Order Code RL34451
Second FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for
Military Operations, International Affairs, and
Other Purposes
April 15, 2008
Stephen Daggett, Susan B. Epstein, Rhoda Margesson, Curt
Tarnoff, Pat Towell, and Catherine Dale
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Second FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for
Military Operations, International Affairs, and Other
Purposes
Summary
During its first session, the 110th Congress provided emergency appropriations
of $86.8 billion for the Department of Defense and $2.4 billion for international
affairs, mainly for activities related to military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Of those amounts, $70 billion for defense and all of the $2.4 billion for international
affairs were provided in the FY2008 consolidated appropriations bill, H.R. 2764,
which the President signed into law, P.L. 110-161, on December 26, 2007.
Congress left unresolved, however, the status of a substantial amount of
additional FY2008 emergency funding that the Administration had requested. In all,
Congress did not act on about $102.5 billion requested for the Department of Defense
and $5.4 billion for international affairs. Congressional leaders have said that they
plan to bring up a bill providing additional supplemental appropriations for FY2008
sometime this spring. Now, the House Appropriations Committee plans to begin
marking up a supplemental bill the week of April 21. The bill may include some or
all of the remaining amounts the Administration has requested for defense and
international affairs and also funding for additional domestic as well as defense and
international programs.
The bill may become a vehicle for a renewed debate about troop withdrawals
from Iraq. Other issues may include whether to provide reconstruction assistance to
Iraq as loans rather than grants and whether to require that military units be stationed
at home for at least as long as they are deployed abroad. There may also be debate
about unrequested funding for C-17, C-130, and F-22 aircraft, and perhaps for some
other programs, that Congress may consider adding to the bill.
It is also possible that the supplemental could become a vehicle for an economic
stimulus package, including extended unemployment benefits and other measures.
This CRS report will be updated regularly to report on congressional action on
remaining supplemental appropriations. For congressional action on FY2008
supplemental funding provided through December 2007, see CRS Report RL34278,
FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for Global War on Terror Military
Operations, International Affairs, and Other Purposes
, coordinated by Stephen
Daggett, which will not be updated further.

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Congressional Action on FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations Through
December 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Administration Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
An Overview of Remaining Requested FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations . . 6
Remaining Defense Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Possible Issues in Debate over the Remaining Defense Request . . . . . . . . . . 9
Iraq policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Readiness of U.S. forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Major weapons programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Remaining International Affairs Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Iraq Reconstruction Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Congressional action on Iraq reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Afghanistan Reconstruction Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
The FY2008 original and amended emergency
supplemental request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
The FY2008 original and amended supplemental request . . . . . . . . . . 21
Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
FY2008 additional emergency supplemental request . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Other Humanitarian Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
List of Tables
Table 1. Remaining FY2008 Supplemental Funding Requested for the
Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 2. FY2008 Emergency Supplemental State Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 3. FY2008 Foreign Operations Emergency Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 4. FY2008 Second Supplemental Appropriations for
Iraq Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 5. Afghanistan Reconstruction Assistance, FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 6. Sudan Emergency Supplemental, FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Second FY2008 Supplemental
Appropriations for Military Operations,
International Affairs, and Other Purposes
Most Recent Developments
During the first session of the 110th Congress, which ended on December 31,
2007, the Administration requested $196.5 billion in emergency supplemental
appropriations for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, including $189.3 billion for military
operations, $6.9 billion for international affairs, and $325 million for other purposes.
Through the end of December, Congress had approved $86.8 billion of the total
requested for defense and $2.4 billion for international affairs, of which the State
Department calculates that $1.5 billion was for requested programs. Of the
President’s total emergency request, $102.5 billion for defense and $5.4 billion for
international affairs remain outstanding.
Defense officials now calculate that funding appropriated in the regular FY2008
defense appropriations act, P.L. 110-116, together with FY2008 supplemental
appropriations provided in the consolidated appropriations act, P.L. 110-161, will
begin to run out some time in June – by about the middle of June for Army military
personnel accounts and by the end of June for Army operation and maintenance. The
Defense Department could extend operations further either by slowing the pace of
obligations or by using available authority to transfer funds from other accounts to
the Army. More than $11.4 billion in transfer authority may be available.1 It could
also invoke the Feed and Forage Act to obligate funds in advance of appropriations
or use other standing authorities to extend operations further.2
For defense, much of the remaining requested funding is to repair, replace, and
upgrade weapons and other equipment used in the war. For international affairs,
1 The regular FY2008 defense appropriations bill provides $3.7 billion of general transfer
authority which, subject to approval by the congressional defense committees, can be used
to shift funds between accounts. The consolidated appropriations act provides $3.7 billion
in the Iraqi Freedom Fund, which may be transferred to personnel, operation and
maintenance, or other accounts for operations either in Iraq or in Afghanistan and then
transferred back again. The consolidated appropriations act also provides authority, again
subject to congressional approval, to transfer up to $4.0 billion of the $70 billion in
emergency defense funding in the bill between accounts. Additional amounts may be
available in cash balances of working capital funds.
2 See CRS Report RL34275, How Long Can the Defense Department Finance FY2008
Operations in Advance of Supplemental Appropriations?
, by Amy Belasco, Stephen
Daggett, and Pat Towell, and CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11
, by Amy Belasco.

