Order Code RL34278
FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for
Global War on Terror Military Operations,
International Affairs, and Other Purposes
December 10, 2007
Stephen Daggett, Coordinator, Susan B. Epstein, Rhoda
Margesson, Curt Tarnoff, Pat Towell, and Connie Veillette
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for Global War on
Terror Military Operations, International Affairs, and
Other Purposes
Summary
The Administration has requested a total of $196.5 billion in emergency
supplemental appropriations for FY2008, of which $189.3 billion is for military
operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, $6.9 billion is for international
affairs, and $325 million is for other programs. To date, Congress has appropriated
$16.8 billion requested for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, but
the remainder has been caught up in debate over Iraq policy.
For the present, at least, action on FY2008 supplemental funding appears to be
at an impasse. On November 14, the House approved a bill, H.R. 4156, that would
appropriate $50 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
elsewhere in FY2008. Most of the money in the bill is for military service operation
and maintenance accounts, including enough to sustain Army and Marine Corps
activities until at least next April even with no slowdown in the pace of funding
obligations. The bill also includes, however, provisions requiring the withdrawal of
troops from Iraq, which has prompted the White House to threaten a veto.
On November 16, by a vote of 53-45, with 60 votes required, the Senate failed
to close debate on a motion to consider the bill. The Senate also rejected cloture on
a motion to consider a substitute by Senator McConnell, S. 2340, to provide $70
billion for military operations without withdrawal language. The Senate may resume
debate on bill a when it returns in December, but its prospects remain uncertain.
In the absence of supplemental appropriations, officials have warned that the
Army and, shortly thereafter, the Marine Corps, will have to shut down most
operations very soon. Currently, the services are carrying on both peacetime
activities and war-related operations with funds provided in the regular FY2008
Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 3222, P.L. 110-116). Administration officials
complain, however, that money will soon run out. On November 15, Secretary of
Defense Gates said that “the military would cease operations at Army military bases
by Mid-February next year.” This would result, he said, in furloughs of as many as
100,000 civilian personnel and a similar number of private contractors. The Defense
Department would begin, he said, to implement the layoffs in December. Some
senior legislators, however, have denied that such steps are needed so soon.
This CRS report tracks congressional action on legislation to provide FY2008
supplemental appropriations for military operations, international affairs, and related
purposes. It also reviews the availability of funds to carry on Army and Marine
Corps operations in advance of supplemental appropriations. The Defense
Department could potentially tap several sources of funds to extend Army and
Marine Corps operations, including transfers of funds from other accounts and the
use of cash balances in working capital funds. It could also defer some obligations
of funds. And it could invoke the Feed and Forage Act to permit the obligation of
funds in advance of appropriations. Ultimately, however, without additional
appropriations, money will run out. This report will be updated regularly.
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Prospects for Future Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
How Long Can DOD Finance War Costs in Advance of a Supplemental? . . . . . . 3
“Cash Flowing” as a Means of Financing War Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
How Long Regular FY2008 Defense Appropriations Will Last . . . . . . . . . . 4
Alternatives for Extending Operations Longer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Putting the Funding Issue into Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Highlights of the FY2008 Defense “Bridge Fund,” H.R. 4156 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Overview of FY2008 Supplemental Defense, International Affairs, and Other
Funding Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Emergency Spending Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Possible Additional Supplemental Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Congressional Action on Supplemental Appropriations to Date . . . . . 15
Highlights of the FY2008 Defense Supplemental Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Why War-Related Supplemental Requests Have Grown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Selected Elements of the Amended Defense Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
International Affairs Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
State Department Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Foreign Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Iraq Reconstruction Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
The FY2008 Original and Amended Supplemental Request . . . . . . . . 26
Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
The FY2008 Original and Amended Supplemental Request . . . . . . . . 29
Sudan — Darfur and Other Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Darfur Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
FY2008 Additional Supplemental Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Mexico and Central America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
West Bank and Gaza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
North Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Other Humanitarian Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendix A: Congressional Action on FY2008 International Affairs Emergency
Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
List of Tables
Table 1: House FY2008 Defense “Bridge Fund,” H.R. 4156,by Account* . . . . . . 9
Table 2. Initial and Amended FY2008 Supplemental Defense, International
Affairs and Other Funding Requests* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 3. Regular and Supplemental/Bridge Appropriations for the Department of
Defense, FY2000 to FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 4. War-Related Supplemental Appropriations/Bridge Funds by Account,
FY2005-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 5. War-Related Supplemental Appropriations/Bridge Funds by Functional
Category, FY2006-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 6. FY2008 Emergency Supplemental State Department Request . . . . . . . 21
Table 7. FY2008 Foreign Operations Supplemental Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 8. FY2008 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq
Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 9. Afghanistan Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 10. Sudan Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table A1: FY2008 Supplemental Request, State Department and Foreign
Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
FY2008 Global War on Terrorism
Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On November 14, by a vote of 218-203, the House approved a bill, H.R. 4156,
that would appropriate $50 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and elsewhere in FY2008. The bill provides enough money in Army and Marine
Corps operating accounts to sustain the planned pace of military operations in Iraq
and elsewhere through April 2008 even without steps to slow down the rate of
funding obligations. The bill also requires the President to commence the withdrawal
of U.S. forces from Iraq within 30 days of enactment of the legislation and to provide
within 60 days a plan for withdrawing most troops from Iraq by December 15, 2008;
limits the mission of remaining U.S. forces in Iraq to force protection, training, and
pursuit of international terrorists; prohibits deployment of units that are not fully
trained and equipped; and extends prohibitions on torture to all U.S. government
agencies.
On November 16, by a vote of 53-45, with 60 votes required, the Senate refused
to close debate on a motion to proceed to consideration of H.R. 4156 as passed by the
House. The Senate also rejected, by a vote of 45-53, a motion to proceed to
consideration of H.R. 2340, a substitute offered by Senator McConnell, to provide
$70 billion for the Defense Department without requiring withdrawal from Iraq. The
Senate may renew debate over Iraq funding when it resumes floor action in
December.
Meanwhile, in a November 15 press Pentagon press conference, Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates warned that the Army and Marine Corps will have to begin
implementing steps to limit operations unless Congress approves additional funding
soon.1 Without additional money, he said, the Army, will have to cease operations
at all Army bases by mid-February 2008, which would require furloughs of about
100,000 government employees and a like number of contractor personnel. Plans
would have to begin to be implemented in mid-December, he said. On November
20, the Defense Department announced that it was transferring $4.5 billion of funds
to the Army and to the Joint IED Defeat Organization to extend their operations. The
Army, DOD said, will still only be able to operate with available funds, including the
transfer, until mid-February.
1 Department of Defense, “DoD News Briefing with Secretary of Defense Gates and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mullen from the Pentagon Briefing Room,
Arlington, Va.,” November 15, 2007 at [http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts
/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4089].
CRS-2
Earlier, on November 8, the House and Senate approved a conference agreement
on the FY2008 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 3222.2 The President signed the bill
into law, P.L. 110-116, on November 13. The bill provides $460 billion for baseline
Defense Department activities in FY2008 and an additional $11.6 billion for Mine
Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. Except for the MRAP money,
however, the bill does not include funding to cover additional costs associated with
ongoing military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Congress also
provided $5.2 billion for MRAPs in the first FY2008 continuing resolution (H.J.Res.
52, P.L. 110-92), that the President signed on September 29. The FY2008 Defense
Appropriations Act also provides $27.4 billion for Army Operation and Maintenance.
A key question is how long this amount will finance both peacetime and war-related
Army operations.
On October 22, the White House sent Congress an amendment to the FY2008
budget requesting an additional $45.9 billion for military operations, economic and
reconstruction assistance, embassy security, and other activities mainly related to
ongoing conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The request included $42.3
billion for the Department of Defense for military operations and $3.6 billion for
international affairs programs.3 These requests are in addition to amounts that the
Administration requested for similar purposes in its original FY2008 budget,
submitted in February 2007. In all, the Administration has requested $196.5 billion
in supplemental appropriations for FY2008, including $189.3 billion for the Defense
Department for overseas military operations and related activities, $6.9 for
international affairs programs, and $325 million for counter-terrorism activities of
some other agencies.
Prospects for Future Action
If the Senate and House do not approve – or if the President refuses to sign –
either a “bridge fund” providing short-term funding or a longer-term supplemental
appropriations bill in December, it is not clear either when or through what
legislative vehicle Congress will reconsider these requests. On October 2,
Representative David Obey, the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee,
announced at a press conference that he did not intend to bring up “in this session of
Congress” any measure to provide funds for military operations in Iraq “that simply
serves to preserve the status quo.” This would presumably delay any additional
congressional consideration of war-related funding until January or later. Even in
2 See CRS Report RL33999, Defense: FY2008 Authorization and Appropriations, by Pat
Towell, Stephen Daggett, and Amy Belasco.
3 For the overall request see White House Office of Management and Budget, “FY 2008
Emergency Budget Amendments: Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom,
and Selected Other International Activities,” October 22, 2007, on line at [http://www
.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/amendment_10_22_07.pdf]. For an overview of
the defense request, see Department of Defense, FY2008 Global War on Terror Amendment,
October 2007, on line at [http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget
/fy2008/Supplemental/FY2008_October_Global_War_On_Terror_Request.pdf].
CRS-3
January, however, the central issue will remain – how and whether Congress can use
its power of the purse to affect U.S. policy in Iraq.
In the mean time, with Congress refusing to approve a spending bill that
provides money for overseas military operations without setting conditions on Iraq
policy, and with the President refusing to sign a measure that requires the withdrawal
of forces, funding for military operations eventually will run out. The issue now on
the agenda is how soon this will happen, with the Defense Department warning that
it will have to begin sending out layoff notices to 100,000 civilians in December, and
with 100,000 contractors also facing furloughs. Senior Members of Congress have
complained that the dire warnings are politically motivated. The following section
reviews at some length what the Defense Department and congressional critics have
said, what the numbers show, what alternatives there might be to extend military
operations, though with their potential downsides, and, finally, how to put the debate
into the context of the broader, constitutional battle over war powers that may now
be approaching a showdown.
