
General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Administration Amends FY2007 Supplemental to Finance
Troop Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Expansion of Activities Funded in the FY2007 Supplemental Request . . . 37
How Urgent is Passage of the FY2007 Supplemental? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Make-up of the FY2007 Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
DOD’s Justification for the FY2007 Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Military Personnel and Operations Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Temporary Troop “Surge” and Increased Naval Presence: Amended
Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Proposal to Increase Permanently the Size of the Army and
Marine Corps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Regional War on Terror . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
New Authorities for DOD Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Accelerating the Creation of Modular Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Front Loading Reconstitution or Reset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Equipping and Training Afghan and Iraqi Security Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Amendment to Restore FY2007 Funding for Base Realignment
and Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
FY2007 International Affairs Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Iraq Reconstruction Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
FY2007 Supplemental Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Sudan — Darfur and Other Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Darfur Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Other Foreign Aid and Humanitarian Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Lebanon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Kosovo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Humanitarian Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Peacekeeping Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Avian Influenza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Other Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
State Department and International Broadcasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Liquidation of TSA Contract and Grant Obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Ongoing Katrina Recovery Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Unrequested Funding for Domestic Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
The Minimum Wage and Other Policy Riders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Appendix. Additional Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
List of Tables
Table 1. Overview of Congressional Action onFY2007
Supplemental Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Side-by-Side Comparison of House and Senate Iraq
Policy Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 3. DOD War Budget Authority By Title: FY2004-FY2007 Requesta . . . 32
Table 4. Department of Defense FY2007 War Request: FY2006 and
FY2007 Bridge, and FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 5. FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq Reconstruction . . . . . . 53
Table 6. Afghanistan Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 7. Sudan Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Table 8. Foreign Operations FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations by
Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Table 9. State Department and International Broadcasting FY2007
Supplemental Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Table A-1. FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations: Congressional Action by
Title and Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Table A-2. Floor Amendments in the Senate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Table A-3. War-Related Appropriations, FY2005-FY2007 Supplemental
Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90


FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations for
Defense, Foreign Affairs, and Other
Purposes
Most Recent Developments
On April 24, by a vote of 218-208, the House approved a conference agreement
on H.R. 1591, providing $124.2 billion in supplemental appropriations for FY2007
and setting target dates for withdrawing most U.S. military forces from Iraq. On
April 25, the Senate approved the bill by a vote of 51-46. On May 1, the Congress
formally presented the bill to the President, and, that evening, he vetoed the bill. On
May 2, by a vote of 222-203, with approval of 2/3 required, the House failed to
override the veto.
House and Senate leaders are now considering what steps to take next. House
appropriators have discussed a possible 60 day extension of funds for military
operations. Leading Republicans have discussed a possible compromise that would
establish benchmarks for progress by the Iraqi government. It remains unclear if an
agreement that did not restrict funding in some way would be acceptable to the
Democratic majority.
A key issue has become to what extent delays in enacting supplemental
appropriations will disrupt Army operations. The Army estimates that it will use all
of its operation and maintenance funds by the end of May unless it receives
additional money or slows down its activities. Recently, the Army announced plans
to defer activities in successive stages over the next several weeks, and the Defense
Department has requested congressional approval to transfer $1.6 billion from other
accounts to the Army. Together the Army estimates these measures will extend
funding to about the end of June, but at the price of growing disruptions to day-to-day
Army operations.
A short-term extension of funding by Congress may be one means of avoiding
a slowdown in Army operations. Additional transfers of funds to the Army may also
be available, and Congress could act to expand the amount of transfer authority that
could be used for the Army without competing with other DOD transfer proposals
by replenishing accounts that have been used as sources of funds to shift to the Army.
The Defense Department may also be able to extend Army funding by invoking the
Feed and Forage Act, a standing law that allows obligation of funds by the Defense
Department for certain purposes in advance of appropriations.

CRS-2
Overview of the Administration Request1
On February 5, the Administration requested $103 billion in supplemental
appropriations for FY2007 of which $93.4 billion was for the Department of Defense
and $6.0 billion for international affairs. The Administration also requested $3.4
billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Disaster Relief
Fund for ongoing Katrina relief measures. Earlier, in January, the Administration
requested authority to transfer $195 million in unobligated balances to liquidate
unfunded obligations of funds by the Transportation Security Administration.
Congress now considering these and additional funding proposals in action on a
supplemental appropriations bill.
Elements of the Supplemental Request
The main elements of the Administration’s supplemental requests included:
! $93.4 billion for the Department of Defense to finance military
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and counter-terrorism operations
elsewhere through the remainder of FY2007; to cover costs of the
“surge” of additional troops to Iraq and an additional carrier to the
Persian Gulf; to repair and replace equipment lost or worn out in
current operations; to add equipment to fill recently identified war-
fighting needs; to add and upgrade equipment to improve current
and future war-on-terrorism capabilities; and to begin to finance
facility improvements and some other costs associated with Army
and Marine Corps plans to add 92,000 active duty troops to the force
over the next several years;
! $4.8 billion for foreign operations, including $2,347.8 million for
security and reconstruction assistance to Iraq; $721 million for
assistance to Afghanistan; $362 million for activities in Sudan,
mainly for humanitarian and peacekeeping support in the Darfur
region; $586 million for reconstruction and security assistance to
Lebanon; $279 million for assistance to Kosovo in support of a UN-
led process to determine the region’s status; $367 million for various
other humanitarian assistance activities; $161 million for avian flu
prevention measures; and $102 million for migration and refugee
assistance in a number of areas;
! $1.2 billion for Department of State and International Broadcasting
programs, of which $824 million is for the U.S. mission and other
activities in Iraq and $200 million is for U.S. contributions for
international peacekeeping in Lebanon and Timor Leste;
! $3.4 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Disaster Relief Fund to support on-going Katrina recovery
1 Prepared by Stephen Daggett, Specialist in National Defense.

CRS-3
measures through December 2007, including housing assistance and
grants for public infrastructure repair in the Gulf Coast; and
! a transfer of $195 million in unobligated balances to resolve
insufficiently funded Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
contract and grant obligations incurred during FY2002 and FY2003.
Congress is also considering additions of unrequested funds for agricultural disaster
relief, child health insurance, avian flu preparedness, homeland security, and other
purposes.
Table 1 below provides an overview of the request and of the main elements of
funding provided in the House-passed, Senate-passed, and conference agreement on
the bill Congress has approved in response to the Administration request.

CRS-4
Table 1. Overview of Congressional Action on
FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Confer-
Original
House-
Senate-
Confer-
ence vs.
Request
Passed
Passed
ence
Request
Title I: Global War on Terror
99,615.4 109,600.8 107,118.1 109,294.9
+9,679.4
Defense
93,383.0 100,445.3
98,313.6 100,335.7
+6,952.7
Department of Defense
91,529.0
95,529.7
93,532.8
95,528.7
+3,999.7
Military Construction
1,854.0
4,915.5
4,780.8
4,807.0
+2,953.0
International Affairs
5,996.0
6,340.2
6,213.4
6,196.4
+200.4
Department of Agriculture, P.L. 480
350.0
450.0
475.0
460.0
+110.0
Dept of State: Admin of For Aff/Intern'l Orgs
1,168.0
1,321.8
1,121.3
1,265.2
+97.2
Bilateral Economic Assistance
3,575.7
3,502.2
3,173.9
3,216.5
-359.2
Other Department of State/Intern'l Broadcasting
399.0
578.5
897.5
757.0
+358.0
Department of the Treasury
5.3
2.8
2.8
2.8
-2.5
Military Assistance
498.0
485.0
543.0
495.0
-3.0
Other Agencies
236.5
4,517.4
4,276.2
4,511.4
+4,274.9
Department of Homeland Security
--
2,500.0
2,000.0
2,250.0
+2,250.0
Department of Veterans Affairs
--
1,702.1
1,767.1
1,788.6
+1,788.6
Other Agencies
236.5
315.3
509.1
472.8
+236.3
Title II: Hurricane Disaster Relief and Recovery
3,400.0
6,357.4
6,899.7
6,785.0
+3,385.0
Federal Emergency Management Agency
3,400.0
4,630.0
4,630.0
4,930.0
+1,530.0
Corps of Engineers
--
1,337.1
1,557.7
1,433.0
+1,433.0
Other Agencies
--
390.3
712.0
422.0
+422.0
Title III: Other Emergency Appropriations
-- 4,145.3
4,011.3
4,133.2
+4,133.2
Pandemic Flu Preparedness
--
969.7
820.0
625.0
+625.0
Low Income Energy Home Energy Assistance
--
400.0
640.0
400.0
+400.0
Secure Rural Schools
--
400.0
--
425.0
+425.0
Veterans Health
--
1,702.1
1,767.1
1,788.6
+1,788.6
Wildland Fire Management
--
500.0
500.0
500.0
+500.0
Other
-- 173.6
284.2
394.6
+394.6
Title IV: Other Matters
--
38.2
103.0
67.0
+67.0
Coast Guard Retired Pay
--
--
100.0
30.0
+30.0
Other
-- 38.2
3.0
37.0
+37.0
Title V: Agricultural Assistance
--
3,726.0
4,192.0
3,500.0
+3,500.0
Crop Disaster Assistance
--
1,808.0
2,090.0
1,850.0
+1,850.0
Livestock Compensation Program
-- 1,480.0
1,507.0
1,380.0
+1,380.0
Livestock Indemnity Payments
--
31.0
33.0
33.0
+33.0
Emergency Conservation Program
--
20.0
35.0
20.0
+20.0
National Dairy Market Loss Payment Program
--
283.0
31.0
31.0
+31.0
Dairy Assistance
--
--
95.0
20.0
+20.0
Other
-- 104.0
401.0
166.0
+166.0
Title VI: Elimination of SCHIP Shortfall and
Other Matters

--
448.0
448.0
393.0
+393.0
State Children’s Health Insurance Program
--
735.0
448.0
646.0
+646.0
Impact of SCHIP Funding on Medicaid/Other Offsets
--
-287.0
--
-253.0
-253.0
Title VII: Minimum Wage Increase and Tax Relief
--
--
35.0
--
--
Minimum Wage and Tax Relief
--
--
35.0
--
--
Grand Total
103,015.4 124,315.6 122,807.1 124,173.0 +21,157.6
Sources: House report, H.Rept. 110-60; Senate report, S.Rept. 110-37; conference agreement, H.Rept. 110-107.

CRS-5
Highlights of the Conference Agreement
The House approved its version of H.R. 1591, providing supplemental
appropriations for FY2007, on March 23, and the Senate approved its version of the
bill on March 29. House and Senate negotiators a conference agreement on the bill
on April 23. In all, the conference agreement provides $124.2 billion in
supplemental appropriations, $21.2 billion more than the Administration requested.
On major policy issues, highlights of the bill include –
! Iraq troop redeployment: The conference agreement requires the
President, first, to determine by July 1, 2007, whether the Iraqi
government has met specific security and political benchmarks. If
the President does not report that Iraq has achieved the goals, the bill
directs the Secretary of Defense to begin redeploying troops out of
Iraq by July 1, 2007, with a goal of completing the redeployment
within 180 days (i.e., by the end of December, 2007). If the
President determines that Iraq has met the benchmarks, the bill
requires redeployment to begin by October 1, 2007, with a goal of
completing the redeployment within 180 days from then (i.e., by the
end of March, 2008). The end-dates for withdrawal are not binding.
After redeployment, the bill permits U.S. troops to be deployed in
Iraq only to protect U.S. citizens and facilities; for customary
diplomatic purposes; for targeted, limited-duration missions against
global terrorist organizations; and to train and equip Iraqi security
forces.
! Military readiness standards: The bill includes House-passed
provisions requiring that the President either certify that military
units have achieved goals for unit readiness and time between
deployments before being deployed or waive the requirement.
! Conditions on economic aid to Iraq: The agreement prohibits
obligation of half the aid provided to Iraq by the bill in the Economic
Support Fund (ESF) and International Narcotics Control and Law
Enforcement (INCLE) accounts until Iraq meets political
benchmarks and commits $10 billion to reconstruction.
! Closure of Walter Reed Army Medical Center: The House bill
prohibited closure of Walter Reed, while the Senate bill permitted
closure only after the Secretary of Defense certified that alternative
facilities in Bethesda and elsewhere were operational. The
conference agreement prohibits closure until alternatives are
available and also requires funding in the interim sufficient to
maintain provide an undiminished quality of care, including funding
for facility renovation and maintenance.

CRS-6
! Minimum wage increase and offsetting tax cuts: The agreement
also provides an increase in the minimum wage and a package of
$4.8 billion over ten years of offsetting tax cuts for small businesses.
On defense spending, highlights of the conference agreement include:
! Amounts provided: The bill provides a total of $100.3 billion for
the Department of Defense, of which $95.5 billion is for programs
in the regular defense appropriations bill and $4.8 billion is for
programs in the military construction appropriations bill. In all, the
bill adds about $7 billion to the Administration request, of which
almost $4 billion is in the regular bill and $3.1 billion, for base
closure, is in military construction.
! Major additions: The bill adds $2.1 billion for defense health
programs, $2 billion for a readiness reserve fund, include $1 billion
for the National Guard, $1.1 billion for housing allowances, and $1.2
billion (in addition to $1.8 billion requested) for Mine Resistant
Ambush Protected vehicles. Initial information on the conference
agreement provided initially by the House Appropriations
Committee did not identify offsetting reductions compared to the
request.
! Funding for Iraq contractors: The bill does not include a House
provision to reduce funding for payments to contractors by $815
million.
! Base Realignment and Closure Funds: The military construction
funding includes $3.1 billion for Base Realignment and Closure,
which restores funds that Congress deleted from the FY2007
continuing resolution as an offset for increased non-defense
spending.
! Transfers of defense funds: The Administration requested two
provisions to increase the amount of money the Defense Department
can transfer between appropriations accounts. In the FY2007
defense appropriations act, Congress provided $4.5 billion of general
transfer authority in the base bill and $3.0 billion of additional
“special transfer authority” in the Title IX bridge fund for war costs.
The $4.5 billion of general transfer authority allows shifts of funds
between all defense accounts (subject to non-statutory advance
approval of congressional defense committees), which the $3 billion
of special transfer authority allowed shifts to other accounts of the
amounts provided in Title IX. One requested provision would
increase general transfer authority from $4.5 billion to $6 billion, an
increase of $1.5 billion. A second requested provision would allow
the Defense Department to transfer up $3.5 billion of the defense
funds provided in the supplemental. The conference agreement does

CRS-7
not provide the increase in general transfer authority but does allow
transfer of $3.5 billion of the new defense money in the
supplemental. The agreement also provides that amounts shifted to
restore funds transferred to the “Joint Improvised Explosive Device
Defeat Fund” and to the “Iraqi Security Forces Fund” shall not count
against general transfer authority. In effect, this increases general
transfer authority by $1.625 billion – $825 million for the JIEDDF
transfer and $800 million for the ISFF transfer. If the Defense
Department were to assume that this these provisions will eventually
become law before the very end of the fiscal year, this authority
might allow the Defense Department to shift more funds temporarily
to the Army to avoid the planned slowdown in operations (see
below).
For domestic programs, the agreement includes –
! Gulf Coast hurricane relief: The conference agreement provides
$6.9 billion for Gulf Coast hurricane relief. The Administration had
requested $3.4 billion, all for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Disaster Relief Fund. The supplemental adds $1.2
billion for the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund, for a total of $4.6 billion,
and also provides $320 million for FEMA for costs of waiving state
and local repayment of community disaster loans. In additional, the
bill provides $1.3 billion for the Corps of Engineers to repair levees
and other infrastructure, $225 million for agricultural and fisheries
hurricane relief, $60 million for schools, $50 million for law
enforcement, and, with an equivalent offset, $50 million for small
business disaster loans.
! Agricultural disaster relief: The bill provides $3.5 billion for
agriculture programs to provide relief from damages due to floods,
droughts, and other natural disasters. The agreement does not
include controversial funding for spinach farmers and peanut
storage.
! Veterans medical care: The bill adds $1.8 billion in unrequested
funds for veterans medical care. Major additions include $467
million for medical services of which $228 million is to anticipated
underestimates of costs of care for recent war on terrorism veterans;
$250 million for VA health care administration; $595 million for
facilities maintenance; and $326 million for minor construction.
! Homeland security: The bill adds $2.25 billion in unrequested
funds for homeland security, including $225 million for customs and
border protection, $100 million for emergency planning grants, $190
million for port security, $325 million for rail and transit security
grants, $815 million for airport baggage screening technology, and
$110 million for air cargo security.

CRS-8
! Other domestic programs: The bill provides $663 million for
pandemic flu preparedness, $650 million for state children’s health
insurance, $500 million for fire fighting, $425 million for secure
rural schools, and $400 million for low-income energy assistance.
Highlights of House Appropriations
Committee Bill
The House Appropriations Committee marked up its version of the FY2007
supplemental appropriations bill on March 15. As approved by the committee and
passed by the House on March 23, provided a total of $124.2 billion in supplemental
appropriations, including
! $100.4 billion for the Department of Defense, $7.1 billion above the
request, including $95.5 billion for personnel, operations,
procurement, and other accounts, and $4.9 billion for military
construction;
! $6.3 billion for international affairs, $344 million more than the
request;
! $6.4 billion for hurricane relief, $3.0 billion more than the request;
! $2.5 billion for homeland security measures;
! $1.7 billion for the Department of Veterans affairs, including funds
for veterans medical programs;
! $3.7 billion for agricultural disaster relief, for which no funds were
requested; and
! $3.0 billion for other domestic programs, including pandemic flu
preparedness, children’s health insurance, low-income energy
assistance, and wildland fire management, for all of which no funds
were requested.
Table 1 provides an overview of funding in the bill by title and for selected
programs.
The bill also included a Democratic leadership plan that sets three alternative
timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. It requires the President to certify by July 1,
2007, that Iraq is making progress toward specific security and political benchmarks
and to certify by October 1, 2007, that progress on the political benchmarks has been
achieved. Withdrawals of U.S. combat forces must be completed within 180 days
after either date if the certification is not made. Withdrawal must begin, in any event,
by March 1, 2008 and be completed by the end of August 2008. The bill also
establishes requirements for unit readiness and time between deployments and
requires either that the President certify the requirements have been met or formally
waive them.

CRS-9
In addition, the bill included an increase in the minimum wage and a package
of tax cuts designed to offset the costs of the increase to small businesses. The
House had approved the minimum wage increase in separate legislation earlier in the
year.
In an initial draft, the bill also included a measure prohibiting the use of funds
for military action against Iran without congressional authorization. That language
was removed before the committee markup, however.
In the markup, the committee also approved an amendment to prohibit funds in
provided the bill or in any other bill from being used to close Walter Reed Army
Medical Center. This would reverse a decision made in the 2005 base realignment
and closure process.
Highlights of House Floor Action
The House began floor debate on the supplemental bill on Thursday, March 22,
and approved the bill by a vote of 218-212 on March 23. Debate on the bill was
conducted under a closed rule (H.Res. 261) which permitted no amendments.
Among the amendments proposed to the Rules Committee were a proposal by
Representative Lewis to remove all the Iraq-related and readiness-related provisions;
by Representative King (IA) to strike the Iraq withdrawal provision; by
Representatives Lee (CA), Clarke, Watson, Woolsey, and Waters to prohibit funding
for operations in Iraq except to protect troops and to withdraw forces; by
Representative Jackson-Lee to withdraw from Iraq by December 31, 2007; by
Representative Flake to strike all the agricultural disaster relief funds; by
Representative Kirk to strike $25 million for spinach growers; by Representative
Cole to add funds to fully fund all programs on military service unfunded priorities
lists; and by Representative McHenry to strike minimum wage provisions.
Highlights of Senate Appropriations
Committee Bill
The Senate Appropriations Committee marked up and reported its version of the
bill on Thursday, March 22. As reported by the committee, the bill provided a total
of $121.6 billion in supplemental appropriations, including
! $96.8 billion for the Department of Defense, $3.5 billion above the
request, including $92.0 billion for personnel, operations,
procurement, and other accounts, and $4.8 billion for military
construction;
! $6.3 billion for international affairs, $207 million more than the
Senate estimate of the request;
! $7.0 billion for hurricane relief, $3.6 billion more than the request;

CRS-10
! $2.0 billion for homeland security measures;
! $1.8 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs;
! $4.2 billion for agricultural disaster relief; and
! $3.1 billion for other domestic programs, including pandemic flu
preparedness, children’s health insurance, low-income energy
assistance, and wildland fire management.
In floor action, the Senate added a total of $1.6 billion to the bill, of which $1.5
billion was to procure Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles for the
Marine Corps. Table 1, above, provides an overview of funding in the bill as passed
by the full Senate by title and for selected programs.
On Iraq, the bill includes a Democratic-sponsored plan that directs the President
to commence the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq within 120 days of
enactment of the legislation, with the goal of redeploying all combat forces from Iraq
by March 31, 2008, except for a limited number essential to protect U.S. and
coalition personnel and infrastructure, to train and equip Iraqi forces, and to conduct
targeted counter-terrorism operations. The measure also expresses the sense of
Congress that the government Iraq of should pursue several political and security
benchmarks on a schedule established by the government.
The committee bill prohibits the use of funds in the bill to close Walter Reed
Army Medical Center until the Secretary of Defense certifies that replacement
facilities in the Washington area are operational and that a plan is in place to
transition soldiers receiving care at Walter Reed to the other facilities.
Highlights of Senate Floor Action
The full Senate began debate on the supplemental on Monday, March 26, and
approved the bill by a vote of 51-47 on Thursday, March 29. Technically, the Senate
took up the House-passed version of the bill, H.R. 1591, inserted the text of the
Senate Appropriations Committee version of the bill, S. 965 as a manager’s
amendment by Senator Byrd, and then continued debate on the bill under the House
number.
A key vote on the bill came on March 27, when the Senate rejected by a vote of
48-50 an amendment by Senator Cochran to delete the Iraq redeployment language.
In other action, the Senate
! On March 27, by unanimous consent, approved an amendment by
Senator Kennedy to add a provision to increase the minimum wage
along with a second order amendment by Senator Grassley to make
offsetting cuts in small business taxes;

CRS-11
! On March 27, by a vote of 74-23, approved an amendment by
Senator Wyden to reauthorize a modified version of the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000; and
! On March 39, by a vote of 98-0, approved an amendment by Senator
Biden to add $1.5 billion to buy additional Mine Resistant Ambush
Protected (MRAP) vehicles for the Marine Corps.
The Senate also approved measures that would either add amounts or reallocate
amounts within the bill to provide funds for a Civilian Reserve Corps, for
weatherization assistance, for child safety enforcement measures, for a cost of living
adjustment for Federal judges, for school aid in hurricane affected areas, for rural
community assistance by the Environmental Protection Agency, and for provision of
equipment to states and localities by the Department of Homeland Security.
The Senate also debated a number of amendments to reduce funds in the bill.
It agreed to amendments by Senator Coburn to strike $2 million for a grant to the
University of Vermont and by Senator DeMint to eliminate funds for spinach
growers. The Senate rejected an amendment by Senator Coburn to delete $100
million for security at the Republican and Democratic conventions in 2008 and also
rejected, by a vote of 23-74 on March 29, a Coburn amendment to require that the
$4.2 billion in the bill for agricultural emergencies be offset within agriculture
programs.
Senator Hagel offered but then withdrew an amendment to require, as in the
House bill, that units being deployed to Iraq meet requirements for unit readiness and
for time between deployments and to require that the President either certify the
requirements have been met or waive the requirement. Senator Webb, similarly,
offered but then withdrew an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill for
military operations against Iran. See Table A-2 in the Appendix for a complete list
of amendments on which the Senate acted.
As approved by the Senate, the bill provides a total of $213.2 billion, $20.2
billion above the Administration request, including
! $98.3 billion for the Department of Defense, including military
construction, an increase of $5.0 billion over the request, of which
$3.0 billion is for base realignment and closure and $1.5 billion is
for additional MRAP vehicles for the Marine Corps;
! $6.285 billion for international affairs, an increase of $189 million
over the request;
! $2.0 billion for homeland security programs, including port security;
! $1.7 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, including
funding for veterans health programs;
! $6.951 billion for hurricane disaster relief, an increase of $3.55
billion over the amount of $3.4 billion requested, including $4.63
billion for FEMA (an increase of $1.23 billion above the request),

CRS-12
$1.71 billion for the Corps of Engineers, and $610 million for other
agencies;
! $4.192 billion for agricultural disaster assistance, none of which was
requested; and
! $3.142 billion in unrequested funds for other domestic programs,
including $500 million for fire fighting, $425 million for secure rural
schools, $640 million for low-income energy assistance, $820
million for pandemic flu preparedness, $448 million for state
children’s health insurance, and $309 million for other programs.
Brief Overview of Major Issues2
Iraq Policy
Iraq policy has been the overriding issue in debate about the FY2007
supplemental appropriations bill, though the White House and congressional
opponents of the bill have also been critical of the amounts the House and Senate
added for domestic programs.
In the past, Congress has sometimes, though rarely, used the power of the purse
to cut off funding for military operations, to put limits on the numbers of troops that
may be deployed in specific military actions abroad, and to set other conditions on
the conduct of military operations.3 Now Congress is again considering measures
that would renew an ongoing constitutional battle about the authority of the President
to wage war and Congress’s ability to limit it.
In the House, the Democratic leadership presented a rider to the appropriations
bill that would set three alternative timetables for withdrawal, depending on political
progress inside Iraq.4 Even if the government of Iraq achieves all the political
benchmarks, the leadership plan would require the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces
from Iraq no later than August 2008. The leadership plan also includes requirements
originally proposed by Representative Murtha, the defense appropriations
subcommittee chairman, that units be fully equipped and trained before being
deployed and that units have a minimum of time at home before being redeployed.
2 Prepared by Stephen Daggett, Specialist in National Defense.
3 For a review of selected funding and other restrictions since the Vietnam War, see CRS
Report RL33803, Congressional Restrictions on U.S. Military Operations in Vietnam,
Cambodia, Laos, Somalia, and Kosovo: Funding and Non-Funding Approaches
, by Amy
Belasco, Lynn J. Cunningham, Hannah Fischer, and Larry A. Niksch. See also, CRS Report
RS20775, Congressional Use of Funding Cutoffs Since 1970 Involving U.S. Military Forces
and Overseas Deployments
, by Richard Grimmett and CRS Report RL33837, Congressional
Authority To Limit U.S. Military Operations in Iraq
, by Jennifer K. Elsea and Thomas J.
Nicola.
4 The Iraq withdrawal provisions are in Section 1904 of the House bill.