CRS-2
remaining funding includes additional sums for reconstruction assistance to Iraq and
Afghanistan and for a major new counter-narcotics initiative in Mexico and Central
America. For State Department operations, outstanding requests include additional
amounts for Diplomatic and Consular Program security upgrades and for
Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities in Darfur and elsewhere.
During the week of April 21, the House Appropriations Committee is expected
to begin marking up a bill providing additional supplemental appropriations for
FY2008. Several issues may be matters of debate. The bill could become a vehicle
for additional debate over withdrawals of U.S. forces from Iraq. Some legislators
may propose amendments to clarify what measures of progress in Iraq would allow
further withdrawals of troops or to further refine benchmarks for Iraqi government
performance. Senator Webb is expected to again offer a proposal to require that units
be stationed at home between deployments for at least as long as they are deployed
abroad. Senator Ben Nelson is expected to offer an amendment to provide some or
all economic assistance to Iraq as loans rather than grants. And there may also be
some debate about congressional additions of unrequested funds for several weapons
programs. Representative Murtha, the chairman of the House defense appropriations
subcommittee, has said that he expects to provide funds for C-17 cargo aircraft and
for F-22 fighters in order to keep production lines for both aircraft open.3
Congressional Action on FY2008 Supplemental
Appropriations Through December 2007
Administration Requests
Between February and October of 2007, the Administration submitted requests
for FY2008 emergency supplemental appropriations in three blocks.
! Along with the regular FY2008 budget that the White House sent to
Congress on February 5, 2007, the Administration requested $141.7
billion in emergency supplemental funding for the Defense
Department, $3.3 billion for the State Department and international
affairs, and $325 million for other agencies. By submitting the
defense request along with the President’s FY2008 budget, the
Administration complied with Section 1008 of the FY2007 national
defense authorization act (P.L. 109-364), which required the
President’s budget to included a request for estimated full year costs
of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and a detailed justification of
the funds. The request constituted a Defense Department estimate
3 All of these proposals are discussed in Josh Rogin and David Clarke, “Lawmakers Set
Sights on War Funds,” CQ Today, April 3, 2008 and in Ashley Roque, “Lawmakers Gird
for Clash Over Iraq Strategy, War Spending Bill,” Congress Now, April 7, 2008. See also,
Josh Rogin and Adam Graham Silverman, “Democrats Plan New Push on Iraq,” CQ Today,
March 28, 2008, which reports that Representative Murtha has discussed measures requiring
troops to remain at home for as long as they are deployed abroad, establishing readiness
requirements, and setting troop withdrawal targets.

CRS-3
of the full year costs of continuing operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan at about the same pace as in 2006. The Defense
Department acknowledged, however, that the estimate was only a
rough, straight-line projection of current costs. By the time the
budget was submitted, the Administration was proposing a surge in
troops to Iraq that was not reflected in the budget, and it was
expected that the Administration would later provide revised cost
projections. These were submitted in October.
! On July 31, 2007,the White House requested an additional $5.3
billion for the Department of Defense to procure, outfit, and deploy
1,520 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles for the
Army and Marine Corps.
! On October 22, 2007, the President proposed an amendment to the
FY2008 budget requesting an additional $45.9 billion in emergency
funding for military operations, economic and reconstruction
assistance, embassy security, and other activities mainly related to
ongoing conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The request
included $42.3 billion for the Department of Defense for military
operations and $3.6 billion for international affairs programs.4
In all, the Administration requested $195.6 billion in emergency supplemental
appropriations for FY2008, mainly for military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and
elsewhere and for related foreign affairs programs.
Congressional Action
Congressional action on FY2008 emergency supplemental funding began in
earnest in September and was not completed until shortly before Christmas.
! At the end of September, Congress included $5.2 billion in
emergency funding for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP)
vehicles ($5.3 billion was requested in July) in a provision attached
to the first FY2008 continuing resolution, H.J.Res. 52, that the
President signed on September 29, P.L. 110-92.
! On November 8, the House and Senate approved a conference
agreement on the FY2008 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 3222,5
4 For the overall request see White House Office of Management and Budget, “FY 2008
Emergency Budget Amendments: Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom,
and Selected Other International Activities,” October 22, 2007, 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
2 0 0 7 , a t [ h t t p : / / w w w . d e f e n s e l i n k . m i l / c o m p t r o l l e r / d e f b u d g e t
/fy2008/Supplemental/FY2008_October_Global_War_On_Terror_Amendment.pdf].
5 See CRS Report RL33999, Defense: FY2008 Authorization and Appropriations, by Pat
(continued...)