How Long Can DOD Finance War Costs in
Advance of a Supplemental?4
FY2008 supplemental appropriations have now become the arena in which the
ongoing battle over Iraq policy, both within Congress and between Congress and the
Administration, is being fought out. The House-passed, $50 billion bridge fund,
H.R. 4156, would allow the Army and Marine Corps to continue operating at the
currently planned pace well into the Spring (see the following Section, “Highlights
of the FY2008 Bridge Fund, H.R. 4156” for a further discussion). But because H.R.
4156 includes provisions requiring the President to begin withdrawing troops from
Iraq, it did not receive the 60 votes needed to close debate in the Senate, and the
President has threatened a veto. With progress on a short-term funding bill
apparently at an impasse, and the congressional leadership apparently disinclined to
take up anything more, the key issue has become how long the Defense Department,
and in particular the Army and Marine Corps, can operate without additional
appropriations.
“Cash Flowing” as a Means of Financing War Costs
In the absence of supplemental appropriations – either in the form of a
temporary bridge fund or a full-year supplemental – the Defense Department may use
funds provided in the regular FY2008 Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 3222, P.L.
110-116) to finance war costs as well as day-to-day peacetime activities for which the
funds were requested. This is permissible because Congress appropriates funds for
DOD’s regular budget and for war-related activities into the same accounts. Funding
for Army Operation and Maintenance, for example, can be used to fix trucks either
4 For a full discussion, see CRS Report, “How Long Can the Defense Department Finance
FY2008 Operations in Advance of Supplemental Appropriations,” by Amy Belasco, Stephen
Daggett, and Pat Towell.
CRS-4
in Kuwait or in Kansas. Moreover, in the absence of other funds, the Defense
Department can take money intended for use at the end of the fiscal year to finance
operations earlier in the year. The process of shifting funds intended for later in the
year to cover current costs use is known as “cash flowing,” and it has been a common
way for the Defense Department to finance ongoing military operations while waiting
for later approval of supplemental appropriations. Lately, the term “cash flowing”
has been used to refer to the allocation of other sources of funds, including transfers,
to carry on operations in advance of appropriations.
Before the Iraq war, however, the cost of overseas contingency operations – in
Bosnia or Kosovo, for example – was a relatively small share of funding in DOD
operating accounts. Now, war-related costs far exceed the budget for peacetime
operations. The FY2008 Defense Appropriations Act provides $27.4 billion in the
base budget for Army O&M, for example (see below). The amended FY2008
supplemental request is for $54.9 billion, twice as much. Cash flowing has, in turn,
become increasingly problematic, particularly from the point of view of the military
services, which, for the most part, simply want an assured and adequate source of
funds.5
How Long Regular FY2008 Defense Appropriations Will Last
At a press conference on November 15, Secretary of Defense Gates warned that
the Army would run out of money by the beginning of February, and the Marine
Corps some time in March, and he announced measures to limit spending beginning
almost immediately. “The least undesirable” option, he said, would be to “cease
operations at all Army bases by mid-February next year.” This would result, he said,
in furloughs of 100,000 civilian and another 100,000 contractor personnel. Because
some layoffs require 60 days advance notice, he said, the Pentagon would have to
begin sending notifications to personnel in December.6
In the same press conference, Secretary Gates also said that the Defense
Department would take steps to extend Army and Marine Corps funding by
5 The military services have consistently been wary of cash flowing as a means of sustaining
operations. Disputes over the use of cash flowing for the Iraq war began as early as January,
2004. The Administration decided not to request FY2005 supplemental appropriations until
after the start of calendar year 2005. When senior service leaders expressed concern about
that decision in congressional hearings, DOD Comptroller Dov Zakheim called a press
conference to defend the practice. See Department of Defense, “Defense Department
Special Briefing: Purpose Of Budget Supplementals,” February 11, 2004, available on line
at [http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2062]. Subsequently
Congress initiated the process of providing part-of-the year bridge funding when it added
$25 billion in unrequested funds for war related expenses to the FY2005 Defense
Appropriations Act. Later, Congress provided an unrequested bridge fund of $50 billion in
FY2006. The Administration only began to request appropriations for a bridge fund in the
FY2007 budget.
6 Department of Defense, "DoD News Briefing with Secretary of Defense Gates and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mullen from the Pentagon Briefing Room,
Arlington, Va.," November 15, 2007 at [http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/
transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4089].
CRS-5
“reprogramming” or “transferring” funds.7 On November 20, the Defense
Department announced that it was requesting approval from the congressional
defense committees to transfer $4.5 billion of funds from other accounts to the Army
and to the Joint IED Defeat Organization, which, officials said, would extend
operations for only two or three weeks.8
CRS calculations of the length of time the Army and Marine Corps can continue
to operate without additional funding are in line with Defense Department estimates.
At issue is how long money in Army and Marine Corps Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) accounts will last at projected obligation rates. The O&M accounts finance
a broad range of activities, including recruitment, training, transportation, clothing,
subsistence, fuel, facility operation and repair, and equipment maintenance. Funding
for Army and Marine Corps O&M is needed to sustain both peacetime activities and
war-related operations.
For the first few months of the fiscal year, the Army appears to be planning
obligations of about $6.6 billion per month and the Marine Corps of about $800
million.9 The FY2008 Defense Appropriations Act, P.L. 110-116, provides $27.4
billion in O&M for the Army and $4.8 billion for the Marine Corps. At planned
monthly obligation rates, therefore, the Army can operate with baseline
7 In general a “transfer” of funds is a shift of money from one appropriations account to
another. Because appropriations laws provide specific amounts for each account, a shift of
funds is permissible only to the extent Congress allows a transfer in statutory language. As
part of each appropriations bill, Congress usually specifies that a limited amount may be
transferred, subject to certain conditions. Section 2005 of the FY2008 Defense
Appropriations Act permits DOD to transfer up to $3.7 billion between accounts. This is
referred to as “General Transfer Authority” or “GTA.” In most agencies the term
“reprogramming” refers to shifts of funds within accounts, rather than a “transfer” between
accounts. The Defense Department, however, uses the term “reprogramming” to refer to all
shifts of funds, including those that involve a transfer between accounts. All transfers, along
with reprogramming actions over certain threshold amounts, are also subject to advance
approval by the four congressional defense committees.
8 Department of Defense, “Reprogramming Action – Prior Approval,” Serial No. FY 08-02
PA, November 20, 2007. The proposal decreases Navy and Air Force personnel accounts
by $1.85 billion each, for a total of $3.7 billion, decreases cash balances in the Army
Working Capital Fund by $800 million, increases Army Operation and Maintenance funding
by $4,055.6 million, and increases the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund by
$444.4 million.
9 The Army budget reflects average funding of about $6.9 billion in O&M per month
through all of FY2008 to cover both peacetime and war-related operation, and the Marine
Corps budget an average of about $790 million per month. A rough way of estimating
monthly funding is to add the amount appropriated in the regular defense appropriations bill
to the amount requested for supplemental war-related activities, which equals the annual
total for O&M, and then to divide by twelve, which produces monthly average O&M
funding for each service. For Army O&M the calculation is $27.4 billion (FY2008 regular
appropriations) + $54.9 billion (amended FY2008 supplemental request) = $82.3 billion
(total annual O&M budget) ÷ 12 = $6.9 billion (average monthly Army O&M funding). For
the Marine Corps, the calculation is $4.8 billion (FY2008 regular appropriations) + $4.7
billion (amended FY2008 supplemental request) = $9.5 billion (total annual O&M budget)
÷ 12 = $0.8 billion (average monthly Marine Corps O&M funding).
CRS-6
appropriations for about four months of the fiscal year (which began on in October
1, 2007) or until the beginning of February, and the Marine Corps can operate for
about six months, or until the end of March, consistent with Defense Department
estimates.
Alternatives for Extending Operations Longer
In the absence of a bridge fund, the Defense Department may be able to extend
Army and Marine Corps operations beyond February or March, either by adding
money from other sources to O&M accounts or by slowing the pace at which the
services are obligating funds. Barring extensive use of the Feed and Forage Act or
an unprecedented use of provisions of standing law that may allow other services to
pay for Army and Marine Corps operations (see below for a discussion) options
appear limited, and the services will be able to extend operations for an additional
month or two.
In the Army’s official view, all of these kinds of budget maneuvers are
detrimental. In a presentation at the Brookings Institution on December 4, Army
Chief of Staff George Casey complained about any kind of budgetary gamesmanship:
In general, as Chief of Staff of the Army, not having predictable, timely
funding makes it harder for me to do my job: to organize, train and equip
the Army. Every time you put something off or delay it or take some
measures to get another week's worth of funding for the operations and
maintenance account, it has second and third order effects that ricochet all
through the organization, that you don't find the results for two or three
months, and it just makes it harder.
The second thing is I think what's going on right now sends a terrible
signal to soldiers and families. We have nine brigades that are redeploying
from Iraq and Afghanistan right now after being gone for 15 months. They
started in September. They'll come in through January. The notion that
people are even discussing closing down or warm-basing their installations
just minimum essential tasks at a time when they're coming home from
being gone for 15 months is very difficult for them.10
Alternatives for extending Army and Marine Corps operations include –
! Transfer limited additional amounts that may be available from
cash balances in Working Capital Funds. The Defense
Department already plans, subject to approval from the
congressional defense committees, to transfer $3.7 billion of funds
from Force and Navy personnel accounts, and $800 million of
excess cash balances in working capital funds to the Army ($4.1
10 General George William Casey, Jr., Chief of Staff of the Army, "Maintaining Quality in
the Force: a Briefing by General George W. Casey, Jr.," Brookings Institution Transcript,
December 4, 2007, p. 33, on line at [http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files
/events/2007/1204_] casey/20071204casey.pdf.
CRS-7
billion) and to the Joint IED Defeat Organization ($444.4 million).
Excess cash balances remaining in working capital funds might be
as high as $2 billion. Tapping these funds, however, would, at least
temporarily, reduce what flexibility the Defense Department still has
to respond to unexpected developments.