CRS-13
The President must either certify that deploying units meet these conditions or
formally waive the requirement.
In the Senate, the bill directs the President to commence the phased withdrawal
of U.S. forces from Iraq within 120 days of enactment of the legislation, with the goal
of redeploying all combat forces from Iraq by March 31, 2008, except for a limited
number essential to protect U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure, to train
and equip Iraqi forces, and to conduct targeted counter-terrorism operations. The
Senate measure expresses the sense of Congress that the government Iraq of should
pursue several political and security benchmarks on a schedule established by the
government.
In the House, the rule on floor consideration of the bill did not permit any
amendments, so there were no votes on alternative policies. The amendments
proposed to the rules committee included two Republican-sponsored measures to
delete all the Iraq policy language in the bill and two Democratic-sponsored measures
to accelerate the withdrawal, including one measure requiring withdrawal of all
personnel by December 31, 2007.
In the Senate committee markup, Senator Shelby offered an amendment to
delete the Iraq redeployment provisions, but he did not demand a vote because
Senator Tim Johnson’s absence might have affected the outcome.
In floor action on the bill, the Senate rejected an amendment by Senator Coburn
to delete the Iraq withdrawal language by a vote of 48-50 on Tuesday, March 27.
Later, Senator Hagel proposed but then withdrew a measure to require, as in the
House bill, that units being deployed to Iraq meet readiness standards and that units
be stationed at home for specific periods between deployments.
The conference agreement includes provisions that would require the President
to determine by July 1 whether the Iraqi government has attained specific security
and political benchmarks. It then requires the Secretary of Defense to begin
redeployment troops from Iraq by July 1, with a goal of completing the redeployment
within 180 days (by the end of December), if the President does not determine that
the Iraqi government has achieved the benchmarks, and by October 1, with a goal of
completing the deployment within 180 days (by the end of March, 2008), even if the
President determines that Iraq has made the required progress. In each case, the end-
date of the withdrawal is not binding, though the requirement to begin redeploying
forces appears to be.
Effect of a Delay in Approving Supplemental Funding
Army officials have warned that limits on available funding may require
disruptive changes in day-to-day operations unless Congress approves supplemental
funding by some time in April. In the FY2007 defense appropriations act and in the
FY2007 continuing resolution, Congress appropriated a total of $53.5 billion for
Army O&M in FY2007, of which $25.1 billion was provided in the FY2007 base
budget and $28.4 billion was provided in the FY2007 Title IX “bridge” fund for war

CRS-14
costs. Through March, the Army has reported that it obligated a total of $39 billion
of the money, which would leave a balance of $14.5 billion for the remainder of the
fiscal year. The Army now projects obligations of $7.0 billion in April and $7.1
billion in May without taking steps to slow down the pace of operations. At that rate,
the Army has enough money on hand to operate only until the end of May.
Army officials have warned for some time that they will have to begin slowing
down operations some time before funding is exhausted, however, in anticipation of
funding restrictions. Last year, when the supplemental was not passed until June, and
when there was less money in the bridge fund, Army officials say that restrictions on
operations were quite damaging. This year, they say, they have been especially
pressed because they do not want to delay programs to absorb additional personnel
into the force.
The effect of a delay in passing the supplemental has now become a major issue.
Secretary of Defense Gates told Members of Congress in a March 22 meeting that the
Army would have to slow training beginning in mid-April, and that delays beyond
the middle of May might lead the Army to extend the deployment term of units
already in Iraq rather than send new units without full training. In a press statement
on March 23, President Bush warned that if funding were delayed beyond April 15,
“our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so will their
families.” On March 29, Army Chief of Staff, General Peter Schoomaker, and
Acting Secretary of the Army, Peter Geren, wrote to Senator McConnnell to warn
that “Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take
increasingly draconian measures which will impact Army readiness and impose
hardships on our Soldiers and their families.” On April 2, all four military Service
Chiefs signed a similar letter to congressional leaders. On April 11, in a letter to
Senator Byrd and Representative Murtha, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
provided a time line of steps the Army would take to limit its activities. On April 16,
the Army issued a press release providing a more detailed list of successive steps it
planned over the next several weeks to rein in funding. The Army also announced
that the Defense Department would request a transfer of $1.6 billion from Navy and
Air Force personnel accounts. Two days earlier, the Army issued guidance to unit
and facility commanders directing a series of steps to limit operations, beginning on
April 15 and imposing increasingly restrictive steps week by week.
In the mean time, in a memo to the Senate Budget Committee on March 28,
2007, the Congressional Research Service estimated that the Army had sufficient
money in its Operation and Maintenance accounts to carry on activities at the then-
expected rate of obligations through May and into June of 2007. The memo also
calculated that the Army could carry on operations longer if the Defense Department
were to use part of $7.5 billion of general and special war-related transfer authority
available in FY2007 to shift money to the Army. The CRS memo also noted,
however, that the Army may very well decide that it must slow down non-war-related
operations before money would run out by, for example, limiting facility maintenance

CRS-15
and repairs, delaying equipment overhauls, restricting travel and meetings, and,
perhaps, slowing down training.5
These CRS calculations were based on Army estimates of monthly obligations
that have since been updated. More recent Army data, discussed above, show
obligation of $8.7 billion in March, in part due to the surge of troops to Iraq. This
reduced the remaining balance of operation and maintenance funds in Army
accounts. Based on recent reports about the rate of obligations, Army O&M funds
will run out by about the end of May unless the Army slows down the pace of
operations or receives transfers of funds from other defense accounts. The Army
now plans both steps.
Additional transfers of funds into Army operating accounts may also be
possible. To date, including the recent request to transfer $1.6 billion to the Army,
the Defense Department has requested $4.1 billion of transfers. This leaves a balance
of $3.4 billion, including general and special war-related transfer authority. At the
rate the Army plans for the final few months of the year, that would cover about three
weeks of additional operations. Some of that authority may be needed, however, to
restore funds to accounts that were sources of earlier transfers. The $1.6 billion in
Navy and Air Force personnel funding, in particular, may need to be restored. That
would use a large share of the remaining authority. Congress may expand the amount
available, in either a stopgap funding measure or in a full year FY2007 supplemental
by restoring funds. The now-vetoed conference agreement includes a provision that
restores about $1.6 billion of funding in earlier requested transfers. The Defense
Department may or may not decide it is prudent to request additional transfers of
funds to the Army in anticipation of future provisions that would restore earlier
transfers of funds.
It may also be possible for the Defense Department to extend Army operations
by invoking the Feed and Forage Act, 41 U.S.C. 11, which permits the Defense
Department to make purchases for some purposes in advance of appropriations. The
Defense Department has used the Feed and Forage Act in the past to finance
operations when supplemental appropriations were delayed. Congress might also
expand the amount of transfer authority available for the Army by approving in the
FY2007 supplemental, or in a stopgap funding bill, a measure to restore funds that
were sources of earlier transfers – including, possibly, the $1.6 billion in Navy and
Air Force personnel funds that DOD has requested be shifted to the Army.
Additions of Unrequested Funding for Domestic Programs
The House bill provides almost $14 billion of unrequested for domestic
programs, including, in Title I of the bill, $2.5 billion for homeland security and $1.7
5 Congressional Research Service Memorandum to the Senate Budget Committee, “How
long can the Army finance is operational needs in FY2007 in advance of supplemental
appropriations?” by Amy Belasco, March 28, 2007. The memo was released by the
requester on April 2. It is available on request to congressional offices.

CRS-16
billion for veterans affairs, including money for veterans medical care; in Title II of
the bill, $3.0 billion above the request for hurricane relief; in Title III of the bill, $3.7
billion for agricultural disaster relief; and in Titles IV and VI of the bill, $3.0 billion
for programs ranging from pandemic flu preparedness at NIH to making up a
shortfall in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The Administration has
warned that the President would veto the bill if it includes unrequested domestic
spending of this magnitude.
The Senate bill provides about $15 billion of unrequested funds for domestic
programs, including $2.0 billion for homeland security, $1.7 billion for veterans
programs, $6.7 billion for hurricane relief, $3.3 billion above the request, $4.0 billion
for agricultural disaster relief, $747 million for children’s health insurance, $870
million for pandemic flue preparedness, $640 million for low-income energy
assistance, and $500 million for a firefighting reserve fund.
The conference agreement provides $14-15 billion of unrequested funding for
domestic programs.
Designations of “Emergency” Spending in Defense and
International Affairs

Both in the defense portion of the bill and in the international affairs portion,
one ongoing issue is what funding should properly be provided as emergency
supplemental appropriations6 that are not subject to annual caps on federal spending
and what funding should instead be provided in the agency “base” budgets that are
financed in regular, non-emergency appropriations. In recent years, defense
appropriations exempted from budget caps (including “bridge funds” for overseas
operations provided as separate titles in the regular defense appropriations bills)
have grown from $16 billion in FY2002 to $63 billion in FY2003 and FY2004, to
$102 billion in FY2005,7 to $116 billion in FY2006, and to $163 billion approved or
requested in FY2007.
This reflects a progressive expansion of the kinds of equipment and operational
support that both the Defense Department and Congress have agreed to consider as
sufficiently urgent to warrant inclusion in emergency funding measures, even though
6 The term “emergency appropriations” is used loosely here to include all spending exempt
from annual budget resolution caps on discretionary appropriations. Technically, under
language used in annual congressional budget resolutions, exemptions from budget caps
cover funds formally designated as “emergency” spending and also funding for “military
contingency operations” in the House and for “military contingent operations” or for
“national defense” in the Senate. This is discussed further below.
7 This counts $25 billion in a “bridge fund” in the FY2005 defense appropriations bill as
FY2005 money, though it is technically “scored” by the Congressional Budget Office and
the Office of Management and Budget as FY2004 funding because it was made available
on enactment, which was before the beginning of FY2005. All but about $2 billion,
however, was not obligated until FY2005 or later.

CRS-17
the funding may not meet definitions either of the narrowly defined incremental costs
of military operations, or of what constitutes an emergency by congressional
standards. An issue for Congress in the FY2007 supplemental is whether some of
the very large increase in weapons procurement that the Defense Department has
requested in the FY2007 supplemental goes beyond even the expanded definition of
war-related requirements that Congress has accepted in recent years. The Air Force,
for example, requested funds for two F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, a new system not yet
in production, on the basis that the aircraft will replace equipment lost in the war,
though F-35s will not be available for another three years. The House committee
eliminated funding for these and for Navy EA-18G aircraft even before the
Administration amended its request to delay these programs.
The supplemental request for international affairs funding raises the same issue.
In testifying before Congress about the FY2008 budget request, Secretary of State
Rice faced several questions about the continued practice of requesting emergency
supplemental funds for foreign affairs expenditures that do not seem unplanned or
unexpected. On February 8, 2007, Senator Biden, the Chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee complained, “We’ve been in Afghanistan for over five
years and Iraq for nearly four, and spending in neither country can hardly be called
an emergency.” Some legislators have questioned, in particular, proposed funding
for U.S. embassy operations and security in Iraq.
The conference agreement continues to designate both defense and non-defense
spending as, in effect, emergency funding. [Technically, the term “emergency” does
not apply to defense spending. Defense funds are exempt from budget resolution
caps on discretionary funding by being designated as for overseas contingency
operations in the House and for “contingent” operations or for “national defense” in
the Senate.
Using Defense Supplemental Funding to Offset Costs of
Higher Domestic Spending

Conversely, while some have objected what they see as the Administration’s
misuse of the “emergency” designation, the Administration has objected to the use
of “emergency” defense supplementals as an indirect means of avoiding cuts in non-
defense programs. In each of the past several years, it appears that some funding
that would normally be included in the base defense budget has migrated into the
supplementals, which frees up funding under discretionary spending caps not only
for other defense programs, but also for non-defense discretionary accounts. The
FY2007 continuing resolution, for example, cut $3.1 billion from the
Administration’s defense request for Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), which
freed an equivalent amount for non-defense appropriations bills. Congress is now
adding the BRAC funding to the FY2007 supplemental, which some may see as, in
effect, using the supplemental to finance non-defense programs without violating
FY2007 discretionary spending caps. At some point, some contend, Congress may
need to assert more effective limits on emergency spending if it wishes to restore
discipline over the budget as a whole.

CRS-18
Military Medical Care
Reports of poor conditions in housing for patients at the Walter Reed Army
Medical Center and other reports of shortcomings in medical care for wounded
veterans prompted Congress to add substantial amounts to the supplemental for
military medical care. The House bill adds $1.3 billion for the defense health
program including $400 million for post-traumatic stress counseling and 4300
million for brain injury care. The bill also adds $1.7 billion for the Department of
Veterans Affairs for medical care, disability pensions, and administration. The
Senate bill also adds $1.7 billion for defense health, though allocated differently from
the House, and $1.7 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The conference agreement adds $2.1 billion for defense health programs and
$1.8 billion for veterans health (including related administrative and facilities costs).
Additions to the Defense Request
As large as the defense supplemental request is, it did not provide funding for
all of the programs the military services have identified as priorities, and many
legislators have complained that the readiness of Army and Marine Corps units not
deployed abroad has declined, particularly because of shortfalls of equipment for
training. In addition, it appears that the Defense Department underestimated costs
of the “surge” of 21,000 combat troops to Iraq. In February, each of the armed
services submitted an “Unfunded Priorities List” (UPL) of programs that did not
receive funding in the final Administration FY2008 request to Congress, but that the
services would like if more money were available. The Army FY2008 UPL includes
substantial amounts for force protection equipment, including $2.2 billion for Mine
Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles.
The House bill added $2.5 billion to the defense request for a reserve readiness
fund to be available for training, operations, repair of equipment, and purchases of
new equipment to finance improvements in the readiness of “next-to-deploy” units
in the United States. The bill also added $250 million for Marine MRAP purchases
and smaller amounts for some other procurement programs, partly offset by cutting
funds in the original Administration request for Air Force purchases of the Joint
Strike Fighter and for Navy EA-18G aircraft.
The Senate committee-reported bill added $1 billion for Army National Guard
and Reserve equipment shortfalls. Both the House and Senate bills add $1.1 billion
for Basic Allowance for Housing shortfalls. And during floor debate on the bill, the
Senate agreed to an amendment by Senator Biden to add $1.5 billion for MRAPs for
the Marine Corps.
The conference agreement adds $2 billion for a defense readiness reserve fund,
of which $1 billion is for the National Guard, $1.1 billion to make up service
identified shortfalls in housing allowances, and $1.2 billion (in addition to $1.8

CRS-19
billion requested) for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles for all the services,
no just for the Marine Corps.
Keeping Open Walter Reed Army Medical Center
The House bill includes a provision that prohibits funds in the supplemental or
in any other legislation from being used to close Walter Reed hospital in Washington,
D.C. The Senate bill prohibits closing Walter Reed until replacement facilities in
Bethesda, Maryland, and Ft. Belvoir, Virginia, are completed and fully operational
and until the Secretary of Defense certifies that facilities are sufficient to meet
existing and projected demands for services. The House measure reverses a decision
of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. The BRAC process
was designed to prevent legislative efforts to keep open particular facilities by
requiring an up or down congressional vote on a package of base closure measures
not subject to amendment.
The conference agreement mainly follows the Senate. It allows Walter Reed to
close on condition that replacement facilities are available. The conference
agreement also includes a provision requiring full funding of Walter Reed in the
interim, including funding for facility modernization and maintenance.
These and other issues are reviewed in more detail in the following discussion
of the main elements of the FY2007 supplemental appropriations request.
Potential Limitations on U.S. Military
Operations in and Around Iraq8
The House-passed version of H.R. 1591 includes provisions that would require
the withdrawal of U.S. forces from a combat role in Iraq (with certain exceptions) by
no later than August 31, 2008. Other provisions of the bill would bar the deployment
to Iraq of units that do not meet the Defense Department’s traditional standards of
combat readiness.
The version of the bill passed March 29 by the Senate includes provisions that
would require the President to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq within 120
days of enactment, with the “goal” of removing all U.S. combat forces from the
country by March 31, 2008, except those engaged in certain, limited missions. On
March 27, the Senate rejected by a vote of 48-50 an amendment that would have
eliminated the provisions related to withdrawal of U.S. troops.
The conference agreement sets benchmarks for progress by the Iraqi government
and requires withdrawal to begin on July 1 if the President does not determine that
the goals have been achieved and to begin on October 1 even if the President
8 Prepared by Pat Towell, Specialist in National Defense.

CRS-20
determines that the goals have been achieved. In either case, it sets a target for
completing redeployment of troops within 180 days, though the end-dates are not
strictly binding. As in the House and Senate bills, the conference agreement permits
U.S. troops to remain in Iraq – or to be deployed there again in the future – only to
protect U.S. citizens and facilities; for customary diplomatic purposes; for targeted,
limited-duration missions against global terrorist organizations; and to train and
equip Iraqi security forces. The President has warned that he will veto the bill
because of the withdrawal provisions.
Iraq Deployment Restrictions in the 110th Congress
Members critical of President Bush’s Iraq policy secured, on February 16,
adoption by the House of a non-binding resolution (H.Con.Res. 63) expressing
disapproval of the decision to deploy more than 21,000 additional U.S. combat troops
to Iraq. Similar non-binding measures disapproving of the Administration’s troop
“surge” were introduced in the Senate (S. 470, S.Con.Res. 7, S. 574), but action on
them stalled.
Administration opponents also have introduced both in the House and in the
Senate binding legislation intended to substantially restrict U.S. military operations
in Iraq by various methods. Some of these proposals would repeal P.L. 107-243, the
2002 resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq (e.g., H.R. 930,
H.R. 508). Others would bar the use of any funds for military operations in Iraq after
a date certain (S. 448). Others would prohibit any increase in the number of U.S.
troops in Iraq unless authorized by Congress (S. 308, H.R. 438), limit the missions
that U.S. forces could conduct in Iraq (H.R. 455, S. 433), or require that U.S. troops
be redeployed from Iraq to other locations (H.R. 746, S. 121). 9
Appropriations Riders and Military Operations
However, opponents of a continued U.S. combat role in Iraq might deem it
tactically advantageous to use the supplemental appropriations bill as a vehicle for
their efforts to rein in the Administration’s Iraq policy, because early enactment of
the supplemental is essential to fund ongoing military operations in Iraq. Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates, testifying on the supplemental appropriations bill before
the Senate Appropriations Committee on February 27, said: “If these additional funds
are delayed, the military will be forced to engage in costly and counterproductive
reprogramming actions starting this spring, in April, to make up the shortfall.”10
9 For a frequently updated summary of Iraq-related legislative proposals see CRS
Congressional Distribution Memorandum, “Legislation Introduced Regarding Iraq War
Policy and U.S. Military Policy Concerning Iran, 110th Congress,” by Kim Walker Klarman,
updated February 22, 2007.
10 Testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Hearing on Proposed Fiscal 2007
Supplemental Appropriations, February 27, 2007.

CRS-21
On March 22, Secretary Gates reportedly told members of Congress in a
meeting that if supplemental appropriations were not enacted by mid-April, the Army
might have to slow training of units deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan and that, if
enactment were delayed thru mid May, the delay in training follow-on units might
force the Army to extend the deployment of units already in Iraq beyond their usual
year-long tours.11 CRS has estimated that the Army could continue to operate into
June with funds available through the end of the fiscal year and by reprogramming
funds from other accounts (see below for a further discussion).
One option would be for the critics to block enactment of the supplemental
funding bill, but that might draw accusations that they are failing to support troops
who are in harm’s way. Instead, the House bill would provide fund the troops in
Iraq, essentially at the level requested by the President, but also would require him
to remove most U.S. troops from that by August 31, 2008, while the Senate version
would require the president to begin a troop withdrawal by March 31, 2008, with the
“goal” of removing combat troops by August 31, 2008. Both versions of the bill
would allow a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for certain missions.
Conditioning the availability of funds in an appropriations bill in this way raises
two fundamental questions. One is whether the President could legally circumvent
legislative restrictions on appropriations for military operations in Iraq. In the same
Senate hearing, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, USMC, told the
Appropriations Committee that President Bush would have latitude under provisions
of the Feed and Forage Act (41 U.S.C. 110) to continue funding ongoing operations,
even if Congress were to reject the supplemental funding bill.12 The scope of
presidential discretion under that law may be limited, however: It allows the
government to incur obligations for certain military expenses in the absence of an
appropriation, but requires that Congress appropriate the necessary funds before they
can be expended pursuant to such obligation.13
A second threshold question is whether there are limits on how far Congress can
go in using the power of the purse, not simply to fund or not fund a given military
operation, but also — through the use of appropriations riders — to change the
parameters of a legally authorized conflict already underway. Some commentators
invoke the doctrine of “unconstitutional conditions” to argue that, while Congress
unquestionably can deny funding for an ongoing war, it cannot impose conditions on
the availability of funds that would vitiate the president’s constitutional authority as
11 Noam N. Levey and Peter Spiegel, “Gates Pushes Back On Eve Of War Vote,” Los
Angeles Times
, March 23, 2007.
12 Ibid. For an analysis of Congressional authority to limit Military Operations through its
use of the power of the purse and other means, see CRS Report RL33837, Congressional
Authority to Limit U. S. Military Operations in Iraq
, by Jennifer K. Elsea and Thomas J.
Nicola.
13 William C. Banks and Peter Raven-Hansen, National Security Law and the Power of the
Purse
, Oxford University Press, 1994, pp. 71-72.

CRS-22
commander-in-chief of the armed forces to direct military operations.14 Other
commentators argue that, since the courts have upheld Congress’ authority to limit
the scope of military operations by statute, it follows that Congress can exercise that
authority through the appropriations process.15
Congressional Restrictions on Previous Military Operations. Those
fundamental questions aside, there are several types of restrictions Congress has
considered since 1970 in efforts to reduce or terminate U.S. military operations in
Southeast Asia, Somalia and the countries formed from the former Yugoslavia.16
Congress has used an appropriations bill rider to simply terminate an ongoing
operation, namely the Byrd Amendment to the FY1994 Defense Appropriations Act
(P.L. 103-139, Sec. 8151), which prohibited obligation of funds after March 31, 1994
for military operations in Somalia, unless subsequently authorized by law or if
necessary to protect U.S. civilians in that country.
But Congress also has considered or adopted riders that are more narrowly
drawn to limit the scope of U.S. military operations in a given area. For instance, in
1971, the House rejected an amendment to the Fiscal 1972 defense authorization bill
(H.R. 8687) that would have barred the use of funds authorized under the act for any
aerial attack in Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam or Thailand, unless the president
determined such an attack necessary to ensure the safety of U.S. forces withdrawing
from Indochina. In 1999, the House passed H.R. 1569, a free-standing bill (on
which the Senate took no action) that would have barred the obligation or
expenditure of Defense Department funds for the deployment of “ground elements”
of the U.S. armed forces into the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia [i.e., the former
Yugoslav republics of Serbia and Montenegro], except to rescue U.S. or NATO
military personnel or U.S. civilians. In 1971, Congress enacted the Cooper-Church
amendment barring the use of any funds to deploy U.S. ground troops in Cambodia.17
In 1973, Congress enacted a provision that prohibited the obligation or expenditure
of funds in this or any previous law to finance “combat in or over or from off the
14 David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, “What Congress Can (And Can’t) Do On Iraq,”
Washington Post, P. A19, January 16, 2007, summarize this view.
15 Elsea and Nicola, pp. 18-19. For a more extended discussion of this and other relevant
constitutional and legal issues, from a perspective that argues for broader Congressional
authority, see, Charles Tiefer, “Can Appropriations Riders Speed Our Exit From Iraq?,”
Stanford Journal of International Law, 42 (2006), pp. 291-342.
16 For further analysis of the following (and many other) examples of Congressional efforts
to restrict military operations abroad, see CRS Report RL33803, Congressional Restrictions
on U.S. Military Operations in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Somalia and Kosovo
, by Amy
Belasco, Lynn J. Cunningham, Hannah Fischer, and Larry A. Niksch, and CRS Report
RS20775, Congressional Use of Funding Cutoffs Since 1970 Involving U.S. Military Forces
and Overseas Deployments
, by Richard F. Grimmett.
17 Sec. 7, P.L. 91-652, Special Foreign Assistance Act of 1971.

CRS-23
shores of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia,” on or after August 15,
1973; U.S. bombing stopped on August 15, 1973.18
House Supplemental Iraq Provisions
The Iraq-related restrictions included in the House version of the supplemental
incorporate some of these earlier approaches, along with other provisions. The bill
would set a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq of no later
than the end of August 2008. It also sets earlier dates for withdrawal unless the
President can certify that the government of Iraq meets specific security and political
benchmarks.
The plan would also prohibit the deployment of units that do not meet certain
readiness benchmarks unless the president waives these requirements and reports to
Congress his reasons.
Iraqi Government Benchmarks. The bill would require the withdrawal of
U.S. forces from Iraq (with some exceptions) within a 180-day period beginning July
1. However, the start of the withdrawal would be deferred if the President certifies
by July 1, that Iraq is showing progress toward meeting a number of benchmarks of
progress toward political reconciliation, economic reform and improved security.
The security benchmarks include several steps intended to strengthen Iraqi Security
Forces and insulate them from political interference, make them more evenhanded
in providing security to all Iraqi citizens, and reduce the power of sectarian militias.
The political and economic benchmarks include:
! enactment of legislation that would equitably share oil revenues
among the country’s regions
! expenditure of $10 billion for reconstruction projects
! holding of provincial elections later this year
! easing employment restrictions on former members of Saddam
Hussein’s Baath Party, and
! facilitating the process of amending the country’s constitution to
secure broader national consensus.
If the President certifies July 1 that Iraq is showing progress toward all these security,
political and economic goals, the six-month U.S. redeployment would not start until
October 1.
If the President certifies on October 1 that Iraq has met the five political and
economic benchmarks, the start of the withdrawal would be further delayed until
March 1, 2008. Not later than that date, however, U.S. troops would have to begin
withdrawing from combat roles, with the process to be completed within 180 days.
18 See Section 108, P.L. 93-52, Making Continuing Appropriations for he Fiscal Year 1974
and for Other Purposes.