CRS-4
and the President signed the bill into law, P.L. 110-116, on
November 13. The measure provided $460 billion for baseline
Defense Department activities in FY2008, including $27.4 billion
for Army and $4.8 billion for Marine Corps operation and
maintenance, which may be used to finance both peacetime activities
and military operations abroad. The bill also provided an additional
$11.6 billion in emergency funding for MRAP vehicles. Except for
the MRAP money, however, the bill did not include funding to cover
additional costs associated with ongoing military operations in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
! On November 14, 2007, by a vote of 218-203, the House approved
the “Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations
Act, 2008,” H.R. 4156, to provide $50 billion for U.S. military
operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The bill included
enough money in Army and Marine Corps operating accounts to
sustain military operations in Iraq and elsewhere through about April
2008. It also (1) required the President to commence the withdrawal
of U.S. forces from Iraq within 30 days of enactment of the
legislation and to provide within 60 days a plan for withdrawing
most troops from Iraq by December 15, 2008; (2) limited the
mission of remaining U.S. forces in Iraq to force protection, training,
and pursuit of international terrorists; (3) prohibited deployment of
units that are not fully trained and equipped; and (4) extended
prohibitions on torture to all U.S. government agencies.
! On November 16, by a vote of 53-45, with 60 votes required, the
Senate refused to close debate on a motion to proceed to
consideration of H.R. 4156 as passed by the House, effectively
killing the measure. The Senate also rejected, by a vote of 45-53, a
motion to proceed to consideration of S. 2340, a substitute offered
by Senator McConnell, to provide $70 billion for the Defense
Department without requiring withdrawal from Iraq. (Ultimately,
however, with some revisions in the allocation of funds, the
McConnell amendment was approved as part of the final
consolidated appropriations act – see below.)
! Meanwhile, in a November 15 Pentagon press conference, Secretary
of Defense Robert Gates warned that the Army and Marine Corps
would have to begin implementing steps to limit operations unless
Congress approved additional funding very soon.6 Without
additional money, he said, the Army would have to cease operations
5 (...continued)
Towell, Stephen Daggett, and Amy Belasco.
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
at all Army bases by mid-February 2008, which would require
furloughs of about 100,000 government employees and a like
number of contractor personnel. Plans would have to begin to be
implemented in mid-December, he said. On November 20, the
Defense Department announced that it was transferring $4.5 billion
of funds to the Army and to the Joint IED Defeat Organization to
extend their operations. The Army, DOD said, would only be able
to operate with available funds, including the transfer, until February
23, 2008. Senior defense officials continued to warn that the Army
and Marine Corps would have to halt all but essential operations
very soon unless Congress approved additional funding.
! On December 17, 2007, the House brought up the foreign operations
appropriations bill, H.R. 2764, that had earlier been passed by the
House and then amended by the Senate, as a vehicle for FY2008
“omnibus” or “consolidated” appropriations. The House approved
two amendments to the Senate-passed bill. The first amendment,
approved by a vote of 253-154, struck the Senate foreign operations
language and inserted the text of conference agreements on 11 of the
12 FY2008 appropriations bills. In all, it provided $485 billion in
regular and emergency appropriations for programs covered by all
of the regular, annual appropriations bills except for defense, for
which appropriations had already been enacted. The second
amendment, approved by a vote of 206-201, provided $31 billion in
emergency defense appropriations, mostly restricted to Operation
Enduring Freedom (OEF), which encompasses operations in
Afghanistan and elsewhere, excluding Iraq. Funding for Army and
Marine Corps operation and maintenance was made available only
for OEF, except for amounts for force protection that could be
allocated to any area.
! On December 18, 2007, the Senate took up the House-passed
consolidated appropriations bill and, by a vote of 70-25, adopted an
amendment by Senator McConnell to delete the House-passed $31
billion for OEF and to provide, instead, $70 billion in emergency
supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense for
overseas operations, without limits on where the money could be
used and without requiring a withdrawal of forces from Iraq.
! On December 19, 2007, the House considered H.R. 2764 as
amended by the Senate. By a vote of 272-142, the House approved
a motion to agree to the Senate amendment to the House-passed bill,
thus clearing the measure for the President. The President signed the
bill into law, P.L. 110-161, on December 26.