! Slow the pace of Army and Marine Corps obligations of funds,
in part by using means the Army considered in April 2007 and
in part by delaying depot maintenance funding. The Army
projected that measures it planned to slow down operations last
April might, at the upper limit, avoid $3.6 billion or so of
obligations over three months. Some of these measures, however,
may disrupt day-to-day Army operations. Deferring new orders for
depot maintenance might reduce planned obligations by $400
million or so per month, or about $1.6 billion over four months.
CRS cannot, however, assess how this would affect depot work
planning.
! Invoke the Feed and Forage Act, which permits obligations of
funds in advance of appropriations, and for which there are
extensive precedents in the past 40 years. In FY1968, during the
Vietnam war, the Feed and Forage was used to finance $7.4 billion
of war-related operations in FY2008 prices. Use of a similar amount
today would finance Army and Marine Corps operations for about
another month. Operations might be sustained longer if larger
amounts were used. The potential use of substantial amounts to
carry on combat operations, however, particularly if Congress has
denied or refused to act on funding for a war, may be of concern to
Congress because of its implications for congressional war powers.
! Consider using standing authorities, for which there do not
appear to be precedents, to limit Army and Marine Corps costs,
such as that in 10 USC 165 to assign support operations to other
services. Under 10 USC 165 ( c), the Secretary of Defense can
assign other military services to administration and budget for
support costs for Army and Marine Corps units operating as part of
a combatant command (in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Central
Command). CRS is not aware of any precedents for using this
authority to shift costs. It might conceivably be used to reduce Army
operating costs, though at the expense of drawing on Air Force and
Navy operation and maintenance accounts. Moreover, such a step
would appear to undermine congressional controls on the use of
funds.
Taken together, options to transfer additional amounts of cash balances and to
slow Army operations might temporarily reduce or offset Army and Marine Corps
funding requirements by as much as $2 billion (use remaining excess cash balances
in working capital funds) + $3.6 billion (slow operations) + $1.6 billion (defer new
depot maintenance orders) = $7.2 billion, or about one month's worth of funding at
current obligation rates.
CRS-8
A potentially more significant source of funds may be to invoke the Feed and
Forage Act. In the past, it has been used to finance as much as $7.4 billion of
war-related operations in today's prices. That amount would finance Army and
Marine Corps operations for about another month. Operations might be sustained
longer if larger amounts were used. There may be some problems negotiating
contracts, however. And use of the Feed and Forage Act raises significant war
powers issues. For Congress to recommend use of the Feed and Forage Act appears
particularly ironic – it is, in a sense, to write the script for the Executive Branch to
evade legislative restrictions on the use of funds to carry on the war in Iraq.
The potential for DOD to use unprecedented measures, such as the flexibility
given to the Secretary of Defense to reassign responsibility for support activities to
other services, is particularly hard to assess. It might be difficult to administer, or it
might involve only paper changes that could be implemented quickly. It would
appear, however, to undermine congressional controls on the use of funds.
Putting the Funding Issue into Perspective
There are a number of means by which the Defense Department could stretch
out funding for the Army and Marine Corps – for a month or two by slowing
operations and by using remaining, limited financial flexibility, but potentially much
longer by invoking the Feed and Forage Act. Ultimately, however, money for
military operations will run out – and the fact that it will do so is precisely the source
of leverage over policy that the power of the purse gives to the Congress.
The larger issue, therefore, is a political one. Will the public support Congress
if it is determined not to provide funding that simply allows the President to carry on
his current policy in Iraq? Or will the public side with the President because a
funding cutoff is such a blunt instrument? It is inherently a messy way of
determining policy, with unavoidably disruptive effects on day-to-day operations of
the military services and with significant burdens placed on military personnel, on
their dependents, on civilian Defense Department employees, and on military
contractors.
It is important to note, at the same time, that a funding cutoff need not endanger
deployed forces. The Defense Department retains the ability to allocate funding in
a manner that gives the highest priority to force protection, though funding
restrictions may also lead to some changes in operations that commanders would
otherwise not choose. The Feed and Forage Act remains, as the Defense Department
has acknowledged, a potentially useful last resort for ensuring force protection.
In the end, the immediate issue appears to be whether the Senate will agree to
some measure with restrictions on Iraq policy such as those in H.R. 4156, whether,
if passed, the President will veto it, whether Congress can override a veto, and
whether the House, then, will agree to a measure that the President will agree to sign.
As passed by the House, H.R. 4156 includes enough money to continue Army and
Marine Corps operations at an unreduced pace for about four months – or into April
of next year. The following section of this report discusses H.R. 4156.
CRS-9
Highlights of the FY2008 Defense “Bridge Fund,”
H.R. 4156
On November 14, the House approved H.R. 4156, a bill providing $50 billion
in FY2008 supplemental appropriations for military operations abroad and requiring
a change in the mission of U.S. military forces in Iraq and the withdrawal of most
U.S. troops. Table 1 shows the amounts provided in the bill compared to the total
requested for the year in the Administration’s amended request. In all, the bill would
provide about 1/4 of the amount the Administration has requested for the Defense
Department. Most of the money in the bill, however, $37.5 billion, is for operation
and maintenance, of which most, $27.5 billion, is for the Army. The Army O&M
total is 50% of the $54.9 billion that the Administration requested. The bill also
provides 52% of the O&M funding requested for the Marine Corps.
Table 1: House FY2008 Defense “Bridge Fund,” H.R. 4156,
by Account*
(amounts in millions of dollars)
House
Percent
Amended
Bridge
of
Request
Fund
Request
Military Personnel
17,839.5
1,003.4
5.6%
Army
12,317.6
713.7
5.8%
Navy
791.7
95.6
12.1%
Marine Corps
1,790.0
56.1
3.1%
Air Force
1,415.9
138.0
9.7%
Army Reserve
299.2
--
--
Navy Reserve
70.0
--
--
Marine Corps Reserve
15.4
--
--
Air Force Reserve
3.0
--
--
Army National Guard
1,136.7
--
--
Operation and Maintenance
84,310.4
37,399.2
44.4%
Army
54,933.4
27,429.5
49.9%
Navy
6,252.7
2,071.6
33.1%
Marine Corps
4,674.7
2,429.3
52.0%
Air Force
10,809.7
3,582.6
33.1%
Defense-Wide
6,402.8
1,330.5
20.8%
Inspector General
4.4
--
--
Army Reserve
196.7
61.2
31.1%
Navy Reserve
83.4
47.5
56.9%
Marine Corps Reserve
68.2
26.2
38.4%
Air Force Reserve
24.3
8.1
33.3%
Army National Guard
757.0
378.4
50.0%
Air National Guard
103.3
34.4
33.3%
Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Activities
257.6
--
--
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
2,700.0
500.0
18.5%
Iraq Security Forces Fund
3,000.0
500.0
16.7%
Iraq Freedom Fund
207.5
3,168.0
1526.7%
CRS-10
Joint IED Defeat Fund
4,269.0
1,638.5
38.4%
Procurement
67,321.4
5,141.8
7.6%
Army
Aircraft
2,125.5
302.2
14.2%
Missile
641.8
-- --
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles
7,289.7
1,574.2
21.6%
Ammunition
513.6
154.0
30.0%
Other Procurement Army
34,931.6
1,976.1
5.7%
Navy
Aircraft
3,908.5
25.3
0.6%
Missile
318.3
-- --
Ammunition Navy & Marine Corps
609.9
--
--
Other Procurement Navy
1,870.6
88.3
4.7%
Marine Corps
5,519.7
729.2
13.2%
Air Force
Aircraft
3,946.2
147.8
3.7%
Missile
1.8
-- --
Ammunition
104.4
-- --
Other Procurement Air Force
4,621.7
42.1
0.9%
Defense-Wide
768.2
102.6
13.4%
Rapid Acquisition Fund
150.0
-- --
Defense Health Program
1,137.4
649.0
57.1%
Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation
3,872.2
-- --
Military Construction
2,426.8
-- --
Family Housing
11.8
-- --
Revolving & Management Funds
1,962.8
-- --
Grand Total in Bill
189,316.4
50,000.0
26.4%
Source: Request from Department of Defense, Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Amendment Global War on
Terror Request: Exhibits for FY2008, October 2007. Bridge fund amounts by CRS from text of H.R.
4156 as passed by the House.
Note: This table does not reflect appropriations of $16.8 billion for MRAP procurement and
transportation that were provided in P.L. 110-92, the first continuing resolution, and P.L. 110-116, the
FY2008 defense appropriations act and second continuing resolution.
Congress also provided $27.4 billion for Army O&M in the regular FY2008
defense appropriations bill, H.R. 3222, P.L. 110-116 ($28.9 billion was requested).
So, if Congress were to approve the bridge fund as proposed, the Army would have
$27.4 billion in regular appropriations plus $27.5 billion in supplemental funding for
a total of $54.9 billion for operations during the fiscal year. Presumably, this should
be enough to last for at least eight months of FY2008, or until the end of April, 2008.
H.R. 4156 also permits the Defense Department to transfer up to $4 billion of
the money provided in the act between accounts, subject to standard conditions on
transfers of funds. If used in part or in whole to add to Army O&M funding, this
could further extend the amount of time the Army could carry on operations in Iraq
and elsewhere without additional supplemental appropriations.
CRS-11
On Iraq and related policy matters, H.R. 4156 contains the following provisions:
! States the sense of Congress that the war in Iraq should end as
quickly and safely as possible and troops brought home;
! Extends prohibitions on the use of torture by Defense Department
personnel to other government agencies;
! Prohibits the use of funds in the bill to deploy any unit abroad unless
the President certifies 15 days in advance that the unit is “fully
mission capable;”
! Requires the President within 30 days to begin an immediate and
orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq;
! States that the withdrawal from Iraq should be accompanied by a
comprehensive strategy to work with neighbors and the international
community to bring stability to Iraq;
! Sets December 15, 2008, as a goal for completing the transition of
U.S. armed forces to a limited presence, though the date is not a firm
deadline;
! Restricts missions after the transition to protecting U.S. facilities,
armed forces, and civilians; providing limited training and related
assistance to Iraqi security forces; and engaging in targeted counter-
terrorism operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist
organizations in Iraq;
! Requires quarterly reports beginning February 1, 2008, on plans to
achieve the transition of the U.S. mission in Iraq;
! Says that congressional consideration of additional funding shall not
begin until the first quarterly report on the transition of U.S. forces
is submitted;
! Requires by February 15, 2008, a comprehensive regional stability
plan for the Middle East;
! Requires additional quarterly reports, beginning on January 15, 2008
and continuing through the remainder of the fiscal year, that would
establish performance measures for military and political stability in
Iraq and specify a timetable for achieving the goals.