CRS-24
Regardless of when the six-month redeployment period ends, U.S. troops could
remain in Iraq after that time only for certain missions, including training Iraqi forces,
protecting U.S. diplomatic facilities and citizens and engaging in missions that are,
“limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other
terrorist organizations with global reach.”
Troop Readiness Criteria. The House version of the supplemental also
would prohibit the deployment to Iraq of military units that do not meet established
Defense Department policies intended to maintain combat readiness and morale.
These include requirements that (1) no unit could be deployed to Iraq for longer than
is the policy of its service — 12 months for Army brigade combat teams and seven
months for Marine regimental combat teams, (2) no Army unit could return to Iraq
within a year of its previous deployment to that country and no Marine Corps unit
within seven months, and (3) no unit be deployed unless the uniformed chief of its
service certify to Congress that it is “fully mission capable.” The President could
waive these limitations on a unit-by-unit basis if he reported to Congress why
deployment of a particular unit is necessary.
In his February 27 testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee,
Gen. Pace said that if the services were barred from (1) extending the deployment of
units beyond their normal duration, (2) deploying units that had not completed their
full training syllabus and (3) temporarily relaxing some other deployment policies,
the number of Army combat units that could be deployed in Iraq at any one time
would oscillate between 14 and 19 brigades, instead of the 20 called for by the
current plan.
The Defense Department’s long-established readiness measurement system
assesses a unit to be “fully mission capable” if it is manned, equipped and trained to
carry out the full range of traditional combat missions to which a unit of that type
might be assigned. However, the Department has another system for assessing —
through each unit commander’s subjective judgment — that unit’s readiness for a
specific, non-traditional mission — such as the missions many combat units are
conducting in Iraq and Afghanistan. By this alternative readiness assessment
method, units deploying to Iraq may be fully ready for the missions they are about to
undertake. The potential problem is that, should a contingency suddenly arise that
requires those units to revert to their traditional combat missions, the necessary skills
may have atrophied while the unit focused narrowly on the counterinsurgency
mission in Iraq.
Debate. By linking the duration of the U.S. combat mission to the Iraqi
government’s performance, the Administration’s critics can invoke President Bush’s
argument that the overall U.S. strategy depends on the Iraqi government meeting its
own benchmarks for progress toward economic reconstruction and political reform.
In his January 10 address unveiling the new U.S strategy in Iraq, President Bush said
that, for the new approach to succeed, Iraqi citizens would have to see improvements

CRS-25
in their neighborhoods and communities. “So America will hold the Iraqi government
to the benchmarks it has announced,” he said19
Similarly, by requiring the President to waive the Defense Department’s own
policies for preserving readiness and morale in order to sustain the force in Iraq at its
planned strength, the bill would highlight concerns that have been publicly raised by
senior Army and Marine Corps officers over the adverse impact on their services of
the current tempo of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.20
However, the President and other opponents of the bill’s deadline for
withdrawing combat units from Iraq and its limits on unit deployment argue that
these provisions would embolden U.S. adversaries in Iraq, interfere with the
President’s exercise of his constitutional power as commander-in-chief of the armed
forces, and deprive U.S. commanders in the field of the flexibility they need to win
the campaign.21
During its March 15 meeting to mark up the bill, the House Appropriations
Committee rejected 27-37 an amendment by Representative Jerry Lewis that would
have deleted the withdrawal deadline and deployment restrictions while adding a
provision declaring that Congress “will not cut off or restrict funding” for units
deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee then adopted 37-27 an amendment
by Representative John P. Murtha adding to the bill a declaration that Congress “fully
supports the needs of members of the Armed Services” who have been deployed on
those missions, and their families. On both amendments, the committee divided
along party lines, with all voting Republicans supporting Lewis and opposing Murtha
while all voting Democrats opposed Lewis and supported Murtha,
The committee also rejected 0-37 an amendment by Representative C. W. Bill
Young that would have barred the use of any appropriated funds to finance U.S.
combat activities in Iraq, except to those that were necessary to protect the lives of
American citizens and to provide for the orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces.
19 President George W. Bush, “Address to the Nation,” January 10, 2007, at [http://www.
whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/print/20070110-7.html]. For further information on
security, political and economic issues in Iraq, see CRS Report RL31339, Iraq: Post-
Saddam Governance and Security,
and CRS Report RS21968, Iraq: Elections, Constitution
and Government
, both by Kenneth Katzman.
20 During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on February 15, 2007, Army Chief
of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway each
acknowledged concerns about the breadth of training units can undergo between
deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. The President’s proposal to increase the permanent
end-strength of those two services by a total of 92,000 troops is justified largely by the need
to reduce the frequency of deployments for any one unit.
21 President George W. Bush, “Remarks at the National Republican Congressional
Committee Dinner,” March 15, 2007.

CRS-26
After debating H.R. 1591 under a rule that allowed only technical amendments,
the House passed the bill March 23 by a vote of 218-212 , with the troop deployment
limitation provisions intact.
Related Action: Senate Troop Withdrawal Resolution
On March 15, the Senate rejected 48-50 S.J.Res. 9, which would have required
the president to begin withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq within 120 days of
enactment. The joint resolution was sponsored by Majority Leader Senator Harry
Reid and 41 Democratic co-sponsors.
In its prefatory “whereas” clauses, the joint resolution declared (1) that Congress
and the American people support troops who have served or will serve in Iraq, (2)
that circumstances referred to in the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of military
force against Iraq (P.L. 107-243) have changed “substantially,” (3) that U.S. troops
“should not be policing a civil war,” and that U.S. policy in Iraq should change to
emphasize the need for a political solution among Iraqi leaders.
The body of the joint resolution would have mandated a “phased redeployment
from Iraq” of all U.S. combat forces except for “a limited number” essential for
protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping
Iraqi forces, and “conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.” The legislation
would have required the President to begin the withdrawal within 120 days of
enactment, with a “goal” of completing the process by March 31, 2008. That is the
date by which the Iraq Study Group recommended last fall that, “subject to
unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all [U.S.] combat
brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq.”22
Although the joint resolution identified March 31 as a goal for completing the
withdrawal rather than as a hard and fast deadline, thus implying that the deployment
could be continued beyond that date for unspecified reasons, some senators who
publicly opposed the President’s decision in January to send additional U.S. combat
troops to Iraq reportedly opposed S.J.Res. 9 because it included even this tentative
deadline for removing troops from the country.
The joint resolution also would have directed that the removal of U.S. troops
from Iraq to be implemented, “as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political and
economic strategy” to stabilize Iraq, including engagement of neighboring countries
and the international community. It would have directed the President to report on
progress in the required reshaping of U.S. policy on Iraq within 60 days of enactment
and at 90-day intervals thereafter.
Immediately after the Senate rejected S.J.Res. 9, it adopted two other Iraq-
related measures:
22 Iraq Study Group Report, Vintage Books, 2006, p. 72

CRS-27
! By a vote of 82-16, it adopted S.Con.Res. 20, sponsored by Senator
Judd Gregg, expressing the sense of Congress that Congress would
not eliminate or reduce funding for troops in the field;
! By a vote of 96-2, it adopted S.Res. 107, sponsored by Senator Patty
Murray, expressing the sense of the Senate that the President and
Congress should ensure that U.S. forces, “have everything they need
to perform their assigned or future missions,’ and should review and
adjust policy and funding as needed, “to ensure our troops have the
best chance for success in Iraq and elsewhere.
Senate Supplemental Iraq Provisions
The Senate version of H.R. 1591 includes provisions, similar to those in the S
J Res 9, that would require the President to begin, within 120 days of enactment, a
“phased redeployment” of U.S. forces from Iraq with the goal of removing all combat
forces by March 31, 2008, except for “a limited number” that could remain to (1)
protect U.S. and coalition personnel and facilities, (2) train and equip Iraqi forces and
(3) conduct “targeted counter-terrorism operations.”
Unlike the timetable for U.S. troop move that would be established by the
House bill, the Senate measure describes its March 31, 2008 target date for
completing the redeployment as a “goal,” rather than a mandatory deadline.
The provision includes findings that Congress and the American people will
continue to support and protect troops who are serving or have served in Iraq, that the
circumstances referred to in the 2002 legislation authorizing the use of force against
Iraq (P.L. 107-243) have changed substantially, that U.S. troops “should not be
policing a civil war,” that “the current conflict in Iraq requires principally a political
solution,” and that U.S. policy in Iraq must change to emphasize the need for a
political solution by Iraqi leaders.
‘Comprehensive Strategy’. The Senate version of the bill also declares that
the troop redeployment shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive political,
diplomatic and economic strategy for stabilizing Iraq, which will include, “sustained
engagement with Iraq’s neighbors and the international community.”
The bill requires the President to report to Congress 60 days after enactment of
the bill and every 90 days thereafter on progress made in withdrawing U.S. troops
and adopting the new strategy for stabilizing Iraq. On the same schedule, the
President also would be required to give Congress, “a classified campaign plan”
including strategic and operational benchmarks and projected redeployment dates for
withdrawing U.S. forces.
Benchmarks for the Iraqi Government. In addition, the Senate bill would
require the Commander, Multi-National Forces, Iraq (currently U.S. Army Gen.
David Petraeus), to report to Congress not later than 30 days after enactment of the
bill and every 60 days thereafter on the Iraqi government’s progress toward several

CRS-28
benchmarks of progress toward providing greater public security and political and
economic reform.
The benchmarks which, the bill describes as reflecting previous commitments
of the government of Iraq, closely parallel the benchmarks that would be established
by H.R. 1591. They are:
! deployment of trained and ready Iraqi security forces in Baghdad;
! strengthening the authority of Iraqi commanders to make military
decisions without political interference;
! disarming sectarian militias and ensuring the Iraqi security forces are
accountable to the central government and are loyal to the
constitution.
! enacting legislation that would afford all Iraqis an equitable share in
the profits of the country’s petroleum industry;
! reforming the de-Ba’athification process;
! establishing an equitable process for amending the constitution; and
! establishing rules in Parliament that would protect the rights of
minority parties.
Debate Deferred. When the Senate Appropriations Committee took up the
supplemental appropriations bill March 22, there was no separate vote on the Iraq
withdrawal provisions.
The committee briefly debated an amendment offered by Republican Senator
Richard Shelby that would have stricken the Iraq withdrawal provisions. However
Senator Shelby withdrew the amendment as a gesture of comity because, although
the committee’s Democratic majority was united in support of the original provision,
their one-vote margin on the committee was temporarily nullified by the absence due
to illness of Senator Tim Johnson.
Senate Floor Amendments. On March 27, the Senate rejected by a vote of
48-50 and amendment by Senator Thad Cochran that would have eliminated from the
bill the provisions mandating that a troop withdrawal begin by March 31, 2008 with
the goal of removing U.S. troops from Iraq (except for specified, limited missions)
by August 31, 2008.

CRS-29
Table 2. Side-by-Side Comparison of House and Senate Iraq Policy Provisions
Issue
House version
Senate version
statement regarding U.S.

-“U.S. troops should not be policing a civil war, and the current
policy in Iraq
conflict in Iraq requires principally a political solution.”
deployment duration
-no Army unit deployed for more than one year
limits
-no Marine unit deployed for more than seven months
-President can waive the restriction for national security
“dwell time” limits
-no Army unit can be returned to Iraq within less than one year of its departure
from that country
-no Marine unit can be returned to Iraq within less than seven months of its
departure from that country
-President can waive the restriction for national security
Iraqi government
- President must report by July 1, 2007 that the government of Iraq is making
-sense of Congress that success depends on the Iraqi government
benchmarks of improved progress toward specified benchmarks of security and political/economic
meeting specified benchmarks of improved security and
security and political and reform
political/economic reform
economic reform
-President must report by October 1, 2007 that the government of Iraq has
-Commander of Multi-National Forces in Iraq shall report on progress
achieved specified political/economic reforms
toward those benchmarks periodically
U.S. troop withdrawal to
-July 1, 2007 if the President does not report progress toward all benchmarks
120 days after enactment
begin
by that date, OR
-October 1, 2007, if the President does not report achievement of
political/economic benchmarks by then, OR
-not later than March 1, 2008
U.S. withdrawal
mandatory deadline six months after withdrawal begins, and in any event no
non-binding goal of completing by March 31, 2008
completed
later than August 31, 2008

CRS-30
FY2007 Defense Supplemental23
In the fifth year of operations since the 9/11 attacks, the Department of Defense
(DOD) is requesting a total of $163.4 billion in emergency funds to cover war costs
for FY2007 including $70 billion already provided in DOD’s regular FY2007
appropriations and a new supplemental request of $93.4 billion. If enacted, DOD’s
funding would increase by 40% above the previous year and would more than double
from the FY2004 funding level.
To date, according to CRS estimates, Congress has provided DOD with a total
of $472 billion for Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom or OIF), Afghanistan and other
counter-terror operations (Operation Enduring Freedom or OEF) and enhanced
security (Operation Noble Eagle or ONE). If the FY2007 Supplemental request is
approved, DOD’s total would rise to $565.6 billion (see Table 3).24 In FY2008, the
Administration is also requesting $141.7 billion for war costs in addition to DOD’s
regular request for $481.4 billion.
In addition to the $472 billion received by DOD since the 9/11 attacks, the State
Department has received about $37 billion for foreign and diplomatic operations, and
the Department of Veterans’ Affairs about $1 billion for medical care for OIF/OEF
vets. That brings total funds appropriated to date for Iraq and the Global War on
Terror (GWOT) to $510 billion for military operations and support, repair,
replacement and upgrading of military equipment, foreign aid and diplomatic
operations and VA medical care.25
Table 3 shows war funding by title from FY2004 to House and Senate action
on the March 9, 2007 amended FY2007 Administration request that is used as the
baseline by the appropriations conferees.26
23 Prepared by Amy Belasco, Specialist in the U.S. Defense Budget.
24 For information on war costs, see CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan,
and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11
, by Amy Belasco.
25 Ibid.
26 H.Rept. 110-60 used the original February 5, 2007 Administration request included in the
chapter entitled “Other Materials” in OMB, Appendix: Budget of the United States, FY2008
and S.Rept. 110-37 used the March 9, 2007 amended Administration request that reallocated
$3.6 billion between various accounts; see OMB, FY2008 Budget Appendix, “Other
Materials: FY2007 Supplemental and FY2008,” February 5, 2007 for original request, p.
1143ff; [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/appendix/sup.pdf]; for
amendments tor request, see OMB, Amendment to FY2007 Supplemental for Additional
Troops with offsets from Supplemental, March 9, 2007;
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/amendment_3_9_07.pdf]. In some
cases, figures in DOD’s justification materials are not the same as those in FY2008 budget
appendix.

CRS-31
House, Senate and Conference Action
On April 24, 2007, the appropriations committees filed H.Rept. 110-107, the
conference report on the FY2007 Supplemental request. The section below outlines
House, Senate and conference action on the major defense funding issues in H.R.
1591. Overall, the conferees recommend a total of $100.4 billion for the Department
of Defense, $6.8 billion above the Administration’s request and between the House
total of $100.4 billion and the Senate total of $98.3 billion. Table 3 shows
Congressional action on the Administration amended DOD request of March 9, 2007
request by title.
About half of the increase reflects the decision by the House and Senate
conferees to add $3.1 billion for base closure expenses that was not included in the
FY2007 Continuing Resolution (P.L.110-5) which provided funds for other military
construction costs. The major differences in funding and policy provisions from the
Administration’s original request and between the two houses are outlined below.
More specifics will be provided in a later update.
Military Personnel and Health Issues. The conferees resolved differences
between the House and Senate bills on widening eligibility for survivor benefits,
adding funds for Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Traumatic Stress syndrome,
requiring DOD ensure that all military medical treatment and patient housing
facilities meet acceptable standards through inspections, and adding funds for DOD’s
regular defense health program.
Extending Eligibility for Survivor Benefits. In response to difficulties
encountered by relatives who are taking care of surviving children of those killed in
Iraq or Afghanistan, the conferees adopted a House provision that would allow a
service member to designate grandparents, siblings, or guardians as eligible for 50%
of their death gratuity benefit to care for a minor child and 50% for the survivor (Sec.
1317).


CRS-32
Table 3. DOD War Budget Authority By Title:
FY2004-FY2007 Requesta
(in billions of dollars)
FY07
FY07 Supp
FY07
Total w/
Title
FY04
FY05
FY06
Brdg
Req.
Req.
House
Senate
Conf.
Military Personnel
17.9
19.7
16.7
5.4
17.7
12.4
13.6
13.4
13.5
Operation &
Maintenance/Health/Otherb
42.7
49.0
61.5
39.2
77.9
38.9
40.7
38.9
39.4
Procurement
7.2
17.3
21.5
19.7
44.6
24.8
24.8
24.6
25.7
Research, Dev., Testing &
Evaluation
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.4
1.9
1.4
1.0
1.2
1.1
Working Capital /National
Sealift Fundsc
1.6
3.0
3.0

1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Military Construction
0.5
1.2
0.2

1.9
1.7
4.9
4.8
4.8
Gen’l Prov. - cut O&M for
contractor efficiencies
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-0.8
0.0
0.0
Gen’l Prov. - add funds for
Mine Resistant Ambush
Program
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0
1.5
0.0
Subtotal: Regular Titles
70.3
90.9
103.7
64.7
145.4
80.6
85.6
85.7
85.8
Special Funds and Transfer Caps
Iraqi Freedom Fund (IFF)
2.0
3.8
3.3
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.4
Afghan Sec. Forces
Training Fund

1.3
1.9
1.5
7.4
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
Iraq Security Forces
Training Fundd
[5.0]
5.7
3.0
1.7
5.5
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
Joint Improvised Explosive
Device (IED) Defeat Funde


3.3
1.9
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
Coalition Support Capf
[1.2]
[1.2]
[1.5]
[.9]
[1.9]
[1.0]
[.3]
[.2]
[.2]
Commanders Emergency
Response Capf
[.2]
[.8]
[.9]
[.5]
[1.0]
[.5]
[.5]
[.5]
[.5]
Intell. Comm. Mgt Fundg

0.3
0.2

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Special Transfer Authorityh [3.0]
[3.0]
[4.5]
[3.0]
[6.5]
[3.5]
[3.5]
[3.5]
[3.5]
Subtotal: Special Funds
2.0
10.7
11.5
5.2
17.9
12.7
14.8
12.6
14.5
National Defense Totala
72.3
101.9
115.4
70.0
163.6
93.6
100.4
98.4
100.4
Notes:
a. This table separates funds with special purposes such as the Afghan Security Forces Fund. The BA in these funds is
distributed within each of the main titles (e.g., The Afghan Security Forces Fund is an account within O&M). CRS
has adjusted the amounts shown in those titles to avoid double-counts. Includes amounts appropriated and amounts
transferred with Congressional approval. Reflects the Administration’s amended FY2007 supplemental request of March
9, 2007 as used in H. Rept.110-107, Conference report on H.R. 1591, 4-24-07; see OMB, Budget Appendix, “Other
Materials: FY2007 Supplemental and FY2008,” February 5, 2007 for original request, p. 143ff and March 9, 2007
a me n d me n t ; [ h t t p : / / www. wh i t e h o u s e . g o v / o mb / b u d g e t / fy2 0 0 8 / p d f/ a p p e nd ix/sup .p d f] an d
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/amendment_3_9_07.pdf].
b. “Other” includes counter drug and Office of Inspector General funds.
c. Working capital funds finance support costs such as fuel.
d. Training Iraqi security forces was initially funded in the State Department [ shown in brackets ]but is now funded in
DOD.
e. Funds for IED Defeat that were appropriated to the IFF in FY2006 are shown here under Joint IED Defeat Fund. The
Joint IED Defeat Fund is a transfer account to finance procurement, RDT&E, and operation and maintenance
responses to IED attacks.

CRS-33
f. Congress sets caps that limit the total amount that can be spent on coalition support to countries helping in the global
war on terror, and on the CERP, a program which permits military commanders to provide funds for small-scale
reconstruction projects in Iraq and Afghanistan.
g. Appropriated for the CIA in the DOD appropriations act.
h. Congress sets the amount of transfer authority in each bill. The table includes amounts provided for both bridge and
supplemental funds. Includes $10.4 billion for Iraq Freedom Fund in FY2003 (deducting specified floors) plus
$2 billion in transfer authority.
Sources: CRS calculations based on H.Rept. 110-60, S.Rept. 110-37, H.Rept. 110.107 and H.R. 1591 as passed by the
House, the Senate and conference report.
Problems Encountered by Injured Personnel. In reaction to recent
problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital encountered by injured service
members awaiting final disposition of their medical status, the conferees adopted a
Senate proposal that requires DOD to inspect and develop standards for medical
treatment facilities and housing for medical hold and holdover personnel. DOD is
to report to Congress on the standards used within 30 days, conduct inspections
within 180 days, and submit detailed plans to correct deficiencies (Sec. 1318, H.Rept.
110-107).
Increases for Defense Health. The conferees provide $3.3 billion for
Defense Health, over $2 billion more than the Administration’s $1.1 billion request.
The increases reflect both funding for war-related costs such as Traumatic Brain
Injury and Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome as well as increases to DOD’s baseline
program to make up for the Congressional decision not to require higher co payments
and fees for military members and $500 million to offset an efficiency wedge
included for the regular program.
Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome and Brain Injury Increases. The
conferees include $600 million for treatment and $300 million for RDT&E for post
traumatic stress syndrome, traumatic brain injury, as well as $61 million for amputee
heath care, $14 million for burn care, and $12 million for care giver support
programs, all high profile concerns because injuries in Iraq have been more severe
and more frequent than anticipated. The conferees also add $7 million to the blast
injury and mitigation program – doubling the enacted amount and making it close to
the FY2006 level – that funds the brain injury treatment which is conducted at
several centers runs by the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC).27
Operation and Maintenance Issues. In addition to various differences
in individual spending levels, the conferees resolve differences between the House
and Senate on the following major issues.
! The conferees include $2.0 billion for a new House-proposed
Strategic Readiness Reserve Fund designated to improve the
readiness of next-to-deploy units or units that are part of the
“strategic reserve,” which would be tapped should contingencies
arise other than Iraq and Afghanistan, and which have low readiness
ratings. The new fund also includes $ 1.0 billion for National Guard
27 H.Rept. 110-107 as printed in Congressional Record, April 24, 2007, p. H. 3992-3993;
this is similar to House action.

CRS-34
and Reserve equipment as recommended by the Senate to meet
reported equipment shortages in reserve units.
! The conferees include a $750 million increase for higher operating
tempo in Afghanistan to meet an expected spring offensive by the
Taliban, somewhat below the $1 billion proposed by the House; no
funds were proposed by the Senate. Other House recommendation
for $200 million for Army “readiness enhancements” was not
included. According to DOD, funding in FY2007 is slated to
increase from $16.3 billion in FY2006 to $24.8 billion if the request
is enacted.28
! The conferees also cut O&M requests by the services for depot
maintenance and other operating funds that could not be executed.
! A House provision that would cut O&M by $815 million for
contractor efficiencies was not included by the conferees;
responding to oversight concerns, the conferees set an 85% limit on
O&M funding until DOD submits a report on the use of contracts
and contractor personnel in the war zone (Sec. 1319).
Oversight Concerns About Spending for Afghan and Iraq Security
Forces. The conferees echo concerns raised by both houses about oversight of the
Afghan and Iraq Security Forces Fund but provide the full amount requested – an
additional $5.9 billion for Afghanistan and $3.8 billion for Iraq to train and equip
their security forces. If enacted, this would bring total funds training and equipping
security forces to $19.2 billion for Iraq and at least $10.6 billion for Afghanistan.
Although the conferees rejected a House-recommended 50% limitation on
obligations until reports by the Secretary of Defense on readiness and by OMb on use
of prior and current fund, the conferees retain the reporting requirements. The DOD
reports on Iraqi unit readiness is due within 30 days of enactment and the detailed
report by OMB on the use of all funds in the Afghan and Iraq Security Forces Funds
and an estimate of the total cost is due within 120 days with updates every 90 days
(Sec. 1313). A Senate provision permitting DOD to use $156 million in ISFF funds
to support the disarmament and re-integration Iraqi militias or illegal armed groups
with concurrence of the Secretary of State was also included by the conferees (Sec.
1319).
As recommended by the Senate, the conferees require an assessment by an
independent non-profit organization of the readiness within 12 to 18 months of Iraqi
units and the “likelihood that, given the ISF’s record of preparedness to date . . . the
28 See H.Rept. 110-60, p. 61-p.80 and S.Rept. 110-37, p. 16-p. 21. For higher funding for
OEF, see Table 1 in DOD, FY2007 Emergency Supplemental Request for the Global War
on Terror
, February 2007;
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/fy2007_supplemental/FY2007_Emer
gency_Supplemental_Request_for_the_GWOT.pdf]

CRS-35
continued support of U.S. troops will contribute to the readiness of the ISF to fulfill
its missions . . .” This report is due within 120 days of enactment.29
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund. While both houses
and the conferees endorse the $2.4 billion funding request for the Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), the committee reports call for
additional reporting and a strategic plan as well as elimination of duplication among
the services to ensure oversight of this rapidly growing new account that is intended
to conduct research and buy and train troops in ways to defeat Improvised Explosive
Devices (IEDs), the chief threat to soldiers in Iraq.
The conference report requires DOD to submit a report identifying staffing
levels as well as a strategic plan as directed by the Senate and requires DOD to
follow reprogramming requirements as set by the House. The conferees note that the
appropriators will be “hard-pressed to fully fund future budget requests unless the
JIEDDO improves its financial management practices and its responsiveness.”30
Using Funds to Re-start Iraqi Businesses. The conferees include the
Administration’s request to use up to $100 million in the Iraq Freedom Fund to
restart Iraqi businesses as recommended by the Senate.
Congressional Changes to Procurement and RDT&E Accounts. The
conferees provide $25.6 billion in procurement funds, somewhat higher than the
$24.8 billion recommended by the House and the $24.5 billion recommended by the
Senate, both of which are close to the Administration’s request. It appears that the
conference report essentially endorses DOD’s plan to front load its request for funds
to replace war-worn equipment (see below). Nevertheless, the conference and
committee reports in both houses voice concern and cut some individual programs
deemed not to be legitimately emergency war-related needs. Characterizing certain
items as premature, or unexecutable within the 12 month standard set by DOD, or
baseline rather than war-related emergencies, the Senate cut $1.2 billion from the
procurement request. The House cut $758 million for similar reasons.31 In its
amended request, the Administration eliminated some of the items considered
unjustifiable for an emergency request such as six new EA-18 electronic warfare
aircraft and two JSF aircraft that would not be delivered for two or three years.
Premature, Unexecutable, or Baseline Programs. Examples of
programs considered premature include new gun systems for Stryker vehicles and
new radar systems for F-15 aircraft or F-35 aircraft that would not be delivered until
2009 or 2010. Other programs were considered unexecutable because the industrial
base could not meet production rates – such as all funding requested for SINCGARS
readios – or were deemed part of DOD’s baseline budget rather than an emergency,
such as an Army information system.
29 Sec. 1320 in H.R. 1591 as printed in Congressional Record, April 24, 2007, p. H. 3826
30 H.Rept. 110-107 as printed in Congressional Record, April 24, 2007, p. H. 3922.
31 CRS calculations based on H.Rept. 110-60 and S.Rept. 110-37.

CRS-36
Congressional Adds Funds for Mine Resistant Ambush Program
and other Force Protection. At the same time, the conferees added funds for
key force protection systems:
! $447 million for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, a
new truck with a V-shaped hull that has proven effective against
IEDs (between the House and Senate levels);
! aircraft survivability modifications for Marine Corps helicopters
($155 million for H-53s and H-46s); and
! countermeasures for C-130Js and C-17 aircraft.
While the committees rejected requests to replace aircraft that were “stressed,” they
added funds for combat losses experienced after submission of the request.
Increases for Guard and Reserve Procurement. The conferees
provided the $1 billion increase for equipment for National Guard and Reserve forces
added by the Senate and not included by the House but required that it be funded
within the new Strategic Reserve Readiness transfer account that is set up to improve
the readiness of units that are not on scheduled for deployment to Iraq or
Afghanistan.32
Congressional Changes to RDT&E Programs. Both houses showed
scepticism and cut RDT&E programs that were not considered genuine emergencies
or because programs should be funded within the Joint IED Defeat Fund. For
example, both houses cut RDT&E for Marine Corps communications systems
deemed baseline rather than emergency programs.

General Provisions. Both houses and the H.Rept. 110-107, the conference
report include several significant general provisions, some of which have been in
previous supplementals. Provisions would
! prohibit obligating or expending funds in this or any other
appropriation act to station U.S. forces permanently in Iraq or to
control Iraqi oil resources (Sec. 1311);
! provide DOD with $3.5 billion in transfer authority for funds in the
act – allowing DOD to transfer funds between appropriation
accounts after enactment with the approval of the four defense
committees (Sec. 1302);
! deny the Administration’s request to raise transfer authority
available for DOD’s baseline program from $4.5 billion to $8
billion.
! set a cap of $457 million on the Commanders Emergency Response
Program (CERP) where individual commanders fund small
reconstruction projects;
! prohibit the use of funds in this act from being used to contravene
U.N. convention against torture and other laws (sec. 1312);
! set ceilings on counter drug funding for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
Kazakstan (Sec. 1306).
32 H.Rept. 110-107 in Congressional Record, April 24, 2007, p. H3824.

CRS-37
Administration Amends FY2007 Supplemental
to Finance Troop Increase

On March 9, 2007, the Administration submitted an amended budget request to
Congress that would provide $3.2 billion for
! 4,700 troops to support the addition in combat forces in Iraq already
underway;
! to add 7,200 troops in Afghanistan for counterinsurgency operations
and training Afghan security forces;
! to add funds and authority for DOD to start up factories in Iraq, to
assist the Iraqi government to disarm, demobilize and reintegrate
militias, to fund Provincial Reconstruction Teams, and to equip and
train the Pakistan Frontier Corps that operates on the border; and
! to add $50 million in a new Medical Support transfer account to help
soldiers transition from deployment to continued military service or
civilian life.

See below for a discussion of surge issues.
To finance these increases, the Administration proposes to cut its original
FY2007 Supplemental by:
! eliminating requests for C-130J, V-22, JSF, and 5 of 6 EA_18G
electronic warfare aircraft;
! cutting its estimate of the cost of deploying additional naval forces
by more than half;
! eliminating lower priority military construction in Afghanistan and
Guantanamo;
! eliminating its request for $302 million for the Regional War on
Terror in Djibouti and the Philippines; and
! reducing various support programs.33
Expansion of Activities Funded
in the FY2007 Supplemental Request

DOD’s FY2007 Supplemental request appears to be based on a new and
expanded definition of war costs that permits the services to fund not only operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan but also “the longer war on terror.” On October 25, 2006,
Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, issued new “ground rules” for the
FY2007 Supplemental stating that the services could include “incremental costs
related to the longer war against terror (not just OEF/OIF)” including replacement of
war-worn equipment with newer models and “costs to accelerate specific force
33 See OMB, Estimate No. 3, March 9, 2007; [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/
amendments/amendment_3_9_07.pdf]; DOD Briefing, “Adjustment fo FY2007 Emergency
Supplemental Request,” March 9, 2007.

CRS-38
capability necessary to prosecute the war.”34 Estimates were due within a week and
decisions were to be made by November 15, 2006. There is no specific definition of
the “longer war on terror,” now one of the core missions of the Department of
Defense.
This new guidance may be the primary reason for the 40% increase over F2006
funding that DOD is proposing for FY2007. The new definition constitutes a
significant shift from long-standing DOD financial regulations that require that costs
be:
! necessary to carry out specific operations;
! strictly incremental, i.e., costs would not have been incurred “in the
absence of the contingency requirement;” and
! executable within the current fiscal year.35
These strictures were reiterated in guidance issued to the services on July 19, 2006
on developing FY2007 Supplemental and FY2008 war costs, with warnings that any
questionable procurement costs that did not appear to be incremental would be
closely scrutinized.36

Congress may want to consider whether this expanded definition is appropriate
for an emergency supplemental request intended to meet urgent needs. Many of the
items proposed in the FY2007 Supplemental request may not appear to be truly
urgent needs, strictly tied to OIF and OEF operations, or likely to be executed within
the fiscal year.
How Urgent is Passage of the FY2007 Supplemental?
In past years, Congress has been under pressure from the Army to pass
supplementals quickly in order to ensure that the Army will have enough funds to
meet both its wartime and peacetime operations. The FY2006 Supplemental was
enacted in mid-June 2006, which the Army claimed created considerable
management problems because the Army had to “cash flow” or temporarily finance
war costs by tapping funds from its regular budget slated to be spent at the end of the
fiscal year as well as transferring funds from other accounts.
34 Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, Memorandum for Secretaries of the
Military Department, “Ground Rules and Process for FY ’07 Spring Supplemental,” October
25, 2006.
35 Department of Defense, Financial Management Regulation, Volume as, Chapter 23,
“Contingency Operations,” pp. 23-25, 23-2.7;
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/fmr/12/12_23.pdf]. These regulations were developed
in the mid 1990s to provide guidance about how to cost contingency operations such as
Bosnia.
36 Under Secretary of Defense, Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments,
“Fiscal Year (FY) 2008-2013 Program and Budget Review,” July 19, 2006, pp. 34-49,
specifically pp. 36, 39, 41.

CRS-39
The Army recently revised its earlier estimate that the supplemental needs to be
enacted by the of April.37 The Army now says that it can last until the end of June
if a recently-requested $1.6 billion transfer of funds is approved by the four
congressional defense committees and with a planned slowdown in obligations in
April, May, and June 2007. The Army’s slowdown relies on holding off on contracts
for facility maintenance and repairs, supply contracts, limiting travel and meetings
and day-to-day purchases using government credit cards, and, slowing equipment
maintenance.38
In this year’s bridge fund, Congress provided $28.4 billion to meet the Army’s
operational needs, some $7 billion higher than last year’s bridge fund.39 These
additional funds provide the Army with additional funds to finance its operating
costs. Using new Army data, CRS estimates, like the Army, finds hat Army O&M
costs could be covered until about the end of June 2007 with the current slowdown
and if the $1.6 billion transfer is approved. Other potential options rather than $1.6
billion, it could last until early July, and if it received $7.4 billion, the maximum
possible, it could last through July. This would require, however, that the Army use
all funds in its regular FY2007 budget, war funds in the FY2007 bridge fund, and
move $7.4 billion from procurement, RDT&E or areas to operations.40
Using much or all DOD’s transfer authority could reduce or eliminate DOD
flexibility to move funds between accounts after enactment for other higher priority
needs making it difficult to make other program adjustments during the year.
Congress could alleviate these Army concerns by providing for the “restoral” of
funds transferred in the FY2007 supplemental, an approach used previously in the
FY2005 Supplemental.
Make-up of the FY2007 Supplemental
DOD’s FY2007 request adds to the $70 billion in war funding already received
in the bridge fund that was included in DOD’s regular appropriations (Title IX, P.L.
109-289). Table 3, above, shows amounts provided from FY2004 to the FY2007
bridge fund, the amount requested in the FY2007 Supplemental, and the total for
FY2007 if the supplemental request is approved. Funding levels are shown for
standard titles of defense appropriations bills and for various new accounts set up for
special purposes since the 9/11 attacks.
37 Army Budget Office, “OMA FY07 Spending Projections,” February 5, 2007
38 Department of the Army, “Information for Members of Congress: Funding Needs Prompt
Army Spending Constraints,” 16 April 2007.
39 See H.Rept. 109-676, p. 357 and H.Rept. 109-359, p. 468.
40 This CRS estimate assumes that Congress approves transfers that tap some of the $7.4
billion in transfer authority in the FY2007 bridge fund and for DOD’s regular FY2007 funds
(see sections 9003 and 8005, P.L. 109-289). The CRS and Army estimates indicating that
the Army could last through June assumes the $12.7 billion remaining, monthly obligations
of about $6 billion, temporary savings from slower obligations of $3.7 billion and the
transfer into O&M Army of the $1.6 billion requested.

CRS-40
With the exception of fairly stable funding for military personnel, the FY2007
amounts requested by DOD would provide for major increases in annual funding
levels, including:
! a 25% increase in annual operating costs — from $61.5 billion to
$77.4 billion;
! close to a doubling in procurement costs — from $23 billion to $43
billion;
! a ten-fold increase in military construction from $200 million to
almost $2 billion;
! over a threefold increase in monies to train and equip Afghan
security forces for a total of $7.4 billion this year;
! an 80% increase in monies to train and equip Iraqi security forces to
$5.5 billion;
! a 30% increase in the joint fund set up to find responses to meet the
threat from improvised explosive devices (IEDs); and
! a doubling to almost $2 billion for support to Pakistan and other
allies for support in the global war on terror (GWOT).
DOD’s Justification for the FY2007 Supplemental
According to the Department of Defense, the main goals of the FY2007
Supplemental are to provide for:
! incremental pay, benefits, and support of about 320,000 military
personnel who conduct military operations for OIF and OEF;
! reconstitution or reset — the repair and replacement of war-worn
equipment;
! force protection and defeat of IEDs;
! a temporary “plus-up” of 21,500 troops in Iraq and sending an
additional aircraft carrier group in the Gulf;
! accelerated conversion of Army and Marine Corps (MC) units to
new standard configurations;
! additional equipment and infrastructure to permanently expand the
size of the Army and Marine Corps by 2012;
! equipping and training Afghan and Iraqi security forces
! reimbursing coalition partners working with U.S. military forces;
! funds for small-scale reconstruction projects administered by
individual commanders;
! military construction in Iraq, Afghanistan and Djibouti; and
! classified programs.
Using these categories, Table 4, below shows the amounts enacted in FY2006, the
FY2007 bridge, the FY2007 Supplemental request, the total requested for FY2007,
and the annual change.41
41 From DOD, FY2007 Emergency Supplemental Request for the Global War on Terror,
February2007;[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/fy2007_supplemental/

CRS-41
Table 4. Department of Defense FY2007 War Request:
FY2006 and FY2007 Bridge, and FY2007 Request
(billions of dollars )
Percent
FY2007
Change
FY2006 FY2007 FY2007 Total with
FY06-
Program
Enacted Bridge
Supp.’l
Request
FY07
Incremental Pay and Benefits and
operating and support Costs
67.2
30.5
39.2
69.8
4%
Temporary Troop Plus-up and Higher
Naval Presence
0.0
0.0
5.6
5.6
NA
Accelerating Modularity
5.0
0.0
3.6
3.6
-28%
Infrastructure and equipment for
permanent Increase in Army and Marine
Corps 0.0
0.0
1.7
1.7
NA
Reconstitution or Reset
19.2
23.6
13.9
37.6
96%
Force Protection
5.4
3.4
8.0
11.3
111%
Joint Improvised Explosive Device
Defeat Fund
3.3
1.9
2.4
4.4
31%
Equip and Train Afghan and Iraq
Security Forces
4.9
3.2
9.7
12.9
163%
Coalition Support
1.2
0.9
1.0
1.9
58%
Commanders Emergency Response Fund
0.9
0.5
0.5
1.0
6%
Military Construction Overseas in Iraq
and Afghanistan
0.2
0.0
1.1
1.1
423%
Military Intelligence
1.5
0.8
2.7
3.5
135%
Non-DOD Classified
5.6
5.1
3.6
8.8
57%
Regional War on Terror
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
NA
GRAND TOTAL
114.4
70.0
93.4
163.4
43%
Sources: Department of Defense, FY2007 Emergency Supplemental Request for the Global War on
Terror
, February 2007, available online at [http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/
fy2008/fy2007_supplemental/FY2007_Emergency_Supplemental_Request_for_the_GWOT.pdf].
DOD excludes in its calculation of war costs $1.5 billion provided in FY2006 appropriation to make
up for the increase in fuel prices in DOD’s baseline program.
Military Personnel and Operations Request
According to DOD, funding for pay and operations supports about 312,000
troops conducting OIF and OEF operations including about 140,000 in Iraq and
20,000 in Afghanistan.42 This figure of 312,000 military personnel for both
41 (...continued)
FY2007_Emergency_Supplemental_Request_for_the_GWOT.pdf]
42 DOD, FY2007 Emergency Supplemental Request for the Global War on Terror, February
2007;[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/fy2007_supplemental/FY2007_
(continued...)

CRS-42
operations is higher than generally cited by DOD witnesses, and presumably includes
not only “boots on the ground,” but about 110,000 additional troops deployed in the
region or for other counter terror operations, and another 50,000 activated reservists
in the United States who are either training up to deploy, backfilling positions for
active-duty troops or providing enhanced security at defense installations.43
Recently, DOD appears to have expanded the types of operating expenses that
are considered war-related, now allowing the services to request additional funds for
some base support costs not in the theater of operations, arguing that there are
additional costs associated with deploying forces. For example, the Army includes
$2 billion for this type of base support including additional security guards in bases
in Europe and the United States. Some might question this rationale. Base support
costs could also be lower in some cases because deployed troops do not use base
services.
DOD has also included in the FY2007 supplemental request $500 million to
expand its inventory of spare and repair parts. This may reflect a judgment that the
services should be prepared to conduct large-scale contingency operations for a
longer period than had earlier been planned. This may be one more reflection of
DOD’s decision to expand the scope of costs permitted in supplemental requests to
include costs of the “long war on terror” and not just emergency war costs.
Temporary Troop “Surge” and
Increased Naval Presence: Amended Request

The FY2007 Supplemental amended request includes $6.0 billion to pay for the
president’s proposal, announced on January 10, 2007, to increase troops in Iraq by
21,500 and to heighten the U.S. naval presence in the Gulf by deploying an additional
aircraft carrier and a Marine Expeditionary Force. This initiative is already underway.
The amended request adds funds for about 4,600 support troops and contract support,
which is partially offset by a reduction in the estimated cost of the additional naval
deployments.44 The additional support troops reflects recent controversy raised by
a CBO estimate that suggested that DOD had not provided for support forces (see
below).
Unless Congress enacts specific restrictions, the president can use currently
available DOD funds to conduct military operations including the deployment of
42 (...continued)
Emergency_Supplemental_Request_for_the_GWOT.pdf], p. 16. hereinafter, DOD, FY2007
Supplemental.

43 These figures reflect CRS calculations from data on average troop strength compiled by
the Defense Manpower Data Center as of November 2006.
44 The request would add 1,600 support troops, 2,200 additional military police to handle
more detainees, contract support, and additional force protection and vehicles; see OMB,
Estimate No. 3, “Amendment to FY2007 Supplemental for Additional Troops with Offsets,”
March 9, 2007, p. 1-2; [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/
amendment_3_9_07.pdf].

CRS-43
additional troops because funds are appropriated for particular types of expenses —
e.g., military personnel costs — rather than designated for particular operations. This
gives the president leeway to conduct military operations as he sees fit. (See above
for a discussion of ways to restrict military operations.)
Because these additional expenses were not part of plans when the funds were
appropriated last year, DOD will likely use up its available funds sooner than
anticipated. The amended FY2007 Supplemental request includes $5.3 billion for
the troop increase plus $695 million for the additional carrier group (funded in
military personnel and operation and maintenance accounts). Assuming the FY2007
supplemental is enacted, DOD can restore funds to other activities whose funding
was temporarily tapped to pay for the “surge” or “plus-up.”
A recently published CBO estimate projected that the troop increase alone was
likely to cost from $9 billion to $13 billion if peak troop levels were sustained for
four months rather than the $3.1 billion proposed by DOD.45 The higher CBO
estimate assumes that DOD would also need to deploy not only 21,500 combat
troops, but from 15,000 to 28,000 support troops.46 Most recently, Deputy Secretary
of Defense Gordon England told the House Budget Committee that the surge would
require 4,000 additional troops at a cost of about $1 billion through September 30.47
CBO also estimated that the cost could range from $20 billion to $27 billion if
the higher troop levels were sustained for 12 months rather than the temporary
increase proposed by the President, again with the range reflecting different
assumptions about the number of support troops needed for each combat troop.48
Recently, General Petraeus, now in charge in Iraq, acknowledged that the additional
troops “would need to be sustained certainly some time well beyond the summer,”so
CBO’s alternate estimate that the higher levels would be sustained for 12 months
could be more realistic than the short time proposed by the president.49
The FY2007 Supplemental request for $1.5 billion for deploying an additional
carrier strike group to the Gulf was reduced to $695 million in the amended request.
45 Congressional Budget Office, “Cost Estimate for Troop Increase Proposed by the
President,” February 1, 2007. Available online at [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs
/77xx/doc7778/TroopIncrease.pdf].
46 CBO, “Cost Estimate for Troop Increase Proposed by the President,” February 1, 2007,
p. 4; [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7778/TroopIncrease.pdf]. This estimate
assumes that peak levels are sustained for four months. The range in the estimate reflects
two alternative planning assumptions — one that about one support troop would be needed
for each combat troop (a relatively lean assumption that could fit a temporary increase) and
the other that about 1.4 support troops would be needed for each combat troop (the standard
Army planning assumptions).
47 Scott Cox, “England: DOD Likely to Reprogram Funding for Surge Support Personnel,”
Gallery Watch.com, March 6, 2007.
48 CBO, “Cost Estimate for Troop Increase Proposed by the President,” February 1, 2007,
p. 4.
49 Reuters, “U.S. Commander Says No Military Solution To Iraq,” March 8, 2007.

CRS-44
Some would argue that naval presence is the everyday mission of the Navy, so that
providing funds in an emergency supplemental is not appropriate. Last year,
Congress questioned a proposal by the Navy to shift the cost of some steaming days
from its regular budget to the supplemental — the Navy included funding in its
regular budget for 37 days rather than the 51 days per quarter that has been the
standard for many years. Congress restored that funding to the base defense budget
and took an offset within the supplemental request for baseline regular training. This
cost shifting could be considered inconsistent with DOD financial regulations that
require that war-related costs be confined to activities that would not occur without
the contingency.
The Navy’s reduction in its estimate of the cost of moving one carrier group
from the Pacific to the Gulf and for deploying its replacement from $1.5 billion to
$695 million as a result of refining its cost estimate appears to acknowledge that the
original estimate was excessive — equal to about half of the Navy cost for steaming
hours for its entire fleet of 302 ships.50
Proposal to Increase Permanently the Size
of the Army and Marine Corps

In previous annual supplemental appropriations bills, Congress has provided
funding to cover costs of keeping additional active duty troops in the force over and
above the pre-Iraq end-strength levels of the Army and the Marine Corps. In all, the
two services have kept as many as 30,000 additional troops in the force in order to
reduce demands on personnel and, in the case of the Army, to ease strains as it
reorganized into a modular, brigade-based force structure.
DOD referred to the additional troops as “over strength,” and it requested
funding in supplementals to cover the cost of recruiting and retaining additional
personnel above the Army’s pre-war end strength of 482,000 and the Marine Corps
pre-war end strength of 175,000. DOD argued that these increases were strictly war-
related and temporary — a way to reduce the stress on forces. In January 2007,
however, the president announced plans to permanently increase the size of the Army
and Marine Corps by 92,000 over the next six years including the additional almost-
30,000 Army and Marine Corps personnel already on board.
The FY2007 supplemental includes a total of $4.9 billion to cover the military
personnel cost of additional troops plus $1.7 billion for equipment and infrastructure
for the forces to be added in FY2007 and in following years ($1.1 billion in
procurement and $600 million in military construction). DOD promises, however,
that funding to equip future increases in the force will be requested in the regular,
base budgets of the Army and Marine Corps starting in FY2009.
The proposal to add permanently to the size of the force marks a major change
in Administration policy. Its purpose is not to help in Iraq, however — most of the
additional forces are in future years when it is assumed that the U.S. military
50 See Office of the Secretary of Defense, Operation and Maintenance Overview,” Fiscal
Year 2007 Budget Estimates, February 2006, p. 158.

CRS-45
presence in Iraq will be considerably lower. Instead, it reflects a new, more
demanding requirement for the number of troops that the United States should be
able to deploy abroad in major stability operations presumably close to today’s levels.
For an option roughly equivalent to the president’s proposal — adding two
divisions to the Army — in the past CBO estimated that the cost would be an
additional $90 billion between FY2008 and FY2017.51 Congress may consider
whether this plan is appropriately a war expense or whether it should be debated
within the context of DOD’s regular budget.
Regional War on Terror
DOD’s original request included $305 million for a newly-named “Regional
War on Terror,” referring to counter terror operations outside of Iraq and Afghanistan
including in the Philippines, the Caribbean, Central America, Southern Cone
countries, North Africa and support for Northern Command for its support of first
responders.52 The amended request withdraws these funds.
New Authorities for DOD Requested
The amended request asks for an additional $359 million in the Iraq Freedom
Fund that would be used:
! to support Provincial Reconstruction teams ($150 million); and
! to restart businesses in Iraq ($100 million) through a Task Force to
Improve Business and Stability Operations in Iraq; and
! to provide economic assistance to the Federally Administered Tribal
Areas in Pakistan (through the State Department).
The request asks for additional authority for DOD to conduct help Iraq re-start
factories that could be controversial.
Accelerating the Creation of Modular Units
The distinction between war-related and regular funding has also been made
murky by DOD requests to treat conversion of Army and Marine Corps units to new
standard configurations — known as modularity and restructuring — as a war
requirement. For example, at DOD’s request, Congress, with some reluctance,
agreed to provide $5 billion in the FY2005 and the FY2006 supplementals for
converting units with the understanding that DOD would move these funds back to
its regular budget in later years. (This funding of modularity effectively gave the
Army $5 billion per year in additional funding in its regular budget for those two
51 CBO, Budget Options, February 2007, pp. 9-10; [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/
78xx/doc7821/02-23-BudgetOptions.pdf].
52 DOD, FY2007 Supplemental, p. 74.

CRS-46
years.) To implement this decision, DOD set aside $25 billion for the Army in future
years to cover the cost of modularity.53
The FY2007 supplemental, however, again requests $3.6 billion to convert two
Army brigade teams to the new modular design and to create additional Marine
Corps battalions. Costs include $900 million for military personnel, $300 million for
O&M, $2.3 billion for procurement and $100 million for military construction.54 As
before, Congress is being asked to finance reorganization of the Army and the Marine
Corps with supplemental funds rather than in the regular defense budget.
DOD argues that these costs should be considered war-related because the
addition of modular units makes it easier to rotate units to the war zone and hence
extends the time between deployments giving soldiers more time at home (“dwell
time”) which would reduce stress on forces, and thus improve readiness. This
conclusion has been questioned in studies by both CBO and the RAND. Both studies
found that modularity would only marginally improve force rotation schedules,
suggesting that the entire modularity initiative would only make available an
additional 6,000 to 7,000 troops.55
One question for Congress may be whether DOD can quantify how much the
time at home for soldiers increased beyond original plans because of previous
supplemental funding for modularity, and what the effect is expected to be of the
$3.6 billion requested in the FY2007 Supplemental.
Front Loading Reconstitution or Reset
Another potentially controversial request in the FY2007 Supplemental is $14
billion that DOD has requested for reset — the replacement of war-worn equipment.
That request appears to “front load” (or fund in advance) DOD’s reset requirements,
as OMB Director Portman acknowledged in recent testimony.56 During final
consideration of the FY2007 DOD appropriations bill, Congress added funds to the
Title IX bridge fund that covers war costs to ensure that DOD’s reset requirements
were fully met. As a result, that bill included $23.7 billion for Army and Marine
Corps reset costs, which is the entire amount that the services said was needed to
53 Program Budget Decision 753, “Other Secretary of Defense Decisions,” December 23,
2004, p. 1.
54 DOD, FY2007 Supplemental, p. 86.
55 The RAND study argued that the types of units created were not those most needed and
CBO found that the number of additional troops available would be only 6,000 to 7,000.
RAND, Stretched Thin: Army Forces for Sustained Operations, July 15, 2005;
[http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG362.pdf]. CBO, An Analysis of
the Military’s Ability to Sustain an Occupation in Iraq: an Update
, October 5, 2005;
[http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/66xx/doc6682/10-05-05-IraqLetter.pdf].
56 Testimony of OMB Director Portman before the House Budget Committee, Hearing on
the FY2008 DOD Budget
, February 6, 2007, p. 41 of transcript.