House passage of the H.R. 4156, however, constitutes just one more round in
an ongoing battle between Congress and the Administration over Iraq policy and over
funding for military operations. On November 16, the Senate did not did not agree
to close debate on a motion of consider the bill, which would have required 60 votes
– though neither did a “no-strings-attached” $70 billion substitute by Senator
CRS-12
McConnell. The White House has already said that it would veto any bill that with
similar limits troop deployments in Iraq.
Overview of FY2008 Supplemental Defense,
International Affairs, and Other Funding Requests
Taken together, the Administration has requested a total of $196.5 billion in
“additional” or “supplemental” appropriations for military operations, international
affairs, and other activities in FY2008. Most of the money was requested in the
Administration’s original budget for FY2008, submitted in February 2007. The
request included $141.7 billion for military operations abroad, $3.3 billion in
emergency funds for international affairs programs, and $325 million in emergency
funding for other agencies, including the Department of Energy for counter-
proliferation programs, the Coast Guard, and the Department of Justice.
Subsequently, on July 31, the White House sent Congress a budget amendment
requesting $5.3 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle
procurement and deployment. And on October 22, the White House sent Congress
a budget amendment requesting an additional $45.9 billion in FY2008 for military
operations abroad and for a variety of international affairs programs. In all, the
Administration has now asked for a total of $189.3 billion in FY2008 for military
operations, $6.9 billion in supplemental funding for a variety of international affairs
programs, and $325 million for other agencies. Table 2 provides a summary of
supplemental requests in February, July, and October.
Table 2. Initial and Amended FY2008 Supplemental Defense,
International Affairs and Other Funding Requests*
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Initial
July
February
MRAP
October
Total
Request Amendment Amendment
Request
Department of Defense (Including Other Agency Intelligence Amounts)
Military Personnel
17,070.3
-- 700.5
17,770.8
Operation and Maintenance
71,415.3
748.0
8,729.5
80,892.8
Procurement
32,880.3
4,562.0
26,598.5
64,040.8
Research and Development
1,957.3
30.0
603.3
2,590.6
Military Construction
907.9
-- 955.6
1,863.5
Iraq Freedom Fund/Joint IED Defeat
4,108.0
--
369.0
4,477.0
Defense Health Program
1,023.8
--
--
1,023.8
Iraq and Afghan Security Forces
4,700.0
--
1,000.0
5,700.0
Working Capital Fund
1,681.4
--
--
1,681.4
Subtotal Department of Defense
135,744.3
5,340.0
38,956.4
180,040.7
Non-DoD Classified & Additional Funds
5,920.6
--
3,355.0
9,275.6
Total Defense-Related
141,664.9
5,340.0
42,311.4
189,316.3
International Affairs
Department of Agriculture
P.L. 480 Food Aid
--
--
350.0
350.0
CRS-13
Department of State and International Affairs
Diplomatic and Consular Programs
1,881.6
--
401.4
2,283.0
Embassy Security, Construction, & Maintenance
--
--
160.0
160.0
Contributions to International Organizations
53.0
--
--
53.0
Contributions for International Peacekeeping
--
--
723.6
723.6
Migration and Refugee Assistance
35.0
--
195.0
230.0
International Narcotics Control & Law
Enforcement [details in brackets are non-additive]
159.0
575.0
734.0
[Iraq Criminal Justice Programs]
[159.0]
--
--
[159.0]
[Mexico Counternarcotics and Law
Enforcement]
-- --
[500.0]
[500.0]
[Central America Counternarcotics and Law
Enforcement]
-- --
[50.0]
[50.0]
[Palestinian Authority Security Capabilities
--
--
[25.0]
[25.0]
Economic Support Fund [details in brackets are
non-additive]
1,111.0
1,106.0
2,217.0
[Iraq Reconstruction]
[772.0]
--
--
[772.0]
[Afghanistan Reconstruction]
[339.0]
--
[495.0]
[834.0]
[Iraq Private Sector Assistance]
--
--
[25.0]
[25.0]
[Pakistan Tribal Areas Plan]
--
--
[60.0]
[60.0]
[North Korea Assistance]
--
--
[106.0]
[106.0]
[Palestinian Authority]
--
--
[350.0]
[350.0]
[Sudan Elections]
--
--
[70.0]
[70.0]
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and
Related Programs
--
--
5.0
5.0
International Disaster and Famine Assistance
--
--
80.0
80.0
AID Operating Expenses, Security
61.8
--
--
61.8
Total, International Affairs
3,301.4
--
3,596.0
6,897.4
Other Agencies
Department of Energy
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
63.0
--
--
63.0
Department of Homeland Security
Coast Guard Operating Expenses
120.0
--
--
120.0
Department of Justice
Iraq and Afghanistan Training and Investigations
4.1
--
--
4.1
Afghanistan Marshall Training and Assistance
14.9
--
--
14.9
FBI Counterterrorism Intelligence & Training
101.1
--
--
101.1
DEA Operation Breakthrough & Other
8.5
--
--
8.5
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives Iraq Operations
4.0
--
--
4.0
Federal Prison System Counterterrorism
9.1
--
--
9.1
Total, Other Agencies
324.7
--
--
324.7
Grand Total, All Requests
145,291.0
5,340.0
45,907.4
196,538.4
Sources: February request from Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the U.S. Government: Appendix,
February 2007, pp. 1141-1178. Amendments from Office of Management and Budget, “FY2007 and FY2008
Supplementals, Amendments, and Releases,” at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments.htm].
*Note: Amounts shown in brackets “[...]” are non-additive details of total amounts shown for each account.
Emergency Spending Designation. The Administration has requested all
of these funds, including the amounts in the February budget and in the subsequent
July and October budget amendments, with legislative language that would designate
CRS-14
the amounts as “emergency” spending.11 The intention is to exempt the funds from
caps on spending in the FY2008 congressional budget resolution. Section 204 of the
resolution, S.Con.Res. 21, provides that amounts designated as necessary to meet
emergency requirements “shall not be counted” against caps on discretionary
spending act in the House and shall not be subject to points of order for exceeding
spending limits in the Senate.
Technically, however, the terms “emergency” or “emergency appropriations”
may not apply to all of the money Congress may ultimately provide, particularly for
ongoing war-related expenses. While S.Con.Res. 21 exempts emergency amounts
from caps on spending, it also includes a restrictive definition of emergency spending
that might permit a point of order to be raised in the Senate against a measure that
designates funds for ongoing activities, including the war, as an emergency.12
Instead, the budget resolution permits limits on overall funding to be adjusted by up
to $124.2 billion for “overseas deployments and related activities.” That designation,
rather than “emergency” appropriations, may be invoked to permit some of the
requested spending to be considered without raising a point of order for exceeding
budget limits in the Senate.13
Possible Additional Supplemental Appropriations. Supplemental
appropriations bills frequently provide substantially more money than the White
House requests, and bills sometimes become vehicles for significant legislative
initiatives as well. The FY2007 supplemental, for example, H.R. 2206, P.L. 110-28,
included substantial amounts for disaster relief, farm programs, low-income energy
assistance, and the SCHIP children’s health insurance program. It also included a
measure to increase the minimum wage.
It was widely expected that the appropriations committee would include
additional “emergency” funds for Hurricane Katrina recovery and for other purposes
in any FY2008 supplemental appropriations bill for the war. With the prospect that
the war supplemental would be delayed until January or later, however, appropriators
decided not to wait to address hurricane recovery and other issues, and instead
provided funding for several non-defense programs in the second FY2008 continuing
resolution (CR).
11 The “emergency” language is requested as a general provision in OMB’s February budget
appendix, and the President’s cover letter conveying the October 22 request designates all
of the requested funds as emergency appropriations.
12 Section 206(a)(6)(A) requires that emergency funding must be
“(i) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or beneficial);
“(ii) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time;
“(iii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action;
“(iv) ... unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
‘(v) not permanent, temporary in nature.”
13 Moreover, an "emergency" designation by the President is no longer required. The
President was, in the past, required to agree with Congress to designate funds as
"emergency" appropriations in order to avoid triggering an automatic cut in spending if
outlays exceeded statutory limits. But legislative caps on spending expired after FY2002.
CRS-15
Congressional Action on Supplemental Appropriations to Date. The
second CR, which funds activities of the government from November 17 through
December 14, 2007, was attached to the FY2008 defense appropriations bill, H.R.
3222, P.L. 110-116, which the President signed into law on November 13. The
continuing resolution includes $2.9 billion in additional funds for veterans health
programs, $3 billion in community development funds for Louisiana to help residents
return to their homes, $2.9 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency
Disaster Relief Fund, and $500 million for wildfire management.
As noted above, Congress has also already provided $16.8 billion for MRAPs.
The FY2008 continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 52, P.L. 110-92, that was signed into
law on September 29, provides $5.2 billion for production and deployment of Mine
Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles for the Army and Marine Corps. This
is almost all of the amount that was requested in the Administration’s July 31 budget
amendment. The FY2008 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 3222, P.L. 110-116, that
was signed into law on includes $11.6 billion for MRAPs, all designated as
emergency appropriations.
Highlights of the FY2008 Defense
Supplemental Request
The $189.3 billion requested for military operations in FY2008 continues a
trend of perennially larger and larger amounts of money being provided to the
Defense Department through supplemental appropriations that are over and above
also-increasing “base” budgets for defense. In all, supplemental appropriations for
DOD, together with war-related “bridge” funds provided as separate titles of regular
annual defense appropriations bills since FY2005, have grown from $62.6 billion in
FY2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, to $101.9 billion in FY2005, to $124.0 billion
in FY2006, to $171.3 billion in FY2007, and now still higher (see Table 3).
Table 3. Regular and Supplemental/Bridge
Appropriations for the Department of Defense,
FY2000 to FY2008
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Supplemental/
Total DOD
Regular
Bridge
Appropriations
Appropriations
Appropriations
FY2000
290,339
281,785
8,554
FY2001
318,678
299,320
19,358
FY2002
344,904
328,668
16,236
FY2003
437,714
375,133
62,581
FY2004
447,933
378,406
69,527
FY2005
506,864
404,945
101,919
FY2006
593,780
469,753
124,027
FY2007
608,252
430,600
171,289
FY2008 (request)
672,289
482,973
189,316
Source: CRS from Office of Management and Budget and House and Senate
Appropriations Committee data.
CRS-16
Why War-Related Supplemental Requests Have Grown14
The increases in funding for the war cannot be attributed to the pace of military
operations. Though the number of troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan has
fluctuated over time, and there has been a “surge” of troops into Iraq in recent
months, overall troop levels have remained relatively stable. Instead, the increases
are due in large part to the growth of investments to repair or replace equipment lost
or worn out in military operations and also to upgrade equipment across the entire
force.
As Table 4 shows, the largest increases in funding have been for weapons
procurement, which has grown from about $19 billion in FY2005 to a requested $64
billion in the amended FY2008 request. Operation and maintenance funding has
grown also, much of that to repair equipment. And there have been increases, as
well, in funding to train and equip Afghan and Iraqi military forces. Supplementals
have also been used to finance costs of reorganizing the Army into a modular,
brigade-centered force and to pay for initial costs of increasing the Army and Marine
Corps by 92,000 troops by 2011.
Table 4. War-Related Supplemental Appropriations/
Bridge Funds by Account, FY2005-FY2008
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Amended
Enacted
Enacted
Enacted
Request
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Military Personnel
18,696.7
16,423.3
17,746.1
17,770.7
Operation and Maintenance
46,520.9
59,230.0
72,257.7
80,892.8
Procurement
18,762.6
20,373.8
42,025.5
64,040.8
Research and Development
587.3
125.2
635.8
2,590.6
Military Construction
1,128.1
214.8
1,670.2
1,863.5
IFF/JIEDDO
3,800.0
3,318.1
4,759.1
4,477.0
Defense Health Program
893.6
1,153.6
2,091.2
1,023.8
Iraq and Afghan Security Forces
6,985.0
4,915.1
12,948.7
5,700.0
Working Capital Fund
3,021.7
3,033.1
1,120.5
1,681.4
Subtotal
100,395.8
108,787.0
155,254.8
180,040.6
Non-DoD Classified/Other Emergency
492.4
5,740.3
14,244.8
9,275.6
Total
100,888.3
114,527.3
169,499.6
189,316.3
Sources: FY2007 and FY2008 from Department of Defense, FY2008 Global War on Terror
Amendment, October 2007; FY2006 from Department of Defense, FY2007 Emergency Supplemental
Request for the Global War on Terror, February 2007; FY2005 CRS from House and Senate
Appropriations Committee data.
14 For a much more extensive discussion of trends in supplemental appropriations, see CRS
Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror
Operations Since 9/11, by Amy Belasco, particularly the section entitled “Trends in War
Funding.” Also see CRS Report RL33999, Defense: FY2008 Authorization and
Appropriations, by Pat Towell, Stephen Daggett, and Amy Belasco, particularly the section
entitled “Issues in the FY2008 Global War on Terror Request.”
CRS-17
Table 5 shows the trend in funding according to functional categories that the
Defense Department has used. DOD’s functional breakdown shows large increases
in funding for force protection and smaller increases in support to foreign security
forces. The largest increases, however, have been for what the Defense Department
refers to as “reconstitution.”
Table 5. War-Related Supplemental Appropriations/
Bridge Funds by Functional Category, FY2006-FY2008
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Amended
Enacted
Enacted
Request
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Continuing the Fight
Operations (Includes Plus-Up)
67,158.0
76,148.4
76,868.7
Force Protection
5,358.5
13,349.8
30,461.0
IED Defeat
3,318.1
4,400.0
4,269.0
Military Intelligence Program
1,499.7
3,443.7
3,706.0
Iraq Security Forces
3,007.0
5,542.9
3,000.0
Afghan Security Forces
1,908.0
7,406.4
2,700.0
Coalition Support
1,200.0
1,422.2
1,700.0
CERP
923.0
956.4
1,219.4
Military Construction
214.8
940.0
1,694.5
Factory Restart
--
50.0
100.0
Provincial Reconstruction Teams
5,000.0
100.0
--
Reconstituting the Force
Reconstitution
19,199.8
36,349.1
46,366.8
Enhancing Ground Forces
BCTs / RCT
--
3,647.1
1,557.2
Grow the Force
--
1,498.8
--
Restore the Force
--
--
5,403.9
Strengthening the Army Guard and Reserve
--
--
994.2
Non-DOD Classified & Additional Requests
5,740.3
14,244.8
9,275.6
Total
114,527.2
169,499.6
189,316.3
Sources: FY2007 and FY2008 from Department of Defense, FY2008 Global War on Terror
Amendment, October 2007; FY2006 from Department of Defense, FY2007 Emergency Supplemental
Request for the Global War on Terror, February 2007.
Traditionally, the term “reconstitution” has been used to refer to repairing and
replacing equipment lost or worn out in combat in order to restore the force to
approximately its pre-war condition. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, however,
preferred to use the term “reset” to describe what was needed. To reset the force
meant to return the force, not to its prewar condition, but to the condition that it
would have been in had planned changes in the force been carried on in the absence
of a conflict. The intent was not to add to funding requirements, but to refine and
perhaps reduce them. Secretary Rumsfeld argued, for example, that there was not
necessarily a need to restore stocks of Army prepositioned equipment to prewar
levels because plans to reduce overseas deployments might reduce prepositioning
requirements. Early in the war, the Defense Department did not support Army
CRS-18
requests for funding to reconstitute the force in because of debates over what was
needed, and Congress insisted on adding funds for new equipment.
Now, however, the Defense Department has resumed using the term
“reconstitution,” but the concept appears to encompass much more than just restoring
the force. Instead, it appears to include substantial upgrades to the force, especially
for the Army and Marine Corps. The upgrades include measures to fix preexisting
shortfalls in some kinds of equipment, to add substantially to transportation and
communications equipment in combat units to reflect lessons about the way units
have operated in the war, to more fully equip later deploying units with the same
equipment used in the theater in order to improve training, and to more fully equip
Guard and reserve units that, in the past, were outfitted with older equipment retired
from the active duty force, but that have now become part of the rotation base for
overseas operations and, so are seen to need newer weapons and support systems.
Taken together, these steps to upgrade the force explain much of the increase in
spending.
Congress has generally supported steps to upgrade ground forces, in particular,
though legislators have questioned some of the requested increases in equipment
funding. In action on the FY2007 war supplemental, for example, several legislators
raised questions about the rationale for an Air Force request for two F-35 Joint Strike
Fighters, on which production is just beginning, to replace F-15 and F-16 aircraft lost
in combat operations, and a Navy request for one V-22 tilt rotor aircraft to replace
lost helicopters. In the end, the Administration withdrew those requests in a budget
amendment that realigned funding to reflect costs of the troop surge.15
Selected Elements of the Amended Defense Request
Funding for MRAPs is the largest single item in the amended defense request,
and Congress has already responded by providing virtually all of the money
requested. A few other elements of the amended request stand out.
! Costs of the troop surge: The October 22 budget amendment
includes $6.3 billion to cover costs of maintaining five additional
Army brigade combat teams (BCTs) and one Marine regimental
combat team (RCT) in Iraq through December 2007 and then
returning to pre-surge levels. The budget assumes that the additional
units will be withdrawn beginning in January and that the force will
be reduced to the pre-surge level of 15 brigades by July.
! Other Iraq- and Afghanistan-related increases: The October 22
budget amendment includes $1 billion in additional money for Iraqi
security forces and $100 million to expand a program to reopen
factories in Iraq. It also includes $242 million for the Commanders
15 See Office of Management and Budget, “FY2007 Supplemental Revisions: Department
of Defense (Global War on Terror),” March 9, 2007. The amendment is available on line
at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/amendment_3_9_07.pdf].
CRS-19
Emergency Response Program16 for Afghanistan. And it includes
$956 million, in addition to $739 million requested in February, to
construct facilities and roads in Iraq and Afghanistan.
! Additional funds for reconstitution: Aside from MRAPs, the largest
element of the October budget amendment is an addition $8.8 billion
to the $37.6 billion requested in February to repair, replace, and
replenish equipment and supplies. The budget amendment includes
$1 billion to improve Navy P-3 aircraft radar detection equipment
and smaller amounts for a wide range of other programs.
! Restock inventories of equipment in non-deploying units: Under the
title “Restore the Force,” in addition to funds for reconstitution, the
October budget amendment includes $5.4 billion to restock
equipment inventories of combat support and combat service
support (CS/CSS) units that have had equipment taken away in order
to equip deployed and next-to-deploy combat and support units.
Defense Department officials have said that is only part of the
amount needed to make up shortfalls of inventories due to cross-
leveling of equipment as units have prepared to deploy.17
! Other requests: The budget amendment includes $2.5 billion for a
variety of other initiatives. These include $762 million for fuel price
increases; $416 million to accelerate the date for completing
construction of facilities to replace the Walter Reed Army hospital
from May 2011 to October 2010; $504 million for to improve other
Army medical facilities and services; and about $800 million for
soldier and family support programs, including programs to support
soldiers returning from combat tours.