CRS-47
meet their FY2007 requirements and cover previously unfunded FY2006
requirements.57
Reset is defined as the “process of bringing a unit back to full readiness once
it has been rotated out of a combat operation,” by repairing and replacing equipment
and resting and retraining troops.58 Within DOD’s financial regulations,
“reconstitution” or “reset” is defined as the “supplies [that] must be replaced and
equipment repaired when troops and/or equipment are redeployed or rotated.”59
Reset and reconstitution (which appear to be used interchangeably) therefore
refer to the repair and replacement of war-worn equipment. Typically, about half of
the total has been for repair (funded in O&M) and half for replacement (funded in
procurement). Actual battle losses made up only about 10%, or $1.5 billion of the
Army’s total reset requirement in FY2006, with the remainder due to additional wear
and tear on equipment to added equipment requirements. Equipment is replaced, not
only when it is destroyed, but also when the services decide it is uneconomical to
repair it (“washouts”). Recently, the services have also included in reset requests
funds for recapitalization (rebuilding and upgrading equipment), for adding
modifications to current equipment, and for buying new versions of equipment. This
constitutes a substantial expansion of the traditional definition of reset. Between
FY2002 and the FY2007 bridge fund, the Army and Marine Corps have received a
total of $50.2 billion for reset under this broad definition.60
DOD support documents say that the FY2007 Supplemental includes $14 billion
for reconstitution — all procurement funds. This appears to include funds for
additional war losses, for anticipated replacement of equipment for future wear and
tear, and for upgrading equipment in all of the services. The FY2007 Supplemental
does not reflect additional funds to repair equipment.
If reset requirements were fully-funded in the FY2007 bridge fund, then it is not
clear why DOD should request additional funds in the FY2007 Supplemental.
Further evidence of the front loading of requirements is the inclusion in the FY2007
57 See table inserted by Senator Stevens in Congressional Record, August 2, 2006, p. S8571
showing $23.7 billion for reset including $4.9 billion for an unfunded FY2006 requirement;
see also DOD’s Report to Congress, Long-Term Equipment Repair Costs, September 2006.
58 Office of the Secretary of Defense, Report to Congress, Ground Force Equipment Repair,
Replacement, and Recapitalization Requirements Resulting from Sustained Combat Operations
,
April 2005, p. 8; see also GAO-06-604T, Defense Logistics: Preliminary Observations on
Equipment Reset Challenges and Issues for the Army and Marine Corps
, p. 3.
59 DOD, Financial Management Regulations, Volume 12, Chapter 23, p. 23-27;
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/fmr/12/12_23.pdf].
60 Army officials have frequently cited a figure of $12 billion to $13 billion a year for reset
costs for the Army “as long as the conflict lasts at the current level and “for a minimum of
two to three years beyond.” This includes both repair (funded in O&M) and replacement
(funded in Procurement) of equipment. See statement of Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of
Staff, Department of the Army, before the House Armed Services Committee, “Reset
Strategies for Ground Equipment and Rotor Craft,” June 27, 2006, p. 2

CRS-48
Supplemental of additional amounts for many of the same items funded in the
FY2007 bridge fund.
The FY2007 Supplemental includes funds “recapitalization” even when
recapitalization programs are ongoing and pre-dated OEF/OIF operations. The
request includes large amounts, for example, for Bradley fighting vehicle
recapitalization and M-1A2 SEP (System Enhancement Program) tank upgrades.
Examples of front loading of reset in the FY2007 Supplemental include the following
items (bridge funding shown in brackets) :
! $520 million for Bradley base sustainment ($1.4 billion in bridge);
! $1.6 billion for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles ($795
million in bridge);
! $533 million for SINCGARS Family radios ($125 million in
bridge);
! $573 million for Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles (648 million in
bridge);
! $300 million for Marine Corps radio systems ($850 million in
bridge);
! $45 million for Family of Construction Vehicles ($98 million in
bridge).
One reason for concern about front loading of reset requirements is the
uncertainty of estimates of requirements, uncertainty acknowledged by DOD in a
report to Congress last fall.61 Although it is to be expected that reset requirements
will grow as equipment is stressed by operations, the validity of specific estimates
has not been established. Recently, GAO testified that until FY2007, the Army could
not track reset expenditures sufficiently to ensure that funds appropriated for reset
were in fact spent for that purpose.62 Without tracking of reset underway, DOD will
have difficulty knowing whether the items included as reset were in fact, those that
broke down and were repaired or replaced. A question for Congress may be whether
front loading these costs is advisable given the uncertainty of requirements.

Reset requirements may also be uncertain because the number of troops and
intensity of operations may change, as DOD has also acknowledged. In an earlier
estimate last spring, the Army estimated that reset requirements would decrease from
$13 billion a year to $10.5 billion a year for the next two years and then decline to
$2 billion a year if troops were withdrawn over a two-year period.63 Earlier estimates
of cost were also lower. In March 2005, for example, CBO estimated that annual
repair and replacement costs would run about $8 billion a year for all four services
61 See Office of the Secretary of Defense, Report to Congress: Long-Term Equipment
Repair Costs
, September 2006; see p. 4 in the Executive Summary, which states “Future
Reset costs will continue to change over time as battle losses and equipment Reset
requirements continue to accrue.”
62 GAO-07-439T, Testimony of William Solis before the Subcommittee on Readiness and
Air and Land Forces, House Armed Services Committee, January 31, 2007, p. 2 and 3.
63 Army Briefing, “Army equipment Reset Update,” May 18, 2006, p. 8.

CRS-49
(about $6 billion to $7 billion for the Army and Marine Corps) based on the then-
current pace of operations and service data.64
Another question that has been raised about reset requirements is whether it is
appropriate for the services to replace equipment that is no longer being produced
with new items that are just beginning or have not yet begun production. DOD’s
regulations caution the services not to request “accelerations of baseline procurement
end items” for contingencies unless specifically approved by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, presumably on an exception basis.65
Yet, the Air Force includes $389 million for two JSF Joint Strike Fighters, $146
million for CV-22 Ospreys and $388 million for C-130J aircraft, all new systems
just beginning or not yet in production.66 DOD argues that in cases when an item
is no longer in production, it is appropriate to request such replacements. The
Administration’s amended requests cuts these programs probably recognizing
congressional scepticism about this argument.
Other, similar examples include the Navy request for $450 million for EA-18G
electronic warfare aircraft and $71 million for MV-22 aircraft, both new aircraft just
beginning production. In its March 9, 2007 amendment, the Administration
withdrew its request for five of the six EA-18G aircraft requested. Some might argue
that it is questionable whether these types of requests qualify as an emergency
requirement closely tied to war operations since the equipment ordered would not
be delivered for about three years.67
It appears that the FY2007 request includes substantial funds for major
platforms intended to anticipated losses from the stress of war operations as well as
replacement gear that would not be needed this year and many modifications
designed to improve capability. While such requests would fit the new guidance to
accelerate acquiring new capabilities anticipated to be needed for the longer war,
such requests may not be directly linked to OIF/OEF operations.
64 CBO Testimony by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director, “The Potential Costs Resulting from
Increased Usage of Military Equipment in Ongoing Operations,” before the Subcommittee
on Readiness, House Armed Services Committee April 6, 2005, p. 2. At the time, CBO had
estimates similar to the services for the amount of accrued costs for reset.
65 DOD, Financial Management Regulations, Volume 12, Chapter 23, p. 23-27;
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/fmr/12/12_23.pdf].
66 Production of Navy JSF aircraft begins in FY2008; advance procurement begins in
FY2007; see Air Force GWOT justification materials.
67 For equipment requested in the FY2007 Supplemental, see DOD, FY2007 Emergency
Supplemental Request, Procurement, P-1 Exhibit
, February 2007;
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/fy2007_supplemental/FY2007_Emer
gency_Supplemental_Request_for_the_GWOT/FY_2007_Emergency_Supplemental_Re
quest_(Atch).pdf]

CRS-50
Equipping and Training Afghan and Iraqi Security Forces
In addition to funds already provided in the FY2007 bridge funds and other
funds still available from FY2006 appropriations, the FY2007 Supplemental request
includes $5.9 billion to equip and train Afghan security forces and $3.8 billion for
Iraqi security forces. If these funds are approved, the total to train and equip Afghan
and Iraqi security forces would more than double from $4.9 billion in FY2006 to
$12.9 billion in FY2007.
Between FY2006 and FY2007, annual appropriations would grow from $1.9
billion to $7.4 billion for Afghan forces and from $3.0 billion to $5.5 billion for Iraqi
forces if the FY2007 supplemental is approved. In addition to programmatic issues,
Congress may consider whether such steep increases can be absorbed effectively.
As of November 2006, DOD had available — from either FY2006 or FY2007 bridge
funds — $4.1 billion for Afghan security forces and $3.8 billion for Iraq security
forces.68 Taking these unobligated funds into account, the total available for Afghan
security forces would be $10 billion, and for Iraqi forces, $7 billion, over the next
year and a half if Congress approves DOD’s request.69
From FY2003 through the FY2007 bridge fund, Congress has appropriated
$15.4 billion to train and equip Iraqi forces and at least $4.7 billion for Afghan
forces.70 DOD reports that the United States and coalition forces have trained
328,500 Iraqi security forces and 112,000 Afghan army and police forces. The
additional funds for Afghanistan are intended to increase the number trained,
equipped, sustained, and housed from 115,000 to 152,000 presumably at a cost of the
additional $10 billion available. For Iraq, funding would improve logistical
capabilities and enhance Air Force and naval capabilities.71
Amendment to Restore FY2007 Funding
for Base Realignment and Closure

On March 9, the White House submitted two formal amendments to its FY2007
supplemental request. One amendment, discussed above, is to add $3.2 billion for
4,700 additional troops in Iraq, 7,200 additional troops in Afghanistan, additional
armor protected vehicles, medical support for returning military personnel, and some
other purposes. Costs are offset mainly by reducing funding for F-35 and EA-18G
aircraft.
A second amendment is to add $3.1 billion to finance FY2007 base realignment
and closure (BRAC) costs that Congress did not fund in military construction section
of the full-year FY2007 continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 20, P.L. 110-5). The
68 CRS calculations based on Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS),
Supplemental & Cost of War Execution Reports, September 2006 and November 2006.
69 Funds are available for obligation for two years.
70 Total includes $5 billion appropriated for Iraq training in FY2004 to the State Department.
Afghanistan has received funding for its training through other accounts.
71 DOD, FY2007 Supplemental, pp. 38ff and pp. 50ff.

CRS-51
amendment also proposes $3.1 billion of offsetting rescissions entirely from domestic
appropriations accounts. The proposal to take the offsets in domestic funds may
become a significant political issue. In effect, the White House is challenging
Congress on the whole process through which emergency supplemental funding has
come to be used to ease restrictions on overall discretionary funding. By eliminating
BRAC funding from the continuing resolution, Congress was able to increase non-
defense appropriations without exceeding budget resolution caps. To restore BRAC
funding as emergency supplemental appropriations would be, in effect, to use defense
emergency spending to allow an increase in non-defense programs. The White
House budget amendment constitutes an objection to the continued use of emergency
funding to avoid budget constraints.
FY2007 International Affairs Supplemental
Overview
In recent years, supplemental appropriations have become a significant source
of additional funds for international affairs (150 account) programs at a time when
regular appropriations have been constrained by budget pressures. Supplemental
funding has been used not only to support expanded U.S. efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan, but also to respond to international crises and natural disasters.
In response, there has been some criticism that the Administration has relied too
heavily on supplementals and that some items should be incorporated into the regular
appropriations cycle. The Administration counters that given the nature of rapidly
changing overseas events and unforeseen contingencies, it is necessary to make
supplemental requests for unexpected and non-recurring expenses. Since FY1999,
after the bombings of two U.S. Embassies in Africa in August 1998, Congress has
approved Foreign Operations supplemental appropriations exceeding $1 billion each
year. The Bush Administration’s supplemental request for international affairs
totaled $6.3 billion in FY2005 and $4.2 billion in FY2006, amounting to about 13%
and 21%, respectively, of the regularly-enacted foreign affairs budgets.
The FY2007 supplemental request of $5.993 billion for international affairs
represents about 20% of the FY2007 enacted international affairs funding. Of the
nearly $6 billion for international affairs spending, $4.8 billion is proposed for
foreign assistance programs, while $1.18 billion would fund State Department
operations, public diplomacy, and broadcasting programs.
Within the foreign assistance part of the supplemental request, security and
reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan dominate, with $2.3 billion for Iraq and $721
million for Afghanistan. The supplemental request for Iraq is in addition to $749
million requested in the FY2007 regular budget, for a total of $3 billion.72 If
72 Because the FY2007 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 109-289 as amended by P.L. 110-5) was
enacted late in the fiscal year, estimates of country level funding are not yet available for
FY2007. This analysis is based on the FY2007 request. As Iraq and Afghanistan are
(continued...)

CRS-52
Congress approves the FY2007 supplemental request, amounts for Iraq would
represent nearly 11% of total foreign aid funds in 2007. Similarly, the
Administration’s funding request for Afghanistan of $1.1 billion in the regular
FY2007 budget would total $1.768 billion with the supplemental, representing 6%
of the total foreign aid budget.
Other significant bilateral assistance funding is requested for Kosovo, Lebanon,
and Sudan. Additional supplemental funds for humanitarian assistance, migration
assistance, peacekeeping operations, and food aid are also sought for a number of
countries. The supplemental request also includes $161 million to address the
potential for a global avian influenza pandemic.
For State Department operations, the Administration’s FY2007 supplemental
request of $1.17 billion would be largely for activities and the U.S. Mission in Iraq.
Another $10 million for the Broadcasting Board of Governors would be for expanded
broadcasting in Arabic on the U.S.-established Alhurra Television into 22 Middle
East countries.
The conference agreement (H.Rept. 110-107) provides a total of $6.20 billion,
an amount that is $203 million above the request. Of the total, $4.9 billion would
fund foreign assistance, including P.L. 480 food aid, and $1.3 billion would fund
State Department operations and international broadcasting.
The House FY2007 supplemental bill included a total of $6.34 billion — $5.01
billion for foreign assistance and $1.33 billion for the State Department operations
and international broadcasting. This represents about $347 million more than the
Administration’s supplemental request for international affairs accounts. The Senate
FY2007 supplemental bill included a total of about $6.25 billion — $5.1 billion for
foreign assistance and $1.15 billion for State Department operations and international
broadcasting.
Iraq Reconstruction Assistance73
The Administration’s FY2007 supplemental request would provide a total of
$6.6 billion for Iraq reconstruction (see Table 5). Over $4 billion of this sum is out
of the Defense appropriations (050 account) portion of the request and would support
the equipping and training of Iraqi security forces ($3.8 billion for the Iraq Security
Forces Fund) as well as provide U.S. troops with the capability to fund small-scale,
grassroots development projects rapidly in an effort to stabilize areas of military
operation ($350 million in the Commander’s Emergency Response Program —
CERP). An Administration revision to the original request would support a scheme
to rehabilitate Iraqi State-owned enterprises ($100 million in the Iraq Freedom Fund).
72 (...continued)
considered critical programs by the Administration, and because the CR did not contain
specific limitations on funds to Iraq and Afghanistan, it is reasonable to assume that final
levels will be similar to the request.
73 Prepared by Curt Tarnoff, Specialist in Foreign Affairs.

CRS-53
The remaining $2.3 billion is requested under six foreign operations (150)
accounts meeting a variety of economic reconstruction and humanitarian objectives.
Most of this funding — $2.1 billion — falls under the Economic Support Fund and
would continue existing efforts to encourage private sector and agricultural policy
reform, strengthen civil society, foster democratization, and assist the national
ministry staff in the performance of their duties.
Table 5. FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations
for Iraq Reconstruction
International Affairs (Budget Function 150 Accounts)
Administration Request
H.R. 1591 Conference
Report

Economic Support Fund (ESF):
$2,072 million:
$1,574 million:
of which —
of which —
— PRTs, CAPs, and CSP
$1,254 million $1,159
million
(community stabilization program)
— Economic programs, agriculture $100 million
$147.4 million
reform, private sector reform;
— National Capacity Development, $290 million
$267 million
regulatory reform, civil society
— Democracy
$428 million

Democracy Fund

$250 million
International Narcotics Control and Law
$200 million
$150 million
Enforcement (INCLE)
Non-Proliferation, Anti-Terrorism, De-
$7 million
$7 million
mining, and Related Programs (NADR)
Migration and Refugee Assistance
$15 million
$45 million
(MRA)
Treasury
$2.75 million
$2.75 million
International Disaster and Famine
$45 million
$45 million
Assistance (IDFA)
TOTAL 150 Account
$2,341.75 million
$2,073.75 million
Department of Defense (Budget Function 050 Accounts) *
Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF)
$3,842.3 million
$3,842.3 million
Commander’s Emergency Response
$350 million
$350.4 million
Program (CERP)
Iraq Freedom Fund: for Iraqi State-
$100 million
$50 million
owned enterprises
GRAND TOTAL
$6,634.05 million
$6,316.45 million
150 & 050
Sources: Department of State and Department of Defense FY2008 Congressional Budget
Justifications and H.R. 1591 Conference Report.
*Note: Department of Defense program funding is also discussed in the parts of this report that
address the DOD supplemental request and amounts are shown in other tables there.
More than half of the proposed ESF funds appear intended to directly assist the
President’s new strategy for Iraq. As announced in early January, the reconstruction

CRS-54
component of that strategy would double the number of Provincial Reconstruction
Teams (PRTs) from 10 to 20 and increase the number of U.S. civilian staff for them
from 250 to at least 400.74 The PRTs, composed of State Department, U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID), Department of Defense (DOD), and other
agency staff, work with the Iraqi provincial governments to identify projects that can
be implemented with U.S. funding, and, at the same time, they seek to strengthen the
capacity of Iraqi officials to meet local needs. In essence, the new strategy envisions
that, as U.S. and Iraqi military forces clear an area of Baghdad or Anbar province,
PRT staff would immediately work with local Iraqis to further stabilize the area by
drawing on all available spigots of U.S. and Iraqi government funding to create jobs
and meet other basic needs.
The President’s plan would increase PRTs in Baghdad from one to six and in
Anbar province from one to three. To enhance U.S. civilian staff security and
improve program effectiveness, greater effort would be made to integrate U.S.
civilian teams with U.S. military battalions. The military’s CERP, and USAID’s
Community Stabilization Program (CSP) and Community Action Program (CAP)
funded by the FY2007 Supplemental would help support activities identified by the
PRTs, as would the infusion of $10 billion in promised funds from the Iraqi
government. The FY2007 supplemental would provide funds to the PRTs for the
kinds of grassroots activities they have supported elsewhere, such as improvements
to community infrastructure, job training, vocational education, and micro-loans.
Security and staffing problems encountered by already existing PRTs, however,
could possibly hinder the effectiveness of an expanded PRT program. In October
2006, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) asserted that,
due to security constraints on travel outside their compounds, many PRT staff could
not regularly meet with local government officials to carry out their capacity-building
chores, and a former PRT staff member claims that local Iraqis are too intimidated
by insurgent threats to meet with U.S. staff. The State Department’s Coordinator for
Iraq, David Satterfield, asserts that the SIGIR views on this issue do not reflect
current reality.75 Most observers, however, would not dispute that the ability of U.S.
and Iraqi troops to secure and hold new areas of operation is key to the success of
expanded civilian PRT efforts.
A second issue that might affect the success of the PRT expansion is the
availability of U.S. civilian staff. In the past, DOD military civil affairs personnel
filled slots for which U.S. civilians could not be recruited. However, the SIGIR has
suggested that the need for required specialized skills for such posts as local
government, economic, and agricultural advisers is still not being fully met with this
approach. Although Secretary Rice has asserted that most positions are filled, it has
been reported that about 129 of the new PRT posts are going to be occupied
temporarily by military personnel until State is able to recruit sufficient numbers of
74 State Department Iraq Coordinator David Satterfield has said the staff increases from 290
to 600. Teleconference, February 7, 2007.
75 SIGIR, Status of the Provincial Reconstruction Team Program in Iraq, 06-034, October
29, 2006; “Ex-Envoy Says Iraq Rebuilding Plan Won’t Work,” Reuters, February 17, 2007;
Teleconference of Ambassador Satterfield, February 7, 2007.

CRS-55
civilian contract personnel. As many as 269 such personnel are expected to be
needed eventually.76
Associated with the reconstruction assistance program is an additional funding
request (not included in the table) within the State Department account to cover the
operational costs of both the PRTs ($414.1 million) and the Special Inspector
General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) ($35 million).
On March 9, the Administration submitted a revision to its original
supplemental request, including funds under the Iraq Freedom Fund account within
the DOD portion of the request that would support reconstruction programs and
operations. An additional $150 million to support PRT operational costs would go
to providing transportation, force protection, and body armor to all PRT personnel
co-located with U.S. military as well as special pay and benefits for the 129 DOD-
sponsored PRT temporary personnel noted above. A DOD plan to rehabilitate more
than 140 of the nearly 200 state-owned enterprises that composed a large portion of
the Iraqi economy prior to the U.S. occupation would be supported by $100 million.
Soon after the occupation began, the Coalition Provisional Authority, hoping to
create a free-market economy, attempted to privatize these enterprises, but gave up
when the turnover to sovereignty was accelerated. The Department of Defense
expects that the revitalized factories will generate employment for as many as
150,000 Iraqis. U.S. assistance will provide necessary machines, tools and
generators.
Congressional Action. The House-passed measure, H.R. 1591, would
provide $6,329.05 for Iraq reconstruction, a cut of $305 million from the
Administration request. The cuts occur in three accounts. The ESF account is
decreased by $185 million — $100 million from the PRTs, $30 million from the
Community Stabilization Program (CSP), and $80 million from the proposed
political development activities.77 H.R. 1591 adds $25 million to USAID’s
Community Action Program (CAP). A $20 million cut in INCLE funds is aimed at
the requested construction of prison facilities. The revised Iraq Freedom Fund $100
million request to assist Iraqi state-owned enterprises is neither funded nor addressed.
The House-passed legislation would impose conditions on the availability of
appropriated reconstruction funds under the ISFF, ESF, and INCLE accounts. Half
of the appropriated funds would be withheld unless the President certified by October
1, 2007, that, among other things, the Government of Iraq had enacted the hydro-
carbon law, taken specific steps toward provincial and local elections, reformed de-
Baathification laws, and begun expenditure of the promised $10 billion Iraqi funds
for reconstruction. ESF funds supporting the CAP and CSP programs as well as
76 Testimony of Secretary Rice to Senate Foreign Relations Committee, January 11, 2007;
“Pentagon Agrees to Help Fill State Department’s Iraq Reconstruction Jobs on Temporary
Basis,” New York Times, February 20, 2007; Teleconference of Ambassador Satterfield,
February 7, 2007.
77 It should be noted, however, that bill language would permit the Secretary of Defense to
move as much as $100 million from the Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide account
to ESF in support of the PRTs.

CRS-56
democratization activities, however, would be excepted from the certification
requirement.
The bill would require the appointment by the President of a Coordinator for
Iraq Assistance. The Coordinator would develop and implement an assistance
strategy, coordinate assistance implemented by multiple U.S. departments and
agencies, work with Iraq to achieve benchmarks, coordinate with other donors, and
ensure adequate management and accountability. Currently there are three
individuals who play roles that could be described as coordinating — the Coordinator
for Iraq policy in Washington (David Satterfield), the Iraq Reconstruction
Management Office (IRMO) head within the U.S. embassy who is expected to set
requirements and priorities for reconstruction (Ambassador Joseph Saloom), and the
newly appointed Coordinator for Economic Transition in Iraq expected to help the
Iraqis use their resources in conjunction with U.S. assistance to meet Iraqi
reconstruction needs (Ambassador Timothy Carney).
The request for operational costs associated with Iraq reconstruction would be
changed by the House measure. PRT operational support contained in the
Administration’s revised request for the DOD Iraq Freedom Fund is neither funded
nor addressed. PRT operational funding under the State Department would be cut
by $33.3 million to $380.8 million, while the appropriation for the SIGIR would
increase by $10.5 million to $45.5 million. The legislation would also extend the
life-span of the SIGIR by including, for the purpose of calculating its termination
date, FY2007 and FY2008 reconstruction funds from any account in the definition
of the IRRF. Currently, the SIGIR terminates ten months after 80% of the IRRF and
FY2006 funds are expended. The House Appropriations Committee’s report notes
that it intends FY2007 supplemental funds to be under the oversight jurisdiction of
the SIGIR. However, H.R. 1591 does not accordingly amend the SIGIR’s current
authorization.
In a March 19 Statement of Administration Policy, the Administration objected
to the House-proposed cuts in PRT programs and operations, arguing that PRT
activities are necessary to create a self-reliant Iraq. The Administration also opposed
a provision establishing an Iraq reconstruction coordinator, noting that a coordinator
already exists.
The Senate-passed version of the FY2007 Supplemental would provide
$6,491.05, $143 million less than the Administration request. Four accounts are
changed from the request. The Committee provides $1.524 billion in ESF, $548
million less than the request. Most notably, the Committee cuts $60 million from the
PRTs, adds $50 million to the CAP, and cuts $518 million from political, mostly
democracy, activities. Compensating to some extent for the political cuts, however,
is the addition to the Democracy Fund, not requested by the Administration, of $385
million for democracy activities in Iraq. When this Fund is taken into account, the
cut in broad ESF-type activities is $160 million less than the request.
In addition, the INCLE account is set at $150 million — with $50 million cut
from prison construction. The MRA account is increased by $50 million to a level
of $65 million in view of the recent increases in displaced people. And IDFA is
increased by $20 million to a level of $65 million. Unlike the House, the Senate bill

CRS-57
matches the Administration revised request for $100 million under the Iraq Freedom
Fund to support Iraqi state-owned enterprises. The Senate measure contains the same
conditions on providing most economic assistance as the House version. The Senate
bill reconfigures the termination date of the SIGIR to include FY2007 funds, but,
unlike the House, does not include FY2008 funds. Like the House, the Senate
Committee report supports the extension of the SIGIR’s oversight authority without
providing the legislative language to accomplish that end.
With regard to operational costs, the Senate bill cut the State portion of PRT
costs by $41.4 million to a level of $372.7 million, but agreed to the revised request
of $150 million under the DOD Iraq Freedom Fund for PRT support costs. The
Senate met the Administration request for the SIGIR and added $3 million for the
USAID Inspector General’s activities in Iraq. In its report, the Senate Appropriations
Committee also noted its support for a longer-term presence in Iraq by the GAO.
The conference report on H.R. 1591 filed on April 24 would provide a total of
$6.3 billion in Iraq reconstruction assistance, $316 million less than the
Administration request (see Table 5). The bill matches the Administration request
for both the ISFF and the CERP. Among the most significant differences between
the request and the conference report is a cut of roughly $248 million from proposed
political, social, and economic assistance programs that would be funded under ESF
in the Administration proposal and under ESF and the Democracy Fund in H.R.
1591. Within these accounts, PRT programs are cut by $100 million to $620 million,
National Capacity Development by $40 million to $140 million, and Policy and
Regulatory Reform by $50 million to a level of $60 million. The conferees oppose
any direct support to Iraqi political parties and, accordingly, have zeroed out funds
for the Political Participation Fund and the National Institutions Fund. H.R. 1591
increases funding from the Administration request for the USAID Community
Action Program (CAP) by $45 million to a level of $95 million and provides an
unrequested $67.6 million for civil society development. It also supports economic
and social development programs run by NGOs with $57.4 million, funds which are
to be allocated by the Chief of the U.S. Mission. Of the $250 million for Iraq that
goes to the Democracy Fund, $190 million is to be allocated by the State
Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and $60 million is
under USAID control. The bill also would cut by half the $100 million request for
DOD support to Iraqi state-owned enterprises.
The conference report maintains House language, noted above, calling for
establishment of a Coordinator for Iraq Reconstruction. It also contains House
conditions on availability of half of the ESF and INCLE funding pending a
certification of Iraqi progress on specific points, but removes the ISFF from the
certification requirement and deletes a specific date by which the requirement must
be met.
With regard to operational costs, the conference report cuts the DOD Iraq
Freedom Fund support for PRTs by $50 million to a level of $100 million and deletes
the House provision that would allow DOD to transfer $100 million from the
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide account to PRTs. It fully funds the
SIGIR request at $35 million. It cuts the overall State operational request for the

CRS-58
embassy and PRTs by $74 million, but does not earmark a portion of the $750
million total to set apart funds available for the PRTs.

Afghanistan78
Background. Afghanistan’s political transition was completed with the
convening of a parliament in December 2005, but in 2006 insurgent threats to
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 are
enjoying new personal freedoms, particularly in the northern and western regions of
the country, that were forbidden under the Taliban. Women are participating in
economic and political life, including as ministers, provincial governors, and senior
levels of the new parliament.
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 commanders anticipate a Taliban “spring offensive” and are moving to try to
preempt it. Contributing to the Taliban resurgence has been popular frustration with
slow reconstruction, official corruption, and the failure to extend Afghan government
authority into rural areas and provinces, particularly in the south and east. 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 also said that some Taliban commanders are
operating from Pakistan, putting them outside the reach of U.S./NATO forces in
Afghanistan.
U.S. and partner stabilization measures focus on strengthening the central
government and its security forces and on promoting reconstructing while combating
the renewed insurgent challenge. As part of this effort, the international community
has been running PRTs to secure reconstruction (Provincial Reconstruction Teams,
PRTs).
FY2007 Supplemental Request. The Administration is requesting a total
of $720.9 million in supplemental funds for Afghanistan, which include several
provisions intended to continue U.S. efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and continue
economic reconstruction efforts.
Key elements of the FY2007 supplemental request are:
! $653 million in Economic Support Funds (ESF) for reconstruction
efforts to continue security and development strategy. The ESF
funding focuses primarily on reconstruction efforts in provinces in
78 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in Foreign Affairs and Kenneth Katzman,
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs.

CRS-59
the south and southeastern regions that have been affected by the
recent increased threats by the insurgency and Taliban. Specific
efforts include emergency power sector projects; building roads;
expanding rural development projects; and expanding governance
initiatives. Support for democratic governance, reconstruction and
development programs are seen as critical to the counterinsurgency
effort. The Administration is also developing a new initiative,
Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZ) in Afghanistan and border
regions with Pakistan to stimulate economic activity in
underdeveloped, isolated regions.
The $653 million would be allocated as follows:
! $382 million would be made available for infrastructure, including
road projects ($342 million) focused on those segments that are of
strategic military importance and provide key connections between
the central and provincial government capitals; and the development
of power sector projects ($40 million);
! $133 million would be used as part of an effort to improve
livelihoods in the counter-narcotics strategy. Alternative economic
development initiatives ($120 million) would be expanded to rural
areas likely to increase poppy cultivation; and $13 million would be
for agriculture;
! $138 million would be used to strengthen provincial governance,
particularly through the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) as
follows: $117 million for PRTs including $82 million for
infrastructure, tools, and training and $35 million for PRT
governance; and $21 million for capacity building in governance.
In addition to the ESF funding, the request includes:
! $47.155 million to support Diplomatic and Consular Programs
(DCP) in Afghanistan as part of a worldwide security upgrade in the
Global War on Terror;
! $15 million in Non-Proliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and
Related Programs (NADR) to support the Afghan leadership through
the Presidential Protection Service; and
! $5.7 million for FY2007 security requirements for U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) operations in Afghanistan.
Congressional Action. The House-passed supplemental recommends a
total of $743 million in ESF funding for Afghanistan (which is $90 million above the
Administration’s request) with the following proposed changes:
! $292 million to develop infrastructure ($50 million less than the
Administration’s request for road projects);

CRS-60
! $173 million to improve livelihoods ($40 million more than the
request for rural development); and
! $238 to strengthen provincial governance ($100 million more than
the request, directed toward PRTs – total PRT funding increased to
$217 million).
The House bill also provides $94.5 million for International Narcotics Control
and Law Enforcement (INCLE) activities in Afghanistan specifically for
counternarcotics, Afghan police training, and development of justice institutions.
The Administration’s request did not include funding in this account. In its report,
the Committee expressed its belief that these activities are central to the
reconstruction and stabilization strategy in Afghanistan and requested that the State
Department report to the committee on planned expenditures for the INCLE account.
In its report, the House Appropriations Committee also expressed its concerns
about the increasing attacks by the Taliban and Al Qaeda, what appear to be record
levels of poppy cultivation, and the links between opium production and the
financing of terrorist groups. The committee identified rural development projects
and the PRTs as two important mechanisms for promoting stabilization, security and
the reach of the central government. While funding for infrastructure projects
continues to be critical, the committee also noted that there should be more
investment by other donors in these kinds of programs.
The Senate supplemental recommends a total of $686 million in ESF funding
for Afghanistan (which is $33 million above the Administration’s request) with the
following proposed changes:
! $125 million to improve livelihoods ($5 million more than the
request for alternative economic development initiatives); and $25
million for agriculture ($12 million more than the request);
! $144 to strengthen provincial governance, with $104 million for
PRTs ($22 million more than the request for PRT infrastructure,
tools and training) and $40 million for the PRT governance program
($5 million more than the request); and no funding under governance
building capacity ($21 million less than the request), but the Senate
Appropriations Committee notes that $25 million is recommended
for the Democracy Fund (below);
! $10 million for a Civilian Assistance Program (not funded in the
request) for civilians suffering loss from military operations.
The Senate bill also recommends:
! $55 million to support DCP in Afghanistan (7.845 more than the
request) of which $13 million is for armored vehicles and $42
million is for local guards in Kabul; and

CRS-61
! USAID operating expenses ($5.7 million) remain unchanged from
the request, but the bill recommends $1 million be added for the
USAID Office of the Inspector General (not included in the request).
In addition to the ESF and other programs in the request for Afghanistan, the
Senate bill recommends adding $62 million in programs as follows:
! $25 million for the Democracy Fund for programs on democracy,
human rights, governance, and rule of law (an increase of $4 million
over the governance building capacity of $21 million in the request
under ESF);
! $18 million for Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA);
! $18 million for International Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA)
for Internally Displaced Persons Assistance, particularly in and
around Kabul.
The Conference agreement recommends a total of $737 in ESF funding ($84
million above the request) as follows:
! $40 million for new power generation (same as the request)
! $314 million for rural road rebuilding ($28 million below the
request)
! $155 million for rural development ($35 million above the request)
! $19 million for agriculture ($6 million above the request)
! $174 million for PRTs ($57 million above the request)
! $25 million for governance capacity building ($4 million above the
request)
! $10 million for a Civilian Assistance Program (not in the request)
In addition to the ESF and other programs in the request for Afghanistan, the
Conference agreement recommends adding the following:
! $79 million to support DCP in Afghanistan ($31.8 million more than
the request);
! $16 million for Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA);
! $16 million for International Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA)
for Internally Displaced Persons Assistance, particularly in and
around Kabul; and
! $47 million for International Narcotics Control and Law
Enforcement (INCLE) activities in Afghanistan.

CRS-62
Table 6. Afghanistan Aid
(millions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Activity
Base
Supp
Supp
Supp
Supp
(appropriation account)a
Estimate
Request
House
Senate
Conf
Infrastructure aid (ESF)
230.0
653.0
743.0
686.0
737.0
Afghan refugees (MRA)
38.0
18.0
16.0
IDFA
18.0
16.0
Democracy Fund
25.0
U.S. mission security (DCP)
82.0
47.2
47.2
55.0
79.0
USAID mission security
13.3
5.7
5.7
6.7
5.7
(OE)
NADR
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
INCLE
94.5
47.0
Total
363.3
720.9
905.4
823.7
915.7
Source: FY2007 budget materials.
Notes: Data in this table reflect ongoing and FY2007 proposed funding for programs the same as or
similar to those requested in the FY2006 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 both Iraq and Afghanistan.
ESF = economic Support Fund, MRA=Migration and Refugee Assistance, DCP=Diplomatic and
Consular Programs, OE=operating expenses, NADR=Non-proliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining,
and Related Programs, and INCLE=International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
P.L. 480 - Title II emergency food aid funds are included in a total appropriation of $200 million
available for missions in Afghanistan and parts of Africa.
Sudan — Darfur and Other Sudan79
The Administration seeks a total of $361.9 million in supplemental funds for
Sudan, most of which would be for humanitarian and peacekeeping support in the
Darfur region.
Darfur Crisis. The crisis in Darfur began in February 2003, when two rebel
groups emerged to challenge the National Islamic Front (NIF) government in Darfur.
The Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM)
claim that the government of Sudan discriminates against Muslim African ethnic
groups in Darfur and has systematically targeted these ethnic groups since the early
1990s. The conflict in Darfur burgeoned when the government of Sudan and its
allied militia began a campaign of terror against civilians in an effort to crush the
79 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in Foreign Affairs and Ted Dagne, Specialist
in International Relations.

CRS-63
rebellion and to punish the core constituencies of the rebels. Since 2003, an
estimated 300,000-400,000 civilians have been killed, more than two million have
been displaced and more than half of the population has been affected directly and
is dependent on international support. The atrocities against civilians continue in
Darfur, according to U.N. reports, U.S. officials, and human rights groups. Congress
and the Bush Administration have called the atrocities genocide. The African Union
has deployed an estimated 7,700 peacekeeping troops, including military observers
and civilian police.
Major elements of the FY2007 supplemental request include:
! $40 million in International Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA)
funding for immediate, life-saving needs of victims of the Darfur
crisis, including health care, access to water and sanitation, and
shelter;
! $150 million for additional food assistance (P.L. 480, Title II) in
Sudan and Eastern Chad;
! $150 million in support of Darfur peacekeeping, including the
African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS). As part of the
supplemental request, and to maintain the flexibility to fund AMIS
or provide support for transition of AMIS to a United Nations
peacekeeping force, the Administration is requesting transfer
authority from Contributions for International Peacekeeping
Activities (CIPA) to Peacekeeping Operations (PKO); and
! $21.9 million in support of U.S. Mission Security within State
Department’s Diplomatic and Consular Programs (DCP), both
Ongoing Operations and Worldwide Security Upgrades.
In addition to these funds specifically for Sudan, the FY2007 supplemental
request also includes $30 million in Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance
(ERMA) funds for a number of crises. Some of these funds could support planning
for Darfur refugee flows to Chad. The request also includes $128 million to support
anticipated international peacekeeping missions in Africa, which could also focus on
Darfur.
Congressional Action. The House supplemental bill appears to recommend
the same funding levels put forward in the Administration’s request for Sudan.
The Senate FY2007 Supplemental makes a few changes as follows:
! $49 million in International Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA)
funding for Sudan ($9 million above the request); and
! $16.9 million in support of U.S. Mission Security within State
Department’s Diplomatic and Consular Programs (DCP), both
Ongoing Operations and Worldwide Security Upgrades ($5 million
less than the request).

CRS-64
It is presumed that $150 million for additional food assistance (P.L. 480, Title
II) in Sudan and Eastern Chad, and $150 million in support of Darfur peacekeeping,
including the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS), remain unchanged from the
request.
The conference agreement recommends changes as follows:
! $44 million in International Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA)
funding for Sudan ($4 million above the request); and
! $19.4 million in support of U.S. Mission Security within State
Department’s Diplomatic and Consular Programs (DCP), both
Ongoing Operations and Worldwide Security Upgrades ($2.5
million less than the request); and
It is presumed that $150 million for additional food assistance (P.L. 480, Title
II) in Sudan and Eastern Chad, and $150 million in support of Darfur peacekeeping,
including the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS), remain unchanged from the
request.
Table 7. Sudan Supplemental
( millions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Activity
Base
Supp.
Supp.
Supp.
Supp
(appropriation account)a
Estimate
Request
House
Senate
Conf
Humanitarian relief (IDFA)
40.0
40.0
49.0
44.0
Refugees in Darfur & Chad (MRA)
PL480, Title II food aid
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
AMIS (PKO)
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
U.N. peacekeeping mission/Darfur
0.0
0.0
(CIPA)
U.S. Mission Security (DCP)
21.9
21.9
16.9
19.4
Total
$361.9
$361.9
$365.9
$363.4
Source: FY2007 budget materials.
As part of the supplemental request, the Administration is requesting transfer authority from CIPA to
PKO.
Notes: Data in this table reflect ongoing funding for programs the same as or similar to those
requested in the FY2006 supplemental. The Total line does not represent total aid or mission
operations for Sudan.
ERMA funds include a total appropriation of $30 million available for places such as Somalia, Chad,
West Bank/Gaza, Iraq and Sri Lanka. The funds could also support planning for Darfur refugee flows
to Chad.
PKO funds include an additional appropriation of $128 million to support anticipated peacekeeping
in Africa, including Darfur.

CRS-65
Other Foreign Aid and Humanitarian Assistance80
In addition to amounts provided for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan, the request
includes $2.69 billion in funding for other countries and activities from a variety of
accounts.
Lebanon. Following the Israeli-Hamas-Hezbollah conflict during the summer
of 2006, the Administration is requesting $585.5 million for Lebanon. The largest
portion is $300 million in Economic Support Funds (ESF) of which $250 million
would be for budget support and the remainder for post-conflict reconstruction. The
request also includes $220 million in Foreign Military Financing to train and equip
the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in support of the U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1701 that calls for performance standards for the LAF. A third
component is $60 million in International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
(INCLE) funds to support the Internal Security Forces (ISF) that is in charge of
guarding Lebanon’s ports, airports, and borders. An additional $5.5 million is
requested from the Non-Proliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related
Programs (NADR) account for a terrorist interdiction program. As part of the State
Department’s Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities, $184 million
would be used to contribute to the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
Congressional Action. The conference agreement provides $295 million
in ESF funds, a $5 million reduction from the request, of which $250 million is
designated as budget support, and $45 million for project assistance. An additional
$5 million is provided for Lebanon from the Democracy Fund account. $60 million
is provided in narcotics (INCLE) funding as requested. The conference agreement
also included $220 million in FMF funds, the same as the request. Under
Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities, the conference agreement
provides $184 million, as requested, for the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon.
Section 1803 of the bill limits the release of ESF, FMF and INCLE funds
contingent on certain reports and certifications. To release ESF funds, the Secretary
must report on Lebanon’s economic reform plan and benchmarks on cash transfer
assistance, similar to the House-passed language. To release FMF and INCLE funds,
the Secretary must report on procedures established to determine the eligibility of
members and units of the armed forces and police forces of Lebanon to participate
in training and assistance programs. A certification is required prior to the initial
obligation of FMF and NADR funds that all practicable efforts have been made to
ensure that assistance does not go to any individual, or private or government entity
that advocates, plans, sponsors, engages in, or has engaged in, terrorist activities.
Also required is a report on Lebanon’s actions to implement section 14 of U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1701 of August 2006 that restricts arms shipments from
Syria into Lebanon.
80 Unless otherwise noted, these sections were prepared by Connie Veillette, Specialist in
Foreign Affairs.

CRS-66
The House bill approved the Administration’s request for Lebanon, but included
report language for the release of funds. It provided $300 million in ESF, the same
as the request, but the report expressed concern about using foreign assistance for
budget support. In order to release ESF funds for a cash transfer to provide budget
support, the Secretary of State must report to the Committees on Appropriations on
the Memorandum of Agreement between the United States and Lebanon on the
country’s economic reform plan and benchmarks upon which cash transfer assistance
will be conditioned. The Secretary must also report that there are procedures in place
to ensure that no funds are provided to individuals or organizations that have known
links to terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah.
The report recommended that $10 million of FY2007 ESF funds be used for
scholarships and support for American educational institutions in Lebanon. Also
included was the $220 million request for FMF funds for the Lebanese Armed
Forces. The House bill provided the $60 million requested from the INCLE account,
and $5.5 million from the NADR account. Military assistance as well as narcotics
assistance were conditioned on a report from the Secretary of State that vetting
procedures are in place to determine eligibility to participate in U.S. training and
assistance programs. Finally, the House approved the Administration’s request of
$184 million for UNIFIL. Unrelated to the funding provisions, report language
requested the Secretary of State to report no later than 45 days after enactment on the
steps the Lebanese government is taking to implement Section 14 of U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1701.
The Senate bill reduced the Administration’s ESF request by $35 million by
deleting funds for certain democracy assistance programs. These funds were
transferred to a separate Democracy Fund. The bill matched the Administration’s
request for FMF, INCLE, and NADR accounts. The Senate bill also required a
certification in order to release FMF and NADR funds. The Secretary of State must
certify to the Committees on Appropriations that all practicable efforts have been
made to ensure that assistance does not go to any individual or entity that advocates,
plans, sponsors, engages in, or has engaged in, terrorist activity. The Senate bill also
approved the request for a $184 million contribution to the U.N. Interim Force in
Lebanon.
Kosovo.81 The FY2007 supplemental request includes $279 million for
Kosovo under the Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act to support the
outcome of a U.N.-led process to determine Kosovo’s status. In February, U.N.
Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari presented a settlement proposal for a form of
internationally supervised independence in Kosovo with expanded rights for
Kosovo’s Serbian minority communities. Serbia’s swift rejection of the plan, on the
one hand, and early Kosovar Albanian grass roots-led protests against delays to or
conditions on full independence, on the other hand, point to a high potential for
unrest in the province. The U.N. Security Council may begin to consider the
Ahtisaari plan in late March, although the timing of a vote in the Council on a new
resolution on Kosovo is not yet clear. Presuming a political settlement is achieved,
a transition period of several months is expected to follow.
81 Prepared by Julie Kim, Specialist in International Relations.

CRS-67
The requested supplemental funds for FY2007 are intended to support Kosovo’s
immediate needs in the areas of governance, rule of law, infrastructure development,
and new international civilian missions in Kosovo, among other programs. DOD
costs for U.S. participation in a follow-on NATO peacekeeping operation in Kosovo
are not included in this request. The Administration justifies the need for
supplemental funding for Kosovo based on its expectation that Kosovo’s status will
be settled “early this year ... outside of the normal budget process.” It claims that the
European Union and the IFIs will contribute most of the international assistance for
Kosovo, which it says could amount to as much as $2 billion (of which the $279
million from the United States would amount to approximately 14%).
Congressional Action. The conference agreement provides $229 million
from the SEED account, a reduction of $50 million. It adopts the House language
with regard to reporting requirements.
The House bill provided $239 million for Kosovo from the SEED account, a
$40 million reduction from the request. Included also was report language requiring
a report within 45 days of enactment on the outcome of the Kosovo Donors
Conference that should include a list of funds pledged by the United States and other
donors. The Senate bill provided $214 million for Kosovo from the SEED account,
and $15 million from the Democracy Fund, for a total $50 million reduction from the
request.
Humanitarian Assistance.82 Beyond the proposed aid packages for specific
countries, the Administration also seeks funding support for humanitarian assistance
in a range of anticipated and unanticipated crises:
! $200 million in additional P.L. 480 - Title II assistance to meet
emergency food needs elsewhere worldwide, including places such
as Afghanistan (particularly in the north due to drought conditions),
southern Africa, Zimbabwe and parts of the Horn of Africa (for both
drought conditions and rising insecurity);
! $65 million for International Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA)
to support unanticipated humanitarian assistance or to replenish
costs as a result of crises in Iraq ($45 million) and Somalia ($20
million);
! $71.5 million for Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) for
unanticipated refugee and migration emergencies, including return
operations in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
($16.5 million) where repatriation programs are under way. The
funds would help resettle some of the more than 370,000 Burundi
refugees and 400,000 DRC refugees; assistance to Iraqi refugees and
conflict victims ($15 million); and the emergency needs of
Palestinian refugees ($40 million); and
82 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in Foreign Affairs.

CRS-68
! $30 million for Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance
(ERMA) for unanticipated emergencies in Somalia, Chad, West
Bank/Gaza, Iraq, and Sri Lanka. These funds would also support
contingency planning for increased Darfur refugees fleeing to Chad.
Current ERMA levels are reported to be at their lowest in a decade
with $6.2 million remaining, which is predicted to be insufficient to
respond to the needs required.
Congressional Action. The House supplemental recommends changes
to the P.L. 480, IDFA, MRA, ERMA allocations as follows:
! $300 million in additional P.L. 480, Title II assistance;
! $95 million for IDFA, (in addition to $40 million proposed for
Sudan) which is $30 million above the Administration’s request,
with $75 million for unanticipated emergencies including
replenishing costs incurred from humanitarian crises in Iraq. The
House Appropriations Committee expressed its concern about the
deteriorating situations in Chad and the Central African Republic
and asked for USAID and the State Department to consult with the
Committee about the status. It also expressed its support for a
resolution to the conflict in northern Uganda;
! $111.5 million for MRA which is $40 million more than the
Administration’s request — $15 million is recommended to assist
Iraqi refugees; the other $96.5 million would be for unanticipated
humanitarian emergencies. The House Appropriations Committee
recognized that the number of refugees in neighboring countries
could increase. It also highlighted its concerns about progress in
Burundi and the DRC and the increasing needs of Palestinian
refugees; and
! $35 million for ERMA (which is $5 million above the request) to
address unanticipated emergency needs.
The Senate supplemental recommends changes to specific allocations as follows:
! $325 million in additional P.L. 480 - Title II assistance to meet
emergency food needs elsewhere worldwide, including places such
as Afghanistan, Chad, and other Africa nations. It is presumed that
this is in addition to $150 million for Sudan (same as the amount in
the request);
! $120 million for IDFA, (in addition to $49 million proposed for
Sudan and $18 million proposed for Afghanistan) — which is a total
of $82 million above the Administration’s request — for
unanticipated emergencies including the humanitarian crises in Iraq
($65 million, which is $20 million above the request), Chad ($10
million), Democratic Republic of Congo ($10 million), Uganda ($10

CRS-69
million), and Somalia ($25 million, which is $5 million above the
request);
! $125 million for MRA (in addition to $18 million proposed for
Afghanistan) which is $71.5 million more than the Administration’s
request — $65 million is recommended to assist Iraqi refugees (an
increase of $50 million over the request, with not less than $5
million to support resettlement programs for Iraqi scholars); return
operations in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
which is the same as the request ($16.5 million) and the emergency
needs of Palestinian refugees ($43.5 million), which is 3.5 million
above the request.
! $55 million for ERMA (which is $25 million above the request) to
replenish the emergency fund.
The Conference agreement recommends changes to specific total allocations as
follows:
! $310 million in additional P.L. 480 - Title II assistance to meet
emergency food needs elsewhere worldwide, including places such
as Afghanistan, Chad, and other Africa nations ($110 million more
than the request.) It is presumed that this is in addition to $150
million for Sudan (same as the amount in the request);
! $165 million for IDFA, ($44 million for Sudan; $45 million for Iraq;
$16 million for Afghanistan; $20 million for Sudan and $40 million
for unanticipated emergencies in countries such as the Central
African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and
Uganda);
! $130.5 million for MRA ($45 million is recommended to assist Iraqi
refugees with not less than $5 million to support resettlement
programs for Iraqi scholars; $16 million for Afghanistan; and $69.5
million for unanticipated emergencies); and
! $55 million for ERMA to replenish the emergency fund.
Peacekeeping Activities. The President also requested FY2007
supplemental funding for the Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities
(CIPA) and the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) accounts. The CIPA supplemental
of $200 million was to pay U.S. assessed contributions for "unforeseen" U.N.
peacekeeping expenses: $184 million for the expanded force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)
and $16 million for the U.N. operation in Timor Leste (UNMIT). The PKO
supplemental request of $278 million was to support peacekeeping efforts in Darfur
through the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) – $150 million – and support
peacekeeping needs in Chad and Somalia – $128 million. The request stipulated that
up to $128 million of the total may be transferred to CIPA, for assessed costs of U.N.
peacekeeping operations. "The requested transfer authority would provide the
flexibility to fund either a United Nations peacekeeping mission to Chad and Somalia

CRS-70
or to support the efforts of African regional security organizations such as the African
Union."
Congressional Action. The House-passed supplemental appropriations bill
provides $288 million for the CIPA account and $225 million for the PKO account,
but without the requested authority to transfer up to $128 million from the PKO to
the CIPA account. The Senate bill provides $200 million for the CIPA account and
$323 million for the PKO account and includes authority to transfer up to $128
million to the CIPA account. The PKO section of the Senate bill also includes a
requirement that not less than $45 million shall be made available for assistance for
Liberia for security sector reform.
Avian Influenza.83 The Administration is requesting $161 million in Child
Survival and Health (CSH) funds to expand efforts to prevent the spread of the avian
influenza virus and the emergence of a virus that could cause a global pandemic.
Continuing outbreaks of the H5N1 virus have been reported in Asia, Europe and
Africa over the winter with indications that the virus continues to change rapidly.
The first six months of 2006 saw a seasonal surge in outbreaks that affected 53
countries.
Congressional Action. The conference agreement provides the $161 million
request and retains Senate language giving the President authority to use Millennium
Challenge Corporation and Global HIV/AIDS Initiative funds for avian flu programs.
The conference agreement also retains House language directing the State
Department to report within 45 days of enactment on planned expenditures by
category of funds available in FY2006 and FY2007. Both House- and Senate-passed
bills included full funding for the request.
Other Assistance. In addition to amounts requested by the Administration,
both House and Senate bills included provisions for other assistance.
! Jordan. The conference agreement provides $10.3 billion in ESF
for Jordan for programs to improve basic education, health, water,
and sanitation services in communities that have seen an influx of
Iraqi refugees. Also provided is $25 million in NADR funds for
border security programs, and $45 million in FMF funds. The
House bill had added $40 million in FMF funds, and $60 million in
NADR funds, the latter for border security activities. The Senate
provided authority to transfer up to $100 million in ESF funds to
support security programs.
! Liberia. The conference agreement provides $5 million in NADR
funds for Presidential Personal Security. The House had provided
the same amount, but from the ESF account. The conference
agreement also included $40 million in Peacekeeping Operations
(PKO) to support security sector reform. The House bill had added
$35 million in PKO funds while the Senate provided $45 million.
83 Prepared by Connie Veillette, Specialist in Foreign Affairs.