International Affairs Supplemental
On February 6, 2007, the Administration sent to Congress its regular FY2008
budget that included $35.1 billion for international affairs. At the same time, the
President sent Congress an FY2008 supplemental emergency request of $3.301
billion for international affairs. On October 22, 2007, the Administration amended
its supplemental request with $3.596 billion in additional spending. The total
FY2008 emergency supplemental request for international affairs spending amounts
to $6.897 billion. While the largest portion of the total request is for State
Department operations and foreign assistance in Iraq and Afghanistan, it also
includes sizeable requests for programs in Mexico, the West Bank and Gaza, North
Korea, Sudan, and Pakistan.
16 CERP allows field commanders to provide money for relatively small, local development
projects.
17 Source: Oral communication from Department of Defense Comptroller official, October
23, 2007.
CRS-20
The State Department estimates supplemental funding needs of $3.220 billion
for Diplomatic and Consular Programs (DCP) in Iraq and Afghanistan, Worldwide
Security Upgrades in Afghanistan, staff housing in Afghanistan, Contributions to
International Organizations, and Contributions to International Peacekeeping
Activities (CIPA) for Darfur. Two-thirds ($2.1 billion) of the State Department
request is for Diplomatic and Consular Program funding for Iraq Operations. Foreign
Operations comprise $3.678 billion, including $350 million for P.L. 480 food
assistance. Nearly half of the total foreign operations package is allocated for
assistance in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Bush Administration has increasingly requested supplemental funds for
international affairs budgets. There has been some criticism that the Administration
has relied too heavily on supplementals, and that some items, particularly relating to
Iraq and Afghanistan, should be incorporated into the regular appropriations cycle.
The Administration counters that given the nature of rapidly changing overseas
events and unforeseen emergencies, it is necessary to make supplemental requests for
what it claims are unexpected and non-recurring expenses.
State Department Operations18
In February 2007, the original FY2008 State Department portion of the
emergency supplemental request consisted of $1.882 billion for Diplomatic and
Consular Programs, all for operations in Iraq, and $53 million for Contributions to
International Organizations (CIO). The Administration amended this supplemental,
adding nearly $1.3 billion: $401.4 million for Diplomatic and Consular Programs
(DCP), $160 million for Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM),
and $723.6 million for Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities
(CIPA). Total emergency funds requested for FY2008 for the State Department’s
Administration of Foreign Affairs equal $3.220 billion in addition to the regular
budget request of $7.317 billion for the Administration of Foreign Affairs. (See
Table 6 below.)
Currently, the Mission in Iraq consists of more than 1,000 direct-hire Americans
representing 12 government agencies.19 For the Diplomatic and Consular Programs
account, the Department is requesting a total of $2.283 billion, of which $2.121
billion is for emergency needs in Iraq. In addition, $402.6 million of carryover funds
are available, for a total of $2.523 billion for Iraq operations. Of this sum, $978.7
million would pay for security needs, such as local guards ($151.6 million),
compound guards ($164.0 million), regional security ($167.3 million), personal
security details ($301.4 million), armored vehicles ($41.2 million). Another $907.1
million would go toward Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), paying salaries
($187.6 million), operations ($63.8 million), living accommodations and medical
support ($72.1 million), information technology ($60.3 million), vehicles ($3.3
million), security ($516.8 million) and leases of space in Baghdad ($3.2 million).
18 Prepared by Susan B. Epstein, Specialist in Foreign Policy.
19 For more information, see CRS Report RS21867, U.S. Embassy in Iraq.
CRS-21
The Administration is also seeking $162.4 million for worldwide security
upgrades in Afghanistan. Of this amount, $80 million would pay for securing
facilities, including overhead (roof) protection; $38 million would be for high threat
protection teams and support for the election process; $36.5 million would fund
unbudgeted security costs for other agencies, and $7.9 million would buy fully-
armored vehicles for the embassy and PRTs. Other expenses covered by the FY2008
emergency supplemental request for the Department of State include $160 million
for U.S. staff housing in Afghanistan under the Embassy Security, Construction, and
Maintenance account, $53 million for U.S. assessments for U.N. missions in Iraq
(UNAMI) and Afghanistan (UNAMA), and $723.6 million for U.S. Contributions
for International Peacekeeping activities in Darfur.
Table 6. FY2008 Emergency Supplemental State Department Request
(millions of dollars)
Activity
Regular
Original
Amended
Total
Request
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Supp
Supp
Supp
Request
Request
Request
Total for Administration
of Foreign Affairs
7,317.1*
1,934.6
1,285.0
3,219.6
Diplomatic& Consular Programs
4,942.7
1,881.6
401.4
2,283.0
Iraq Operations
—
(1,881.6)
(239.0)
(2,120.6)
Worldwide Security Upgrades
(964.8)
—
(162.4)
(162.4)
Embassy Security, Construction &
Maintenance
1,599.4**
— 160.0
160.0
Contributions to
International Organizations
1,354.4
53.0
—
53.0
Contributions to
International Peacekeeping
1,107.0
—
723.6
723.6
Total
9,003.5
1,934.6
1,285.0
3,219.6
Notes:
* includes other funds not listed in this table.
**includes worldwide security upgrade funds for embassies.
Foreign Operations20
The Foreign Operations portion, totaling $3.678 billion, of the supplemental
request was sent to Congress in two tranches. A $1.367 billion request accompanied
the President’s budget on February 6, 2007. An amended request for $2.311 billion,
including P.L. 480 food aid, was sent to Congress on October 22nd. Approximately
one-third of the request is made up of $2.217 billion in Economic Support Funds
(ESF) for Iraq ($797 million), Afghanistan ($834 million), West Bank and Gaza
20 Prepared by Connie Veillette, Specialist in Foreign Assistance.
CRS-22
($350 million), North Korea ($106 million), Sudan ($70 million) and Pakistan ($60
million).
Table 7. FY2008 Foreign Operations Supplemental Request
(millions of dollars)
Country/Account
FY2008
FY2008
Total FY2008
Original
Amended
Supp Request
Request
Request
Afghanistan
855.0
ESF
339.0
495.0
834.0
NADR
0.0
5.0
5.0
USAID Operating Expenses
16.0
0.0
16.0
Iraq
1,276.8
ESF
772.0
25.0
797.0
INCLE
159.0
0.0
159.0
IDFA
0.0
80.0
80.0
MRA
35.0
160.0
195.0
USAID Operating Expenses
45.8
0.0
45.8
Mexico–Central America
550.0
Initiative
0.0
550.0
550.0
INCLE
West Bank/Gaza
410.0
INCLE
0.0
25.0
25.0
MRA
0.0
35.0
35.0
ESF
0.0
350.0
350.0
Pakistan
60.0
ESF
0.0
60.0
60.0
North Korea
106.0
ESF
0.0
106.0
106.0
Sudan
145.0
ESF
0.0
70.0
70.0
PL480
0.0
75.0
75.0
Horn of Africa/Kenya
110.0
PL480
0.0
110.0
110.0
Southern Africa
135.0
PL480
0.0
135.0
135.0
PL480 – Unallocated
0.0
30.0
30.0
Total
1,366.8
2,311.0
3,677.8
Note: Figures do not include State Department Operations.
Acronyms: ESF-Economic Support Fund; INCLE-International Narcotics Control and Law
Enforcement; IDFA-International Disaster and Famine Assistance; MRA-Migration and Refugee
Assistance; NADR-Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs; and PL480-
Food for Peace.
CRS-23
Anti-narcotics emergency supplemental funding for FY2008 totals $734 million,
the largest portion allocated for Mexico and Central America ($550 million).
Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) totals $230 million, mainly for Iraqi and
Palestinian refugees. International Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA), totaling
$80 million, would fund programs in Iraq to assist internally displaced persons
(IDPs) and their host communities. The request also includes $5 million for the
Afghanistan Presidential Protection Service from the Nonproliferation, Anti-
terrorism, Demining and Related Programs (NADR) account. A $350 million
request for P.L. 480 food aid would support programs in the Horn of Africa, Kenya,
Sudan, and a $30 million contingency fund for possible needs elsewhere.
Iraq Reconstruction Assistance21
To date, nearly $42 billion in U.S. funds have been appropriated to support all
facets of Iraq reconstruction. Almost all this funding has been appropriated in annual
supplemental legislation. For FY2008, the Administration made no request for
security assistance in its regular Defense budget proposal, but did ask for roughly
$392 million under State/Foreign Operations appropriations. Both House and Senate
versions of H.R. 2764, the FY2008 State/Foreign Operations appropriations, rejected
the Administration request for Iraq. Therefore, funding for Iraq reconstruction in
FY2008 is expected to come entirely from a supplemental.
The Administration’s FY2008 emergency supplemental appropriations request,
revised on October 22nd, includes $4.9 billion in funding for Iraq reconstruction.
Reconstruction aid has two main components — security aid funded with DOD
appropriations and political/economic/social sector assistance funded with
State/Foreign Operations appropriations.
Discussed earlier in this report, the request for DOD reconstruction
appropriations totals about $3.7 billion. It would chiefly fund the training and
equipping of Iraqi troops under the Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF) and
reconstruction grants provided under the Commander’s Emergency Response
Program (CERP). The CERP allows military civil affairs officers to support a wide
variety of economic activities at the local level, from renovating health clinics to
digging wells to painting schools, provided in the form of small grants. CERP also
funds some infrastructure efforts no longer supported with other U.S. assistance, such
as repair or provision of electric generators and construction of sewer systems.
Commanders identify needs and dispense aid with few bureaucratic encumbrances.
The recent budget revision added a $100 million request to the Iraq Freedom
Fund account for the Task Force to Improve Business and Stability Operations in
Iraq. The Task Force, funded at $50 million under the previous supplemental
appropriations legislation, seeks to stimulate the economy and create employment for
Iraqi citizens by rehabilitating some of the roughly 200 state-owned enterprises that
composed a large portion of the Iraqi economy prior to the U.S. occupation. News
21 Prepared by Curt Tarnoff, Specialist in Foreign Affairs. For more detailed discussion of
the U.S. program of assistance to Iraq, see CRS Report RL31833, Iraq: Reconstruction
Assistance.