CRS-71
! Democracy Fund. The conference agreement provides $260
million for a Democracy Fund, of which $250 million would support
programs in Iraq, $5 million in Lebanon, and $5 million in Somalia.
Other democracy programs would be funded from other accounts as
requested by the Administration. The Senate bill had provided a
total of $465 million by designating funds from other accounts, such
as ESF, for democracy promotion programs. The House bill had
approved democracy funding from the accounts in which they were
requested.
! USAID Inspector General. The conference agreement provides
$3.5 million, the same as that recommended by the House. The
Senate bill had included $4 million of which $3 million is for Iraq
programs, and $1 million for Afghanistan programs.
! INCLE Rescission. The conference agreement retains the Senate’s
rescission of $13 million in narcotics funds appropriated in P.L. 109-
234 for the procurement of maritime patrol aircraft for the
Colombian Navy.
! Pakistan. The conference agreement does not include $110 million
in ESF funds for economic and security programs as proposed by the
Senate.
! Sudan. The conference agreement provides $44 million for Sudan
in International Disaster and Famine Assistance. The Senate bill had
provided $49 million, and the House $40 million. The Senate and
House bills had included $150 million for Peacekeeping Operations
to support the Africa Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS). The
conference agreement provides a total of $230 million for
peacekeeping, of which $40 million is designated for Liberia. The
agreement calls on the Secretary of State to report on a spending
plan on strengthening the personal security of the President of South
Sudan, and endorses House report language directing the Secretary
of State to report on the implementation of the AMIS mandate and
to provide a timetable for a hybrid U.N./AMIS peacekeeping force
in Darfur.
! International Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA). The
conference agreement provides $165 million in disaster funding, of
which $45 million is for Iraq, $44 million for Sudan, $20 million for
Somalia, and $16 million to aid internally displaced persons in and
near Kabul, Afghanistan, The remaining $40 million is for unmet or
unforeseen humanitarian assistance in various countries, including
the Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of
Congo, and Uganda. The Senate bill had provided $187 million in
IDFA funds, an increase of $82 million over the request. The Senate
bill had designated $10 million for Chad, $10 million for the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, $10 million for Uganda, and $25

CRS-72
million for Somalia. The House bill had include $135 million for
IDFA, $30 million above the request, and requested reports on Chad,
and expressed concern with the conflict in northern Uganda.
! Economic Support Fund. The conference report provides $2.649
billion, including $1.574 billion for Iraq and $737 million for
Afghanistan. The Senate bill had provided $2.602 billion but
transferred $465 million in ESF funds designated for democracy
promotion programs to the Democracy Fund. The House bill
provided $2.953 billion, a reduction of $182 million from the
request. The conference report directs $3 million for the Sierra
Leone Special Court, $5 million for elections in Nepal, $15 million
for governance programs in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
$2 million for the Uganda peace process, $3 million for health and
environment programs in Vietnam, and $5 million for reconstruction
programs in the Philippines.
Table 8. Foreign Operations FY2007 Supplemental
Appropriations by Account
(millions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Base
Supp
Supp
Supp
Conf
Activity
estimate
Request
House
Senate
Report
Child Survival/Health
1,718.2
161.0
161.0
161.0
161.0
Economic Support Funds
2,455.0
3,025.0
2,953.0
2,602.2
2,649.3
Migration/Refugee Ass’t.*
887.9
101.5
146.5
198.0
185.5
Foreign Military Financing
4,550.8
220.0
260.0
220.0
265.0
Disaster/Famine Assistance
361.0
105.0
135.0
187.0
165.0
Narcotics/Law Enforcement
472.0
260.0
334.5
210.0
257.0
Non-Proliferation, Anti-
Terrorism, Demining
406.0
27.5
87.5
27.5
57.5
Peacekeeping Operations
(PKO)
223.3
278.0
225.0
323.0
230.0
P.L. 480, Title II
1,215.0
350.0
450.0
475.0
460.0
USAID Operating Expenses
624.0
5.7
10.7
5.7
8.7
Treasury Technical Ass’t.
20.0
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
E. Europe/Baltics Ass’t.
273.9
279.0
239.0
214.0
229.0
USAID IG


3.5
4.0
3.5
Democracy Fund



465.0
260.0
Rescission (INCLE)



(13.0)
(13.0)
Total Foreign Operations
13,207.1
4,815.5
5,008.5
5,082.2
4,921.3
Source: U.S. Department of State Congressional Budget Justification, Foreign Operations, FY2008,
H.R. 1591/H.Rept. 110-107, and CRS calculations.
* Includes both Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) and Emergency Refugee and Migration
Assistance (ERMA) accounts.

CRS-73
State Department and International Broadcasting84
In addition to the more than $10 billion estimated FY2007 regular budget for the
Department of State and International Broadcasting, the Administration is requesting
$1.168 billion in the FY2007 supplemental request for the Department of State and
$10 million for International Broadcasting (see Table 9). The Department is seeking
most of its FY2007 supplemental funds for State’s Administration of Foreign Affairs
($968 million). The Diplomatic and Consular Programs account would receive the
most ($913 million) for additional funding of Iraq Operations, Ongoing Operations,
and Worldwide Security Upgrades. The bulk of D&CP funds ($823.9 million) would
pay for Iraq Operations — U.S. activities, security, and the U.S. Mission in Iraq.
About half of the Iraq Operations funds would be for setting up new Provincial
Reconstruction Teams. A total of $414.1 million would be for expanding from the
current number of 10 PRTs to as many as 18 to 21 teams. The cost would pay for
PRT personnel, support and security. (For more detail on PRT funding, see the
earlier section on Iraq Reconstruction and Assistance.)

The U.S. Mission in Iraq employs more than 1,000 American and locally
engaged staff representing about a dozen agencies. The FY2007 supplemental
includes $47.6 million for U.S. Mission Operations, $72.5 million for logistics
support for the mission, $8.9 million for mission information technology, and $15
million for installation of overhead cover and other physical security measures.
State’s request for supplemental funds for Ongoing Operations within the
D&CP account would consist of $21.9 million for public diplomacy activities to
combat violent extremism by funding exchanges and foreign language Websites that
would promote American and Muslim dialogue. The Ongoing Operations request
also includes $1.9 million to support diplomatic, reconstruction, and stabilization
efforts in Sudan.
The State Department FY2007 supplemental request includes $67.155 million
for Worldwide Security Upgrades in Afghanistan and Sudan, $20 million for
international exchanges to combat violent extremism, and $200 million for U.S.
contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities in Lebanon and Timor Leste.
In addition, in the supplemental request for State Department funds is $35 million for
the Office of Inspector General to be transferred to the Special Inspector General for
Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR).
The Broadcasting Board of Governors oversees all nonmilitary U.S.
international broadcasting activities. The FY2007 Supplemental request includes $10
million for expanded broadcasting in Arabic on the U.S.-established Alhurra
Television into 22 countries in the Middle East.
Congressional Action. The conference agreement provides a total of
$1.275 billion for State Department operations and broadcasting. For Diplomatic and
84 Prepared by Susan B. Epstein, Specialist in Foreign Policy and Trade.

CRS-74
Consular Programs, it includes $870. 7 million, of which $750 million would support
operations in Iraq, and $96.5 million would support World Wide Security Upgrades.
The Inspector General’s Office would receive $36.5 million, of which $35 million
would be transferred to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction
(SIGIR), with the remainder for oversight work in Iraq and Afghanistan. The
agreement allows the transfer of $258,000 to the U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom, as proposed by the House. Other items in the conference
agreement include:
! Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs would receive $20
million;
! Contributions to International Organizations would receive $50
million to pay arrears to organizations that are involved in efforts to
combat international terrorism, and to prevent the spread of avian
influenza;
! Provides $288 million for assessed costs of U.N. Peacekeeping
operations, of which $184 million is for the U.N. Interim Force in
Lebanon, $16 million for the U.N. Mission in Timor Leste, and $88
million for a potential U.N. mission in Chad.
! Provides $10 million for International Broadcasting Operations for
expanding broadcasting on Alhurra Television, as provided in both
House and Senate bills.
! Allows the use of $50 million in Diplomatic and Consular Programs
for a civilian reserve corps, subject to authorization.
The House FY2007 supplemental bill had set funding for State’s
Administrations of Foreign Affairs at $1,033.8, $65.8 million more than the
Administration requested. Of that amount, $967 million was for D&CP, $46.8
million for the Office of Inspector General (of which $45.5 million would be
transferred to SIGIR), and $20 million for international exchanges, as requested.
Of the $967 million for D&CP, $790.6 million was be for Iraq operations as
follows: $380.789 million for setting up new PRTs in Iraq, $265.827 million for
security costs of the U.S. Mission in Iraq, $72.505 million for logistics support in
Iraq, $47.646 million for mission operations, $15 million for overhead cover, and
$8.874 million for mission information technology. Also in the House D&CP
funding was $24.158 million for ongoing operations, as compared with the $21.9
million requested, and $102.2 million for worldwide security upgrades, $35 million
more than was requested.
The House Report (H.Rept. 110-60) stated that $395 million in funds for D&CP
Iraq operations will be withheld until the Committee receives and approves a detailed
plan for expenditure of the funds. Furthermore, the Committee directs the
Department of State to report within 45 days of enactment of this act on how it would
spend the public diplomacy funds.
The House bill also provided $288 million for Contributions to International
Peacekeeping, $88 million more than requested. The amount included $184 million
for the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), $16 million for the U.N. Mission
in Timor Lest (UNMIT) and $88 million for a possible mission in Chad.

CRS-75
Similar to the Administration request, the House FY2007 supplemental bill
would also provide $10 million for expanding broadcasting on Alhurra Television.
The Senate FY2007 supplemental bill provided $815.8 million for D&CP. This
is $97.2 million below the Administration request and $151.2 million below the
House level. Included was $723.9 million for Iraq operations, $21.9 million for
ongoing operations ($20 million for public diplomacy and $1.9 million for ongoing
operations), and $70 million for worldwide security upgrades. Included in the $723.9
million for Iraq operations was: $42.9 million for mission support, $265.8 million
for mission security, $7.987 million for information technology, $12 million for
overhead security, and $372.7 million for PRTs. The Senate Committee would not
provide $50 million for temporary housing outside the compound, requesting a plan
to house people inside the compound. And it would not provide $5 million for travel
costs of U.S. dignitaries within Sudan, saying that this funding would normally be
in the regular appropriation request.
The Senate bill also provided $36.5 million for the Office of Inspector General
of which $35 million is for the SIGIR, $59 million for U.S. Contributions to
International Organizations and $200 million for Contributions to International
Peacekeeping. In addition, the Senate bill provided $10 million to the Broadcasting
Board of Governors for expanding Alhurra TV listenership.
Both House and Senate bills provided up to $50 million within D&CP and (in
the Senate bill) ESF to establish and maintain a civilian reserve corps. The House
version stipulates that no funds may be spent without specific authorization by
Congress. In the Senate version funding does not require authorization, but is subject
to regular notification of the appropriation committees.

CRS-76
Table 9. State Department and International Broadcasting
FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
Base
Supp
Supp
Supp
Conf
Base
Activity
Estimate Request
House
Senate
Rept
Request
Administration of
Foreign Affairs

6,502.5
968.0
1,033.8
877.3
927.2
7,317.1
Diplomatic &
Consular Programs
4,314.0
913.0
967.0
815.8
870.7
4,942.7
Iraq Operations

823.9
864.8
723.9
750.0

Ongoing
Operations

21.9
24.2
21.9

Worldwide
Security Upgrades
795.2
67.2
102.2
70.0
96.5
964.8
Office of Inspector General
30.9
35.0
46.8
36.5
36.5
32.5
Educational & cultural
exchange programs
445.3
20.0
20.0
25.0
20.0
486.4
International Orgs
2,286.6
200.0
288.0
259.0
338.0
2,461.4
Contributions to
Int’l Orgs
1,151.3

59.0
50.0
1,354.4
Contributions to
Int’l Peacekeeping
1,135.3
200.0
288.0
200.0
288.0
1,107.0
Other
171.7




235.3
Total State Approps
8,960.8
1,168.0
1,321.8
1,136.3
1,265.2
10,013.8
Total Int’l Broadcasting
644.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
668.2
Total State and
Broadcasting

9,604.8
1,178.0
1,331.8
1,146.3
1,275.2
10,682.0
Source: Department of State’s Budget in Brief, FY2008 and House FY2007 supplemental
bill, Full Committee Print, March 15, 2007, Senate bill and Committee Report, as of March
23, 2007, and Conference Report, House Rept. 110-107.
Liquidation of TSA Contract and Grant Obligations85
On January 10, 2007, the President transmitted to Congress a request to transfer
$195 million in unobligated balances to resolve insufficiently funded Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) contract and grant obligations incurred during
FY2002 and FY2003. These obligations, which were made in violation of the
Antideficiency Act (ADA), were uncovered by the TSA in the summer of 2006
during a comprehensive financial review, and this violation was formally reported
to the President and the Congress on December 3, 2006.
85 Prepared by Bart Elias, Specialist in Aviation Security, Safety and Technology Policy,
Resource, Science, and Industry Division.

CRS-77
Investigation has revealed that the deficiency resulted from erroneous voucher
entries made during the TSA’s migration from the Department of Transportation to
the newly formed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003, and the DHS
has found no evidence that the violation was intentional. The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has indicated that the TSA has taken steps to improve internal
control processes, and OMB will continue to monitor the TSA implementation of its
corrective action plans to minimize the potential for future deficiency violations.
In order to correct the deficiency and ensure that adequate funding for future
contract and grant obligations are available, the President has requested a transfer of
$195 million, $175 million from the Aviation Security account and $20 million from
the Transportation Security Support account, to be transferred to the TSA’s Expenses
account. As indicated by the OMB, this proposed transfer, which requires statutory
authority, would not increase FY2007 budget authority and would not increase the
deficit.
Ongoing Katrina Recovery Measures
As part of its package of FY2007 supplemental appropriations requests, the
Administration asked for $3.4 billion for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) to continue Katrina recovery efforts.
The funding is requested for expenses through December 2007 for housing assistance
and for grants for public infrastructure repair and replacement in Gulf Coast region.86
In the FY2006 supplemental, P.L. 109-234, Congress provided $6.0 billion for
FEMA activities funded through the DRF.
Congressional Action. The House-passed version of the FY2007
supplemental appropriations bill approved the $3.4 billion requested for FEMA and
added $3.0 billion for other hurricane relief measures. The largest addition was $1.3
billion for the Corps of Engineers to continue repairs and accelerate completion of
flood and storm damage reduction projects in the New Orleans and south Louisiana
area. Previously appropriated funds are insufficient to complete these activities due
to increased costs, improved data on costs, and other factors. In its March 19
Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on the supplemental, the White House
objected to the added funds. The Administration argues that these activities should
be funded by reallocating previously appropriated, but unobligated, FY2006
supplemental funds for other Corps flood and storm damage reduction projects in the
area. The SAP also opposes measures in the bill that would exempt Gulf states from
some matching requirements for FEMA grants.
The Senate version of the FY2007 supplemental appropriations bill also
approved the $3.4 billion requested for FEMA; in addition, it provided $3.6 billion
for other hurricane relief measures. The largest addition was $1.7 billion for the
Corps of Engineers to continue repairs and accelerate completion of flood and storm
damage reduction projects in the New Orleans and south Louisiana and coastal
86 For the formal request, see Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States
Government for Fiscal Year 2008: Appendix
, pp. 1164-1165.

CRS-78
Mississippi area. The bill provided direction to the Corps regarding both
reimbursement for certain Katrina-related repair and rebuilding costs, use of
previously-appropriated recovery funds, and studies related to specific studies related
to coastal Louisiana’s hurricane protection. The bill also waived for FY2008 a
restriction that federal appropriations can not be used for individual Corps projects
with current cost estimates that exceed 20% of their authorized appropriations
amounts without congressional authorization.
The conference report includes a total of $6.785 billion for Gulf Coast Recovery, of
which $1.4 billion is provided to the Corps of Engineers to continue repairs and
accelerate completion of flood and storm damage reduction projects in the New
Orleans and south Louisiana and coastal Mississippi area. The conference report also
provides direction to the Corps regarding reimbursement for certain Katrina-related
repair and rebuilding costs, use of previously-appropriated recovery funds, and
studies related to specific studies related to coastal Louisiana's hurricane protection.
Unrequested Funding for Domestic Programs
Supplemental appropriations bills traditionally become vehicles for Congress
to provide funds for high priority programs for which the Administration did not
request money. The House and Senate supplemental bills both additional funds for
state children’s health insurance, low-income home energy assistance, homeland
security initiatives, avian flu preparedness, and agricultural disaster relief, among
other things. In all, the House bill includes $3.7 billion agricultural disaster relief,
$2.5 billion for homeland security, and $3.0 billion for other programs. The Senate
bill provides $4.2 for agricultural disaster relief, $2.0 billion for homeland security,
and, and $3.1 billion for other programs. Table 1, above, shows amounts for the
major additions. Appendix Table A-1 provides more detail.
The conference agreement provides over $10 billion for domestic programs for
which the Administration requested no funds. The unrequested domestic funding
includes $1.8 billion for veterans health, $2.25 billion for homeland security, $663
million for pandemic flu preparedness, $3.5 billion for agricultural disaster relief
(though the agreement drops controversial small amounts for spinach growers and
peanut storage), $650 million for state children’s health insurance, $500 million for
fire fighting, $425 million for secure rural schools, and $400 million for low-income
energy assistance.
In its March 19 Statement of Administration Policy on the House bill, the White
House complained that the bill contains “billions in unrequested spending that is
largely unjustified and non-emergency.” The message warned that the President
would veto the bill because of “excessive and extraneous non-emergency spending.”

CRS-79
The Minimum Wage and Other Policy Riders
Supplemental appropriations bills also often include policy measures that are
attached in order to bypass procedural hurdles, particularly in the Senate, that may
be delaying progress though the regular legislative process. Both the House and the
Senate added provisions to increase the minimum wage to the FY2007 supplemental,
a measure that has been delayed in the Senate.
The Senate also agreed to an amendment by Senator Wyden that would
reauthorize a modified version of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-393), which expired at the end of FY2006.
(See CRS Report RL33822, The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000: Forest Service Payments to Counties
, by Ross W. Gorte.)
This program provides an alternative system to compensate counties for the tax-
exempt status of certain federal lands. The Senate amendment would provide total
payments of about $2.3 billion for FY2007-FY2011. The amendment also includes
language that may provide mandatory spending for the Payments In Lieu of Taxes
(PILT) program for FY2008-FY2012. (See CRS Report RL31392, PILT (Payments
in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
, by M. Lynn Corn.)
The conference agreement includes an increase in the minimum wage along
with a package of $4.8 billion over ten years of offsetting tax cuts for small
businesses. The agreement does not include the Senate reauthorization of the Secure
Rural Schools Act, but it does allow payments under the act to continue as in FY2006
and it appropriates $425 million for any shortfalls in payments.
For Additional Reading
CRS Multi-Media Presentation MM70099, FY2008 Defense Budget: Issues for
Congress — Seminar Slides, by Stephen Daggett, Ronald O’Rourke, David F.
Burrelli, and Amy Belasco.
CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on
Terror Operations Since 9/11, by Amy Belasco.
CRS Report RL31833, Iraq: Reconstruction Assistance, by Curt Tarnoff.
CRS Report RS21867, U.S. Embassy in Iraq, by Susan B. Epstein.
CRS Report RL31701, Iraq: U.S. Military Operations, by Steve Bowman.
CRS Report RL31339, Iraq: Post-Saddam Governance and Security, by Kenneth
Katzman.
CRS Report RL30588, Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S.
Policy, by Kenneth Katzman.

CRS-80
CRS Report RL33851, Afghan Refugees: Current Status and Future Prospects, by
Rhoda Margesson.
CRS Report RL33503, U.S. and Coalition Military Operations in Afghanistan:
Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
CRS Report RS21922, Afghanistan: Elections, Constitution, and Government, by
Kenneth Katzman.
CRS Report RL33837, Congressional Authority To Limit U.S. Military Operations
in Iraq, by Jennifer K. Elsea and Thomas J. Nicola.
CRS Report RL33803, Congressional Restrictions on U.S. Military Operations in
Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Somalia, and Kosovo: Funding and Non-Funding
Approaches
, by Amy Belasco, Lynn J. Cunningham, Hannah Fischer, and Larry
A. Niksch.
CRS Report RS20775, Congressional Use of Funding Cutoffs Since 1970 Involving
U.S. Military Forces and Overseas Deployments, by Richard F. Grimmett.
CRS Report RL31693, U.S. Armed Forces Abroad: Selected Congressional Votes
Since 1982, by Lisa Mages.
CRS Report RL31370, State Department and Related Agencies: FY2006 and
FY2007 Appropriations and FY2008 Request, by Susan B. Epstein.

CRS-81
Appendix. Additional Tables
Table A-1. FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations:
Congressional Action by Title and Account
(millions of dollars)
Change to
Appropriations Subcommittee/Title/Account
Request
House
Senate Conference
Request
Title I: Global War on Terror
99,615.4
109,600.8
107,118.1
109,294.9
+9,679.4
Department of Agriculture, P.L. 480
350.0
450.0
557.0
500.0
+150.0
P.L. 480 Title II Grants
350.0
450.0
475.0
460.0
+110.0
Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust
--
--
82.0
40.0
+40.0
Department of Justice
173.5
158.9
445.7
316.0
+142.5
Office of the Inspector General
--
--
0.5
--
--
General Legal Activities
4.1
1.6
4.1
1.6
-2.4
U.S. Attorneys
5.0
5.0
12.5
5.0
--
Marshalls Service
14.9
2.8
32.5
6.5
-8.5
National Security Division
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
--
Federal Bureau of Investigation
118.3
118.3
348.3
268.0
+149.7
Drug Enforcement Administration
8.5
8.5
25.1
12.2
+3.7
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
--
Federal Prison System
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
--
Department of Defense
91,529.0
95,529.7
93,532.8
95,528.7
+3,999.7
Military Personnel
12,144.7
13,566.9
13,435.4
13,508.0
+1,363.3
Operation & Maintenance
50,316.1
52,500.0
48,784.5
50,430.0
+113.9
Procurement
24,900.0
24,813.7
26,007.6
25,592.2
+692.2
RDT&E
1,447.7
1,035.4
1,190.5
1,098.7
-349.0
Revolving & Management Funds
1,320.5
1,320.5
1,320.5
1,320.5
--
Defense Health
1,073.1
2,789.7
2,466.8
3,251.9
+2,178.7
Drug Interdiction
259.1
259.1
254.7
254.7
-4.5
Intelligency Community Mgmnt Acct
66.7
57.4
71.7
71.7
+5.0
General Provisions
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
--
Contractor Efficiency
--
-815.0
--
--
--
Department of Energy
63.0
150.0
63.0
150.0
+87.0
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
63.0
150.0
63.0
150.0
+87.0
Department of Homeland Security
--
2,500.0
2,000.0
2,250.0
+2,250.0
Departmental Management/Analysis &
Operations
--
35.0
--
15.0
+15.0
Customs and Border Protection
--
250.0
215.0
235.0
+235.0
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
--
--
20.0
10.0
+10.0
Aviation Security/Air Marshalls/TSA
--
1,250.0
675.0
978.0
+978.0
Coast Guard [transfer from Navy]
--
[120.3]
[120.3]
[120.3]
[+120.3]
Chief Medical Officer/Infrastructure Protection
--
25.0
36.0
52.0
+52.0
Federal Emergency Management
Agency/Management
--
540.0
975.0
677.5
+677.5
United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services
--
--
25.0
10.0
+10.0
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
[transfer, non-add]
--
[1.0]
--
[5.0]
[+5.0]
Science and Technology
--
--
15.0
10.0
+10.0
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
--
400.0
39.0
262.5
+262.5

CRS-82
Change to
Appropriations Subcommittee/Title/Account
Request
House
Senate Conference
Request
Legislative Branch
--
6.4
0.4
6.8
+6.8
House Allowances & Expenses
--
6.4
--
6.4
+6.4
Government Accountability Office
--
--
0.4
0.4
+0.4
Military Construction
1,854.0
4,915.5
4,780.8
4,807.0
+2,953.0
Army
1,381.3
1,329.2
1,261.4
1,255.9
-125.4
Navy & Marine Corps
412.5
389.3
347.9
371.0
-41.5
Air Force
60.2
60.2
34.7
43.3
-16.9
Base Closure 2005 (in Title II in Senate)
--
3,136.8
3,136.8
3,136.8
+3,136.8
Department of State Administration of Foreign
Affairs

968.0
1,033.8
862.3
927.2
-40.8
Diplomatic and Consular Programs
913.0
967.0
815.8
870.7
-42.3
Inspector General
35.0
46.8
36.5
36.5
+1.5
Education & Cultural Exchange
20.0
20.0
10.0
20.0
--
Emergencies in Diplomatic and Consular Service
(By transfer)
--
--
[20.0]
[20.0]
[+20.0]
International Organizations
200.0
288.0
259.0
338.0
+138.0
Contributions for International Organizations
--
--
59.0
50.0
+50.0
International Peacekeeping Contributions
200.0
288.0
200.0
288.0
+88.0
International Peacekeeping Contributions (By
transfer)
--
--
[128.0]
--
--
Broadcasting Board of Governors
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
--
International Broadcasting Operations
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
--
Bilateral Economic Assistance
3,575.7
3,502.2
3,173.9
3,216.5
-359.2
USAID Child Survival and Disease Programs
161.0
161.0
161.0
161.0
--
USAID International Disaster & Famine Asst.
105.0
135.0
187.0
165.0
+60.0
USAID Operating Expenses
5.7
10.7
5.7
8.7
+3.0
USAID Inspector General
--
3.5
4.0
3.5
+3.5
Economic Support Fund
3,025.0
2,953.0
2,602.2
2,649.3
-375.7
Asst. for Eastern Europe & Baltic States
279.0
239.0
214.0
229.0
-50.0
Other Department of State
389.0
568.5
887.5
747.0
+358.0
Democracy Fund
--
--
465.0
260.0
+260.0
International Narcotics Control
260.0
334.5
210.0
257.0
-3.0
International Narcotics Control Rescissions
--
--
-13.0
-13.0
-13.0
Migration & Refugee Asst.
71.5
111.5
143.0
130.5
+59.0
Emergency Refugee & Migration Asst. Fund
30.0
35.0
55.0
55.0
+25.0
Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and
Related
27.5
87.5
27.5
57.5
+30.0
Department of the Treasury
5.3
2.8
2.8
2.8
-2.5
International Affairs Technical Assistance
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
--
Departmental Administration
2.5
--
--
--
-2.5
Military Assistance
498.0
485.0
543.0
495.0
-3.0
Foreign Military Financing Program
220.0
260.0
220.0
265.0
+45.0
Peacekeeping Operations
278.0
225.0
323.0
230.0
-48.0
Title II: Additional Hurricane Disaster Relief
and Recovery

3,400.0
6,357.4
6,899.7
6,785.0
+3,385.0
Department of Agriculture
--
140.0
115.0
115.0
+115.0
Livestock Assistance
--
25.0
--
--
--
Irrigated Crops
--
15.0
--
--
--
Citrus
--
100.0
--
--
--
Forestry Conservation
--
--
115.0
115.0
+115.0
Department of Justice
--
--
170.0
50.0
+50.0
State and Local Law Enforcement Asst:
Hurricane Recovery
--
--
70.0
50.0
+50.0

CRS-83
Change to
Appropriations Subcommittee/Title/Account
Request
House
Senate Conference
Request
State and Local Law Enforcement Asst:
Conventions
--
--
100.0
--
--
Department of Commerce
--
120.0
221.9
110.0
+110.0
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration
--
120.0
221.9
110.0
+110.0
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
--
35.0
--
35.0
+35.0
Exploration Capabilities
--
35.0
--
35.0
+35.0
Corps of Engineers
--
1,337.1
1,557.7
1,433.0
+1,433.0
Construction
-270.0
37.1
150.0
25.3
+295.3
Flood Control
270.0
1,300.0
1,407.7
1,407.7
+1,137.7
Small Business Administration
--
25.1
50.1
--
--
Disaster Loans [by transfer, non-add]
--
25.1
25.1
[25.1]
[+25.1]
Economic Injury Disaster Loans [by transfer, non-
add]
--
--
25.0
[25.0]
[+25.0]
Department of Homeland Security
3,400.0
4,630.0
4,630.0
4,930.0
+1,530.0
Inspector General (transfer, non-add)
--
[4.0]
--
[4.0]
[+4.0]
FEMA Disaster Relief
3,400.0
4,310.0
4,310.0
4,610.0
+1,210.0
Community Disaster Loan Act
--
320.0
320.0
320.0
+320.0
Department of the Interior
--
--
15.0
10.0
+10.0
National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund
--
--
15.0
10.0
+10.0
Department of Education
--
60.0
60.0
60.0
+60.0
Higher Education
--
30.0
30.0
30.0
+30.0
Hurricane Education Recovery
--
30.0
30.0
30.0
+30.0
Department of Transportation
--
--
75.0
35.0
+35.0
Federal Highway Administration Emergency
Relief
--
--
--
682.9
+682.9
Federal Highway Administration Rescission of
Contract Authority
--
--
--
-682.9
-682.9
Federal Transit Administration Formula Grants
--
--
75.0
35.0
-40.0
Department of Housing and Urban Development
--
10.2
5.0
7.0
+7.0
Disaster Voucher Program
--
80.0
--
--
--
Rescission of Unobligated Balances
--
-80.0
--
--
--
Office of Inspector General
--
10.2
5.0
7.0
+7.0
Title III: Other Emergency Appropriations
--
4,145.3
4,011.3
4,133.2
+4,133.2
Department of Commerce
--
60.4
--
60.4
+60.4
National Oceanographics and Atmospheric
Administration
--
60.4
--
60.4
+60.4
Corps of Engineers
--
--
153.0
153.0
+153.0
Operation & Maintenance
--
--
3.0
3.0
+3.0
Flood Control & Coastal Emergencies
--
--
150.0
150.0
+150.0
Department of the Interior Board of
Reclamation

--
--
18.0
18.0
+18.0
Water and Related Resources
--
--
18.0
18.0
+18.0
Department of the Interior
--
113.2
113.2
113.2
+113.2
Bureau of Land Management Wildland Fire
Management
--
100.0
100.0
100.0
+100.0
Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Management
--
7.4
7.4
7.4
+7.4
National Park Service
--
0.5
0.5
0.5
+0.5
U.S. Geological Survey
--
5.3
5.3
5.3
+5.3
Department of Agriculture
--
800.0
412.0
837.0
+837.0
National Forest System
--
--
12.0
12.0
+12.0
Forest Services Wildland Fire Management
--
400.0
400.0
400.0
+400.0

CRS-84
Change to
Appropriations Subcommittee/Title/Account
Request
House
Senate Conference
Request
Secure Rural Schools
--
400.0
--
425.0
+425.0
Department of Health and Human Services
--
1,419.7
1,523.0
1,113.0
+1,113.0
Disease Control Research and Training
--
--
13.0
13.0
+13.0
CDC/Occupational Safety & Health 9/11
--
--
3.6
50.0
+50.0
Low Income Energy Home Energy Assistance
--
400.0
640.0
400.0
+400.0
Public Health & Social Services Emergency Fund
--
969.7
820.0
625.0
+625.0
Covered Countermeasue Process Fund
--
50.0
50.0
25.0
+25.0
Department of Labor Rescissions
--
--
-3.6
-8.6
-8.6
Department of Education Drug Free Schools
--
--
--
8.6
+8.6
Legislative Branch
--
50.0
25.0
50.0
+50.0
Capitol Power Plant
--
50.0
25.0
50.0
+50.0
Department of Veterans Affairs
--
1,702.1
1,767.1
1,788.6
+1,788.6
Benefits Administration/Pensions
--
20.0
--
--
--
Veterans Health
--
1,301.3
1,329.1
1,344.3
+1,344.3
Departmental Administration
--
380.8
438.0
444.3
+444.3
Title IV: Other Matters
--
38.2
103.0
67.0
+67.0
Department of Agriculture
--
48.0
--
37.5
+37.5
Farm Service Agency
--
48.0
75.0
37.5
+37.5
Trade Adjustment Assistance Rescission
--
--
-75.0
--
--
Department of Homeland Security
--
-20.0
100.0
30.0
+30.0
Coast Guard Retired Pay
--
--
100.0
30.0
+30.0
Rescission of Unobligated Balances
--
-20.0
--
-30.9
-30.9
Coast Guard Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements
--
--
--
30.0
+30.0
Office of the Under Secretary for Management
--
--
--
0.9
+0.9
Department of Health and Human Services
--
--
-2.0
-0.7
-0.7
Indian Health Service
--
[-7.3]
--
Indian Health Facilities
--
[7.3]
--
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases
--
[-49.5]
[-49.5]
[-49.5]
[-49.5]
NIH Office of the Director
--
--
[-49.5]
[-49.5]
Public Health & Social Services Emergency Fund
--
[49.5]
[49.5]
[99.0]
[+99.0]
National Council on Disability
--
--
--
0.3
+0.3
General Provisions/Rescissions
--
--
-2.0
-1.0
-1.0
Legislative Branch
--
0.2
--
0.2
+0.2
Payments to Widows and Heirs
--
0.2
--
0.2
+0.2
Capitol Guide Service Special Services Office
--
--
3.5
--
--
Capitol Guide Service Rescission
--
--
-3.5
--
--
Department of State
--
10.0
--
--
--
U.S. Mexico Boundary & Water Commission
--
10.0
--
--
--
Department of Housing and Urban Development
--
--
--
--
--
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
--
7.6
4.8
6.2
+6.2
Offsetting Collections
--
-7.6
-4.8
-6.2
-6.2
The Judiciary
--
--
5.0
--
--
Judicial Cost of Living Adjustment
--
--
5.0
--
--
Title V: Agricultural Assistance
--
3,726.0
4,192.0
3,500.0
+3,500.0
Crop Disaster Assistance
--
1,808.0
2,090.0
1,850.0
+1,850.0
Livestock Compensation Program
--
1,480.0
1,507.0
1,380.0
+1,380.0
Livestock Indemnity Payments
--
31.0
33.0
33.0
+33.0
Emergency Conservation Program
--
20.0
35.0
20.0
+20.0

CRS-85
Change to
Appropriations Subcommittee/Title/Account
Request
House
Senate Conference
Request
National Dairy Market Loss Payment Program
--
283.0
31.0
31.0
+31.0
Dairy Assistance
--
--
95.0
20.0
+20.0
Low-Income Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers
--
--
--
21.0
+21.0
Conservation Security Program
--
--
115.0
115.0
+115.0
Farm Service Agency Salaries and Expenses
--
--
30.0
30.0
+30.0
Ewe Lamb Replacement
--
--
13.0
--
--
Flooded Crop and Grazing Land
--
--
6.0
--
--
Sugar Beet and Sugar Cane Disaster Assistance
--
--
27.0
--
--
Spinach
--
25.0
--
--
--
Small Business Economic Loss Grant Program
--
--
100.0
--
--
Tree Assistance
--
--
40.0
--
--
Emergency Watershed Protection
--
--
50.0
--
--
Peanut Storage
--
74.0
--
--
--
Aquaculture
--
5.0
--
--
--
Insect Infestations
--
--
20.0
--
--
Title VI: Elimination of SCHIP Shortfall and
Other Matters

--
448.0
448.0
393.0
+393.0
Department of Health and Human Services
--
448.0
448.0
393.0
+393.0
State Childrens Health Insurance Program
--
735.0
448.0
646.0
+646.0
Impact of SCHIP Funding on Medicaid
--
-287.0
--
-250.0
-250.0
Medicaid Regulation Offsets
--
--
--
-3.0
-3.0
Title VII: Minimum Wage Increase and Tax
Relief

--
--
35.0
--
--
Minimum Wage and Tax Relief
--
--
35.0
--
--
Grand Total
103,015.4
124,315.6
122,807.1
124,173.0
+21,157.6
Sources: Congressional Reports on H.R. 1591: House Report, H.Rept. 110-60; Senate Report, S.Rept. 110-37;
conference agreement, H.Rept. 110-107.

CRS-86
Table A-2. Floor Amendments in the Senate
#
Amendment Purpose
Sponsor
Amendment Status
641
In the nature of a substitute.
Byrd
Mar 26, 2007
Amendment SA 641
By unanimous consent,
considered as original text
for the purpose of further
amendment
Mar 29, 2007
Amendment SA 641
(section 3001 within the
substitute) ruled out of
order by the chair.
643
To strike language that would tie the hands of the
Cochran
Mar 27, 2007
Commander-in-Chief by imposing an arbitrary timetable for
Amendment SA 643 not
the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, thereby
agreed to in Senate by
undermining the position of American Armed Forces and
Yea-Nay Vote. 48 - 50.
jeopardizing the successful conclusion of Operation Iraqi
Record Vote Number:
Freedom.
116.
648
To remove $100 million in funding for the Republican and
Coburn
Mar 28, 2007
Democrat party conventions in 2008.
Amendment SA 648 not
agreed to in Senate by
Yea-Nay. 45 - 51. Record
Vote Number: 121.
649
To remove a $2 million earmark for the University of
Coburn
Mar 29, 2007
Vermont.
Amendment SA 649
agreed to in Senate by
Voice Vote.
655
To authorize the conveyance of a parcel of land for use for
Hutchison
Mar 28, 2007
purposes of a prison in the State of Texas.
Amendment SA 655
agreed to in Senate by
Voice Vote.
656
To require timely public disclosure of Government reports
Coburn
Mar 29, 2007 Proposed
submitted to Congress, and for other purposes.
amendment SA 656
withdrawn in Senate.
657
To provide farm assistance in a fiscally responsible manner.
Coburn
Mar 28, 2007
Amendment SA 657 not
agreed to in Senate by
Yea-Nay Vote. 23 - 74.
Record Vote Number:
120.
664
To appropriate an additional $58,000,000 for Defense
Obama
Mar 29, 2007 Proposed
Health Program for additional mental health and related
amendment SA 664
personnel, an additional $10,000,000 for operation and
withdrawn in Senate.
maintenance for each of the military departments for
improved physical disability evaluations of members of the
Armed Forces, and an additional $15,000,000 for Defense
Health Program for women’s mental health services.

CRS-87
#
Amendment Purpose
Sponsor
Amendment Status
666
To link award fees under Department of Homeland Security
Clinton
Mar 28, 2007
contracts to successful acquisition outcomes under such
Amendment SA 666
contracts.
agreed to in Senate by
Voice Vote.
674
To require the reports on the progress of the Government of
Cochran
Mar 28, 2007
Iraq in meeting benchmarks to be submitted jointly by the
Amendment SA 674
Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, and the United
agreed to in Senate by
States Ambassador to Iraq.
Voice Vote.
680
To provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage,
Kennedy
Mar 27, 2007
and for other purposes.
Amendment SA 680
agreed to in Senate by
Unanimous Consent.
685
To provide for a prohibition relative to the Armed Forces
Kennedy
Mar 28, 2007
Institute of Pathology.
Amendment SA 685 as
modified agreed to in
Senate by Voice Vote.
687
To improve programs for small business concerns that
Kerry
Mar 28, 2007
employ Reservists, and for other purposes.
Amendment SA 687 as
modified agreed to in
Senate by Voice Vote.
690
To provide that, of the funds appropriated by this Act under
Lugar
Mar 29, 2007
the headings “DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR
Amendment SA 690
PROGRAMS” and “ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND”
agreed to in Senate by
(except for the Community Action Program), up to
Unanimous Consent.
$50,000,000 may be made available to support and
maintain a civilian reserve corps.
692
To prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.
Webb
Mar 29, 2007 Proposed
amendment SA 692
withdrawn in Senate.
697
To provide for an independent assessment of the
Warner
Mar 28, 2007
capabilities of the Iraqi Security Forces.
Amendment SA 697 as
modified agreed to in
Senate by Unanimous
Consent.
704
To prohibit the use of funds to make payments to certain
DeMint
Mar 29, 2007
spinach growers and first handlers.
Amendment SA 704
agreed to in Senate by
Yea-Nay Vote. 97 - 0.
Record Vote Number:
123.
707
To provide a Sense of Congress relative to additional policy
Hagel
Mar 28, 2007 Proposed
and requirements on Iraq.
amendment SA 707
withdrawn in Senate.
709
To reauthorize the secure rural schools and community
Wyden
Mar 28, 2007
self-determination program and to provide funding for the
Amendment SA 709
payments in lieu of taxes program.
agreed to in Senate by
Yea-Nay Vote. 74 - 23.
Record Vote Number:
118.

CRS-88
#
Amendment Purpose
Sponsor
Amendment Status
716
To reauthorize the secure rural schools and community
Burr
Mar 28, 2007
self-determination program and to provide funding for the
Amendment SA 716 not
payments in lieu of taxes program.
agreed to in Senate by
Yea-Nay Vote. 8 - 89.
Record Vote Number:
119.
717
to make certain provisions inapplicable.
Coburn
Mar 29, 2007 Proposed
amendment SA 717
withdrawn in Senate.
718
to make certain provisions inapplicable.
Coburn
Mar 29, 2007 Proposed
amendment SA 718
withdrawn in Senate.
727
To make a technical correction regarding the availability of
Stevens
Mar 28, 2007
funds from the Iraq Freedom Fund.
Amendment SA 727
agreed to in Senate by
Voice Vote.
732
Provides a technical correction.
Landrieu
Mar 28, 2007
Amendment SA 732 as
modified agreed to in
Senate by Voice Vote.
737
To provide funds for the weatherization assistance program.
Sanders
Mar 29, 2007
Amendment SA 737 as
modified agreed to in
Senate by Voice Vote.
739
To appropriate an additional $1,500,000,000 for
Biden
Mar 29, 2007
Procurement, Marine Corps, to accelerate the procurement
Amendment SA 739
of an additional 2,500 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
agreed to in Senate by
vehicles for the Armed Forces.
Yea-Nay Vote. 98 - 0.
Record Vote Number:
124.
752
To provide additional funding for certain programs under
Ensign
Mar 29, 2007
the Adam Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act of 2006,
Amendment SA 752 as
by increasing funding for the United States Marshals
modified agreed to in
Service to track down convicted sex offenders who have
Senate by Yea-Nay Vote.
failed to register as a sex offender as required by law and
93 - 0. Record Vote
by increasing funding for United States attorneys to
Number: 122.
prosecute child exploitation and child pornography cases as
part of Project Safe Childhood.
755
To provide a cost of living adjustment for the Federal
Leahy
Mar 28, 2007
judiciary.
Amendment SA 755 as
modified agreed to in
Senate by Unanimous
Consent.
772
To relieve burdens on small business concerns operating on
Snowe
Mar 28, 2007
Federal disaster projects and for other purposes.
Amendment SA 772
agreed to in Senate by
Voice Vote.

CRS-89
#
Amendment Purpose
Sponsor
Amendment Status
776
To provide funds to recruit and retain teachers, principals,
Landrieu
Mar 28, 2007
and other school leader to areas impacted by Hurricane
Amendment SA 776
Katrina or Hurricane Rita.
agreed to in Senate by
Voice Vote.
793
To provide effective rural and small community assistance
Klobuchar
Mar 28, 2007
by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Amendment SA 793
agreed to in Senate by
Voice Vote.
798
To provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage,
Grassley
Mar 27, 2007
and for other purposes.
Amendment SA 798
agreed to in Senate by
Unanimous Consent.
807
To increase by $5,000,000 the amount available for the
Pryor
Mar 28, 2007
Department of Homeland Security for State and Local
Amendment SA 807
Programs and make the increase available for the Domestic
agreed to in Senate by
Preparedness Equipment Technical Assistance Program and
Voice.
to provide an offset.
823
To establish the enactment date for the provisions inserted
Reid
Mar 29, 2007 Proposed
into the bill by amendment # SA 690.
amendment SA 823
withdrawn in Senate.
835
To provide for a hospital in Cass County, Minnesota and
Coleman
Mar 28, 2007
Kemper County, Mississippi.
Amendment SA 835 as
modified agreed to in
Senate by Unanimous
Consent.


CRS-90
Table A-3. War-Related Appropriations, FY2005-FY2007 Supplemental Request
(in billions of dollars)
Total
FY2007
Total FY2007:
Total FY2005
FY2006
Bridge
FY2007
Enacted and
(P.L.108-287, (P.L.109-148,
(P.L.109-
Request as of
Amended FY07
House
TITLE AND ACCOUNT
P.L.109-13a) P.L.109-234)a
289)a
3-9-07c
Supp Requestb
Action
Senate Action
Conference
SUMMARY
TOTAL REGULAR ACCOUNTS
90.909
103.709
64.665
80.928
145.378
85.551
85.694
85.817
TOTAL SPECIAL ACCOUNTS
10.735
11.532
5.171
12.747
17.917
14.837
12.637
14.537
TOTAL DOD (Function 051)
101.644
115.241
69.835
93.315
163.296
100.388
98.331
100.340
DEFENSE-RELATED
0.250
0.159
0.019
0.248
0.267
0.057
0.072
0.072
TOTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE
(Function 050)

101.895
115.400
69.855
93.563
163.563
100.445
98.403
100.425
FUNDING BY ACCOUNT
Military Personneld
19.733
16.729
5.387
12.350
17.736
13.567
13.435
13.508
Army
15.069
11.984
4.730
9.094
13.824
9.605
9.492
9.546
Navy
0.573
1.592
0.143
0.765
0.908
1.183
1.178
1.186
Marine Corps
1.604
1.310
0.161
1.387
1.548
1.511
1.496
1.501
Air Force
2.487
1.843
0.352
1.104
1.456
1.268
1.269
1.274
Operation and Maintenanced
47.852
60.040
39.090
37.771
76.961
37.922
36.402
36.148
Army 31.506
39.765
29.000
20.581
49.581
21.105
20.531
20.531

CRS-91
Total
FY2007
Total FY2007:
Total FY2005
FY2006
Bridge
FY2007
Enacted and
(P.L.108-287, (P.L.109-148,
(P.L.109-
Request as of
Amended FY07
House
TITLE AND ACCOUNT
P.L.109-13a) P.L.109-234)a
289)a
3-9-07c
Supp Requestb
Action
Senate Action
Conference
Navy 3.595
4.659
1.625
5.152
6.777
5.226
4.976
4.788
Marine Corps
2.682
3.592
2.737
1.415
4.152
1.517
1.115
1.160
Air Force
6.579
8.382
2.953
7.084
10.038
6.958
6.734
6.699
O&M Defensewide
3.490
3.642
2.775
3.279
6.054
2.856
2.791
2.714
Other Defense Programs
1.195
1.415
0.100
1.123
1.123
2.790
2.467
3.252
Defense Health
0.953
1.232
0.000
1.073
1.073
2.790
2.467
3.252
Medical Support Fund (new 2-yr transfer
acc’t)
0.050
0.050
0.000
0.000
0.000
Other O&M (DODIF, Counterdrug)
0.242
0.183
0.100
0.259
0.359
0.259
0.254
0.255
Working Capital Funds
3.022
3.033
0.000
1.321
1.321
1.321
1.321
1.321
Def. Working Capital Fund
2.989
3.033
0.000
1.316
1.316
1.316
1.316
1.316
Nat’l Def. Sealift Fd.
0.032
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
Procurement
17.300
21.496
19.680
24.817
44.642
24.814
24.597
25.682
Army Total
10.306
13.560
10.096
15.918
26.015
14.975
15.402
15.893
Aircraft
0.465
0.577
1.461
0.628
2.089
0.462
0.620
0.620
Missile Proc
0.310
0.258
0.000
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.111
0.111
Weapons & Tracked Vehicles
2.601
2.628
3.393
3.502
6.868
3.474
3.400
3.404
Ammunition
0.643
1.103
0.238
0.682
0.919
0.682
0.682
0.682

CRS-92
Total
FY2007
Total FY2007:
Total FY2005
FY2006
Bridge
FY2007
Enacted and
(P.L.108-287, (P.L.109-148,
(P.L.109-
Request as of
Amended FY07
House
TITLE AND ACCOUNT
P.L.109-13a) P.L.109-234)a
289)a
3-9-07c
Supp Requestb
Action
Senate Action
Conference
Other
6.287
8.995
5.004
10.947
15.951
10.197
10.589
11.076
Navy/Marine Corps Procurement Total
3.852
5.581
5.942
3.864
9.806
4.150
3.713
4.415
Aircraft
0.275
0.656
0.487
0.731
1.218
0.996
0.964
1.090
Ammunition
0.170
0.362
0.128
0.160
0.288
0.160
0.160
0.160
Weapons
0.066
0.172
0.109
0.172
0.281
0..172
0.164
0.164
Other
0.078
0.104
0.320
0.745
1.065
0.937
0.723
0.749
Marine Corps
3.263
4.288
4.898
2.056
6.954
1.885
1.703
2.253
Air Force Procurement Total
3.142
2.354
3.642
4.055
7.697
4.753
3.579
4.393
Aircraft
0.424
0.790
2.291
1.726
4.018
2.475
1.432
2.106
Missiles
0.014
0.017
0.033
0.140
0.173
0.140
0.079
0.095
Ammunition
0.007
0.029
0.000
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
Other
2.697
1.518
1.318
2.093
3.410
2.042
1.972
2.096
Procurement Defensewide
0.691
0.513
0.146
0.979
1.125
0.935
0.903
0.980
Research, Development, Test &
Evaluation Total

0.637
0.761
0.408
1.448
1.855
1.035
1.190
1.099
Army
0.037
0.068
0.000
0.116
0.116
0.061
0.126
0.100
Navy
0.204
0.125
0.231
0.460
0.691
0.296
0.308
0.299
AF
0.143
0.395
0.037
0.221
0.258
0.133
0.234
0.187
Defensewide
0.254
0.174
0.140
0.651
0.791
0.546
0.523
0.513

CRS-93
Total
FY2007
Total FY2007:
Total FY2005
FY2006
Bridge
FY2007
Enacted and
(P.L.108-287, (P.L.109-148,
(P.L.109-
Request as of
Amended FY07
House
TITLE AND ACCOUNT
P.L.109-13a) P.L.109-234)a
289)a
3-9-07c
Supp Requestb
Action
Senate Action
Conference
Military Construction
1.170
0.235
0.000
1.740
1.740
4.916
4.781
4.807
Army
0.882
0.187
0.000
1.289
1.289
1.329
1.261
1.256
Navy & Marine Corps
0.140
0.028
0.000
0.390
0.390
0.390
0.348
0.371
Air Force
0.149
0.000
0.000
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.035
0.043
Defense wide
0.000
0.021
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Special Funds and Caps
10.735
11.532
5.171
12.747
17.918
14.837
12.637
14.537
Iraq Freedom Fund including
3.750
4.659
0.050
0.566
0.616
0.156
0.456
0.356
Redevelopment of Iraqi Industry
0.000
0.000
0.000
[.100]
[.100]
[0]
[.100]
[.050]
Transfer to Economic Support Fund for
Pakistan
0.000
0.000
0.000
[.110]
[.110]
[0]
[0]
[0]
Transfer to Economic Support Fund
[0]
[0]
[0]
[0]
[0]
[0]
[0]
[.110]
Afghan Security Forces Fund
1.285
1.908
1.500
5.906
7.406
5.906
5.906
5.906
Iraq Security Forces Fund
5.700
3.007
1.700
3.842
5.542
3.842
3.842
3.842
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Fund
0.000
1.958
1.921
2.433
4.354
2.433
2.433
2.433
Cmdrs Emerg. Response Prg (CERP)
[.800]
[.923]
[.500]
[.456]
[.956]
[.456]
[.456]
[.456]
Coalition Support Cap
[1.220]
[1.545]
[.900]
[1.000]
[1.900]
[.300]
[.200]
[.200]
Strategic Readiness Reserve Fund
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.500
0.000
2.000

CRS-94
Total
FY2007
Total FY2007:
Total FY2005
FY2006
Bridge
FY2007
Enacted and
(P.L.108-287, (P.L.109-148,
(P.L.109-
Request as of
Amended FY07
House
TITLE AND ACCOUNT
P.L.109-13a) P.L.109-234)a
289)a
3-9-07c
Supp Requestb
Action
Senate Action
Conference
Transfer limit for Title IX and
Supplementals
[3.000]
[4.500]
[3.000]
[3.500]
[6.500]
[3.500]
[3.500]
[3.500]
Transfer limit for regular DOD funds
[6.185]
[5.000]
[5.000]
[4.500
[8.000]
[0]
[0]
[0]
Defense-related Programs
0.250
0.159
0.019
0.248
0.267
0.057
0.072
.072
Coast Gd transfer (in O&M Navy)
0.000
[.175]
[.090]
[.120]
[.210]
[.100]
[.100]
[.100]
Intell. Comm. Mgt. Account
0.250
0.159
0.019
0.067
0.086
0.057
0.072
0.072
Defense Nuclear Non proliferation
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.063
0.063
0.000
0.000
0.000
Salaries & Expenses, FBI
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.118
0.118
0.000
0.000
0.000
Notes and Sources:
a. CRS calculations using conference reports and public laws for enacted bridge funds and supplementals; for FY2005, includes $23 billion of bridge fund in FY2005 and allocates
$1.9 billion obligated in FY2004 to that year; includes $2.1 billion obligated for enhanced security (Operation Noble Eagle) in FY2005 and $800 million obligated in FY2006; includes
$1.5 billion transferred for war in FY2005.
b. Reflects FY2008 Budget Appendix for FY2007 Supplemental, and Administration’s Amended Request of March 9, 2007; see OMB, FY2008 Budget Appendix, “Other Materials:
FY2007 Supplemental and FY2008,” 2-5-07; [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/appendix/sup.pdf]. For amended request, see OMB, Amendment to FY2007
Supplemental for Additional Troops with offsets from Supplemental, March 9, 2007; [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/amendment_3_9_07.pdf]. This is the
request figure used by the conferees; see H.Rept. 110-107, Conference Report on H.R. 1591, 4-24-07.
c. Conferees require $110 million transfer to Economic Support Fund, Department of State from Military Personnel Army ($70 million); National Guard Personnel, Army ($13 million)
and Defense Health Program ($27 million).