CRS-24
reports have suggested some difficulty with the program, resulting from the lack of
electricity, the insecure environment, and a lack of enthusiasm from U.S. companies
that had been expected to invest in the facilities, among other reasons.22
Under the State/Foreign Operations appropriations budget, the FY2008
emergency supplemental request totals $1.2 billion — $797 million in the Economic
Support Fund (ESF), $159 million in the International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement (INCLE), and $195 million in the Migration and Refugee Assistance
(MRA), and $80 million in the International Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA)
accounts. ESF funds are the main spigot of assistance provided by the Provincial
Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), which have grown under the surge to more than 25,
including 15 newly established PRTs embedded with U.S. combat battalions and
concentrated mostly in Baghdad and Anbar province. The PRTs are intended to help
stabilize areas secured by U.S. and Iraqi forces. PRTs are expected to help stabilize
an area by supporting local small-scale, employment-generating, economic projects,
using ESF-funded community development grants, job training and micro-loan
programs, among other activities. PRTs also utilize ESF to increase the capacities
of local government officials to spend Iraqi-owned capital funds allocated by the
Iraqi government for infrastructure programs. At the national level, ESF supports
Ministerial capacity development, agriculture and private sector reform, and the
strengthening of democratization efforts.
The recent budget revision added another $25 million to the ESF supplemental
request and offers proposed authorization language to allow the Administration to
establish a new Iraq enterprise fund based on the model in east Europe and the former
Soviet Union. Enterprise funds are U.S. government-funded private sector-run
bodies that primarily provide loans or equity investments to small and medium
business. In the former communist countries, they also took other steps to encourage
growth of the private sector, including support for mortgage lending markets and
establishment of private equity funds. The most successful example, the Polish
Fund, made many profitable investments, helping companies grow that otherwise
were unable to obtain financial support in the period just after the fall of communism.
Some of the Funds, however, have been much less successful, either by taking on
poor investment risks, or unable to locate promising businesses because of the poor
business climate or competition from other private sector funding sources. Some
observers question the usefulness of the funds because their ostensible development
purpose seems often to conflict with pressures for economic profit.
The INCLE account largely supports rule of law and corrections programs. The
Administration request is expected to fund prison construction, something that
Congress has sometimes cut from previous requests. The request is also intended to
extend judicial reform and anti-corruption efforts to the provinces. The MRA request
would address the continuing refugee crisis in the region; an estimated 2.0 million
Iraqis have fled the country and another 2.2 million have been displaced due to
sectarian violence and instability. The IDFA program would provide medical care,
food, shelter and other relief to refugees and displaced people.
22 “U.S. Falters in Bid to Boost Iraqi Business,” Washington Post, August 24, 2007; “In Iraq,
One Man’s Mission Impossible,” CNN Money.com, September 4, 2007.
CRS-25
FY2008 emergency funds are also requested for operational costs (not included
in the reconstruction aid total or in Table 8) for staffing and administering
reconstruction programs: $679 million for PRT and $45.8 million for USAID
operations.
Table 8. FY2008 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
for Iraq Reconstruction
(millions of dollars)
International Affairs (Budget Function 150 Accounts)
Administration Request
Economic Support Fund (ESF):
$797.0 million
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE)
$159 million
Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA)
$195 million
International Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA)
$80.0 million
TOTAL 150 Account
$1,231.0 million
Department of Defense (Budget Function 050 Accounts) *
Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF)
$3,000 million
Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP)
$609.7 million**
Iraq Freedom Fund (for Task Force to Improve Business)
$100.0 million
TOTAL 050 Account
$3,709.7 million
GRAND TOTAL, 150 & 050
$4,940.7 million***
Sources: Department of State and Department of Defense FY2008 Congressional Budget Justifications.
Notes
* 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.
** The total CERP request of $1,219.4 million is for both Iraq and Afghanistan. The amount included here
assumes that half will be used in Iraq.
*** Not included are $45.8 million in USAID operational expenses (OE) for Iraq programs and $679 million
for PRT OE.
Afghanistan23
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 have
23 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Assistance, and
Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs.
CRS-26
started to enjoy 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 next elections are planned
for 2009.
The insurgency led by remnants of the former Taliban regime escalated in 2006,
after several years in which it appeared the Taliban was mostly defeated. U.S. and
NATO commanders have had recent successes in counter insurgency operations, but
the Taliban continues to present a considerable threat to peace and security in parts
of Afghanistan. Slow reconstruction, official corruption, and the failure to extend
Afghan government authority into rural areas and provinces, particularly in the south
and east, have contributed to the Taliban resurgence. In recent months, political
leadership in the more stable northern part of the country have registered concerns
about distribution of reconstruction funding. In addition, narcotics trafficking is
resisting counter-measures, and independent militias remain throughout the country,
although many have been disarmed. Also, the Afghan government and U.S. officials
have said that some Taliban commanders are operating from Pakistan, putting them
outside the reach of U.S./NATO forces in Afghanistan. In 2007, the Administration
unveiled a new initiative, Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZ) in Afghanistan
and border regions with Pakistan to stimulate economic activity in underdeveloped,
isolated regions.
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). Despite these efforts, weak provincial governance is seen as a key obstacle
to a democratic Afghanistan and continues to pose a threat to reconstruction and
stabilization efforts.
The FY2008 Original and Amended Supplemental Request. The
Administration requested a total of $355 million in the FY2008 emergency
supplemental funds for Afghanistan in February 2007 to meet a portion of the
funding required at the time. These included ESF ($339 million) and security
requirements for USAID ($16 million). The Administration amended the FY2008
supplemental request and included several provisions intended to continue U.S.
efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and continue economic reconstruction efforts.24
Key elements of the FY2008 supplemental request are:
$495 million in Economic Support Funds (ESF) – in addition to the $339
million already requested – for democratic governance and reconstruction
24 Funding figures obtained from the FY2008 Revised Emergency Proposal dated October
22, 2007; the proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2008 (“Additional 2007 and 2008
Proposals”) submitted in February 2007; and the Supplemental Appropriations Justification
Fiscal Year 2008 prepared by the Department of State and USAID.
CRS-27
efforts to continue security and development strategy, which would be allocated
as follows:
! $275 million would be used to strengthen provincial governance and
responsiveness to the Afghan people. Funding would support a wide
range of programs, preparation activities for the 2009 election and
ongoing programs, such as the National Solidarity Program ($40
million), the Afghanistan Reconstruction Fund ($25 million), and
the Provincial Governance Fund ($50 million);
! $50 million would be used as part of an effort to invest in basic
social services, such as health and education, particularly in rural
areas;
! $170 million would be made available for economic growth and
infrastructure, including the development of power sector projects
($115 million); road projects ($50 million) focused on those
segments that are of strategic military importance and provide key
connections between the central and provincial government capitals;
and funding to support Reconstruction Opportunity Zones ($5
million) in designated areas to reconnect economically isolated areas
and create employment alternatives.
In addition to the ESF funding, the request includes:
! $162.4 million to support Diplomatic and Consular Programs (DCP)
in Afghanistan as part of a worldwide security upgrade in the Global
War on Terror. Funding requested specifically for Afghanistan
security operations ($38 million); secure facilities ($80 million);
other agencies’ unbudgeted security costs ($36.5 million); and fully
armored vehicles ($7.9 million);
! $160 million to support embassy security, construction and
maintenance, mainly housing for U.S. mission staff in Afghanistan;
! $5 million in Non-Proliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and
Related Programs (NADR) to support the Afghan leadership through
the Presidential Protection Service;
! $53 million for Contributions to International Organizations (CIO)
to pay U.S. assessments toward the U.N. Assistance Mission in
Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq
(UNAMI), both of which are paid for out of the U.N. regular budget
(and the United States’ obligation is 22 percent); and
! $16 million for FY2008 security requirements for U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) operations in Afghanistan.
This item was part of the FY2008 GWOT emergency supplemental
request.
CRS-28
Table 9. Afghanistan Aid
(millions of dollars)
Regular
Original
Amended
Total FY2008
Activity
FY2008 budget FY2008 Supp
FY2008
Supplemental
(appropriation account)a
Request
Request
Supp Request
Request
Infrastructure aid (ESF)
693.0
339.0
495.0
834.0
U.S. mission security (DCP)
—
—
162.4
162.4
U.S. Embassy Security,
— — 160.0
160.0
Construction, Maintenance
USAID mission security (OE)
—
16.0
—
16.0
Nonproliferation (NADR)
21.7
—
5.0
5.0
Narcotics/ Law Enforce. (INCLE)
274.8
—
—
—
Health (CSH)
65.9
—
—
—
Military Education (IMET)
1.7
—
—
—
Total
989.5
355.0
822.4
1,177.4
Source: FY2007 and FY2008 budget materials.
Notes: Data in this table reflect ongoing and FY2008 proposed funding for programs the same as or similar
to those requested in the FY2007 supplemental. The total line does not represent total aid or mission
operations for Afghanistan. Excluded from this table is proposed funding requested for FBI operations in
Afghanistan. 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.
Acronyms: ESF - economic Support Fund, MRA-Migration and Refugee Assistance, DCP-Diplomatic and
Consular Programs, OE-operating expenses, NADR-Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related
Programs, and INCLE-International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement, IDFA-International Disaster and
Famine Assistance, CSH - Child Survival and Health, and IMET - International Military Education and
Training.
Pakistan
The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) are considered strategically
important to combating terrorism while continued terrorist and militant activities in
the frontier region remain a threat to U.S interests in Afghanistan. The Government
of Pakistan has developed a FATA Sustainable Development Plan to be implemented
over 10 years. In support of this plan, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) have put forward a five-year $750 million
development assistance strategy for the frontier region (a pledge of $150 million per
year) that complements the Government of Pakistan’s plan.25 The Frontier Strategy
objectives are to improve economic and social conditions in the Federally
Administered Tribal Areas in order to address the region’s use by terrorists and
militants. Programs will include governance, health and education services, and
25 For more detail on Pakistan, see CRS Report RL33498, Pakistan-U.S. Relations.
CRS-29
economic development, such as agricultural productivity, infrastructure
rehabilitation, credit, and vocational training.
On November 4, 2007, President Musharraf imposed emergency rule and
suspended Pakistan’s constitution. In light of these events, the Administration
announced a review of U.S. assistance. Some Members of Congress have called for
suspending parts of the aid program pending the restoration of democracy and the
scheduling of elections.
The FY2008 Original and Amended Supplemental Request. The
Administration did not request funding for Pakistan in its original FY2008
emergency supplemental request in February 2007. The FY2008 regular budget
request asked for $90 million for the frontier region development plan, which left a
gap of $60 million in the overall U.S. pledge of $150 million. The FY2008
additional supplemental request for $60 million in Economic Support Fund (ESF)
would address this funding gap and meet the full pledge as follows: Investment in
governance and planning ($13 million); health and education programs ($15 million);
and local economic development ($32 million). The $60 million supplemental
request is in addition to the $785 million requested in the regular FY2008 budget
from various accounts.
Sudan — Darfur and Other Sudan26
The Administration seeks a total of $868.6 million in supplemental funds for
Sudan, most of which would be for humanitarian and peacekeeping support in the
Darfur region. No funding was requested for Sudan in the original FY2008
emergency supplemental, but is scheduled to receive $321 million in the regular
FY2008 budget.
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 burgeoned when the government of Sudan and its allied militia
began a campaign of terror against civilians in an effort to crush the rebellion and to
punish the core constituencies of the rebels. The rebels have splintered into several
more groups. Since 2003, an estimated 200,000 (some claim as high as 450,000)
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 Mission in Sudan (AMIS) deployed an estimated 7,700 peacekeeping
troops, including military observers and civilian police. In August 2007, the U.N.
Security Council voted to create a U.N. peacekeeping force of nearly 26,000 for
26 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Assistance
CRS-30
Darfur that could be deployed only with the Sudanese government’s approval.
African Union peacekeepers would be transferred to the U.N. force for a new U.N.-
A.U. hybrid peacekeeping operation (UNAMID). Peace talks in held in Libya in mid-
October 2007 were boycotted by key rebel groups and prospects for peace
negotiations remain uncertain.27
FY2008 Additional Supplemental Request. Major elements of the
FY2008 additional supplemental include:
! $70 million is requested in ESF funds for Sudan to support
upcoming national elections that are to take place before July 2009,
according to the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement between
north and south Sudan. Part of the effort will focus on strengthening
political parties, drafting the electoral law, supporting an electoral
commission, promoting civic education, and supporting election-
related institutions and processes. The United Nations estimates that
the elections could cost nearly $400 million because of the logistical
hurdles in conducting elections in a post-conflict environment.
! $75 million for additional food assistance (P.L. 480, Title II) in the
Darfur region of Sudan and those displaced in Eastern Chad;
! $723.6 million in support of UNAMID. The U.N. assessment for
the Darfur peacekeeping force is estimated to be $3.4 billion in
2008. (The U.S. share will be approximately $884 million.) The
President has already requested $391.1 million for the existing U.N.
mission in Sudan (UNMIS), but based on the 2007-2008 U.N.
peacekeeping budget, the U.S. share will be $280 million in
FY2008. This leaves approximately $160 million for UNAMID,
which represents a shortfall of $724 million.
27 For more detail on Sudan, see CRS Report RL33574, Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and
Status of the North-South Peace Agreement.
CRS-31
Table 10. Sudan Supplemental
(millions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Original
Amended
Supp
Activity
Regular
Supp
Supp
Request
(appropriation account)a
Request
Request
Request
Total
PL480, Title II food aid
—
—
75.0
75.0
AMIS (PKO)
41.4
—
—
—
U.N. peacekeeping mission/Darfur
— —
723.6
723.6
(CIPA)
Economic Support Fund (ESF)
245.9
—
70.0
70.0
Foreign Military Financing (FMF)
0.1
— — —
Military Education/Training (IMET)
0.3
—
—
—
Narcotics Control/Law Enforcement
24.0
—
— —
(INCLE)
Nonprolif./Anti-terrorism/Demining
4.0
— — —
Total
$315.7
$0.0
$868.6
$868.6
Sources: FY2007and FY2008 budget materials. As part of theFY2007 supplemental request, the
Administration requested transfer authority from CIPA to PKO.
Notes: Data in this table reflect ongoing funding for programs similar to those requested in the
FY2006and FY2007 supplementals. The Total line does not represent total aid or mission operations
for Sudan. FY2007 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. IDFA-International Disaster and
Famine Assistance, MRA-Migration and Refugee Assistance, AMIS-African Union Mission, PKO-
Peacekeeping Operations, CIPA-Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities, DCP-
Diplomatic and Consular Programs, ESF-Economic Support Fund.
Mexico and Central America28
The supplemental request includes $550 million to meet the first installment of
a reportedly $1 billion-plus anti-narcotics package for the Mexico and Central
America Security Initiative. Composed entirely of funds from the International
Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement Account (INCLE), the initiative is to
address criminal gang and drug trafficking activities and to support improved justice
systems and rule of law programs. Mexico would see $500 million of the initial
package for border security technology and transport for law enforcement and to
improve judicial and prison systems. Countries in Central America would receive
$50 million to improve border security, deter the smuggling of drugs, arms, and
persons, and improve the justice sector and gang prevention programs. Regular
28 Prepared by Connie Veillette, Specialist in Foreign Assistance. For more information, see
CRS Report RL34215, Mexico’s Drug Cartels, and CRS Report RL32724 Mexico-U.S.
Relations: Issues for Congress.
CRS-32
funding for Mexico totaled $65.4 million in FY2007 and a requested $45.1 million
in FY2008. The countries of Central America received $134.8 million in FY2007
and are proposed to receive $146.5 million in FY2008.
West Bank and Gaza29
The request includes $375 million to support the Palestinian Authority (PA)
government. The focus is on rule of law, economic growth, and governance issues.
The supplemental request is in addition to $77 million requested in the regular
FY2008 budget and comes after a new PA government was formed without Hamas
control. Consisting largely of ESF funds, $40 million is to address governance
issues, $20 million would improve health care services, $130 million is to support
job creation, infrastructure, trade and investment, and agriculture programs, and $150
million would consist of budget support in the form of a cash transfer. An additional
$25 million in INCLE funds would be used to train and equip the Presidential Guards
and National Security Force, and $35 million in MRA funds would be for Palestinian
refugees in the West Bank and Gaza and in refugee camps in Lebanon.
North Korea30
The Administration proposes $106 million in ESF funds for North Korea as a
result of commitments made as part of the Six Party Talks. In February 2007, North
Korea agreed to shut down and eventually abandon the Yongbyon nuclear facility,
to allow International Atomic Energy Agency monitors back in the country and to
disable all existing nuclear facilities. In return, the United States and other Six Party
Talks members (South Korea, China, Russia and Japan) agreed to provide 1 million
metric tons of Heavy Fuel Oil, or the equivalent in other assistance, as North Korea
meets its commitments. The U.S. share is one-quarter of the 1 million metric tons,
or equivalent assistance. The total cost for the U.S. commitment is $131 million.
The President authorized $25 million in FY2007 supplemental funds, leaving $106
million that would be provided with the FY2008 supplemental funding.
Other Humanitarian Assistance31
Although proposed aid packages for specific countries anticipate and identify
some humanitarian needs, the Administration also seeks funding for what it claims
are unmet or unforseen humanitarian assistance. Total funding is provided by
account with details on countries and activities:
! $350 million in additional P.L. 480 - Title II assistance to meet
emergency food needs in the Darfur region of Sudan ($75 million)
and elsewhere worldwide, including places such as southern Africa
29 For more information, see CRS Report RL34074 The Palestinian Territories: Background
and U.S. Relations, and CRS Report RS22370 U.S. Foreign Assistance to the Palestinians.
30 For more information, see CRS Report33590 North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons
Development and Diplomacy.
31 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Assistance.
CRS-33
($135 million), and the Horn of Africa and Kenya ($110 million);
contingency funding ($30 million) is requested for possible needs
elsewhere, including West Bank/Gaza and South Asia. No funding
was requested in the earlier version of the FY2008 Emergency
Supplemental request;
! $80 million for International Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA)
to support humanitarian assistance to internally displaced
populations in Iraq and their host communities. No funding was
requested in the earlier version of the FY2008 Emergency
Supplemental;
! $230 million for Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) for
anticipated and unanticipated refugee and migration emergencies.
$195 million is requested for humanitarian assistance to Iraqi
refugees. (This is an increase of $160 million for Iraqi refugees as
$35 million was requested in the earlier version of the FY2008
Emergency Supplemental.) In addition, $35 million is requested for
the emergency needs of Palestinian refugees in Gaza and West Bank,
and for Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.
CRS-34
Appendix A: Congressional Action on FY2008 International Affairs Emergency Request
Table A1: FY2008 Supplemental Request, State Department and Foreign Operations
(millions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Original
Amended
Total
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008 Base
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Account
Request*
Request
Request
Request
House
Senate
Conference
State Department
Diplomatic & Consular Programs
4,942.7
1,881.6
401.4
2,283.0
Embassy Security, Construction, Maintenance
792.5
—
160.0
160.0
Contributions to International Organizations
1,354.4
53.0
—
53.0
Contributions to International Peacekeeping
1,107.0
—
723.6
723.6
Total, State Department
8,196.6
1,934.6
1,285.0
3,219.6
Foreign Operations
Economic Support Fund
3,319.6
1,111.0
1,106.0
2,217.0
International Narcotics Control/Law Enforce.
634.6
159.0
575.0
734.0
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining
464.0
—
5.0
5.0
Migration and Refugee Assistance
773.5
35.0
195.0
230.0
International Disaster & Famine Relief
297.3
—
80.0
80.0
USAID Operating Expenses
609.0
61.8
—
61.8
P.L. 480 Food Aid
1,319.4
— 350.0
350.0
Total, Foreign Operations
7,417.4
1,366.8
2,311.0
3,677.8
Total, State and Foreign Operations
10,835.4
3,301.4
3,596.0
6,897.4
* FY2008 Base Request as shown in this table does not include all accounts in the State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations bills. Accounts listed
above are only those for which supplemental funds are requested.