CRS-6
An Overview of Remaining Requested
FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations
Remaining Defense Request
The Administration requested a total of $189.3 billion in emergency FY2008
supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense. Through December
2007, Congress had approved $86.8 billion, which leaves $102.5 billion still pending.
Since December, the Defense Department has made some adjustments in its budget
request. Table 1 shows by title and account (1) the total requested for DOD through
the October 22, 2007, budget amendment; (2) the amount Congress has approved to
date; (3) adjustments to the remaining amounts that the Defense Department
proposed – though not with a formal budget amendment – as of the end of March,
2008, and (4) the remaining adjusted DOD budget request.

CRS-7
Table 1. Remaining FY2008 Supplemental Funding
Requested for the Department of Defense
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Original
Enacted
DOD
Remaining
Amended
through
Remaining
Adjust-
Adjusted
Request
Dec. 2007
Request
ment
Request
Military Personnel
Military Personnel, Army
12,318
783
11,535
+329
11,864
Reserve Personnel, Army
299
--
299
+9
309
National Guard Personnel, Army
1,137
--
1,137
+420
1,557
Military Personnel, Navy
792
96
696
+6
702
Reserve Personnel, Navy
70
--
70
+3
73
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
1,790
56
1,734
+3
1,737
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps
15
--
15
+1
17
Military Personnel, Air Force
1,416
138
1,278
+8
1,286
Reserve Personnel, Air Force
3
--
3
+4
7
National Guard Personnel, Air Force
--
--
--
+6
6
Total Military Personnel
17,840
1,072
16,767
+789
17,556
Operation and Maintenance
O&M, Army
53,872
35,152
18,720
-1,577
17,143
O&M, Army Reserve
197
78
119
+38
157
O&M, Army National Guard
757
327
430
+383
813
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
2,700
1,350
1,350
--
1,350
Iraq Security Forces Fund
3,000
1,500
1,500
--
1,500
O&M, Navy
6,163
3,664
2,499
+722
3,220
O&M, Marine Corps
4,272
3,966
306
+34
340
O&M, Navy Reserve
83
42
42
+66
108


O&M, Marine Corps Reserve
68
46
22
+1
23
O&M, Air Force
10,705
4,778
5,927
+830
6,758
O&M, Air Force Reserve
24
12
12
+150
162
O&M, Air National Guard
103
52
52
+234
285
O&M, Defense-Wide
5,337
2,117
3,220
+343
3,563
Office of the Inspector General
4
--
4
--
4
Iraq Freedom Fund
3,851
3,747
104
+70
174
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
258
193
65
-- 65
Activities, Defense
Defense Health Program
1,137
576
562
+197
759
Total Operation and Maintenance
92,533
57,599
34,934
+1,490
36,424
Procurement
Aircraft Procurement, Army
2,125
944
1,182
+15
1,196
Missile Procurement, Army
642
--
642
-105
537
Procurement of W&TCV, Army
7,290
1,429
5,860
-289
5,571
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
514
154
360
--
360
Other Procurement, Army
23,131
2,028
21,103
-4,410
16,693
Joint Impr Explosive Dev Defeat Fund
4,269
4,269
--
-65
-65
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
3,908
49
3,860
+191
4,050
Weapons Procurement, Navy
318
--
318
--
318
Procurement of Ammo, Navy & MC
610
305
305
--
305
Other Procurement, Navy
1,607
91
1,515
--
1,515

CRS-8
Original
Enacted
DOD
Remaining
Amended
through
Remaining
Adjust-
Adjusted
Request
Dec. 2007
Request
ment
Request
Procurement, Marine Corps
3,148
703
2,444
--
2,444
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
3,946
51
3,895
--
3,895
Missile Procurement, Air Force
2
--
2
--
2
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
104
--
104
--
104
Other Procurement, Air Force
2,461
31
2,430
--
2,430
Procurement, Defense-Wide
542
275
267
+8
275
Rapid Acquisition Fund
150
--
150
--
150
Mine Resistant Ambush Prot Veh Fund
16,830
16,830
--
--
--
Total Procurement
71,597
27,159
44,438
-4,657
39,781
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
RDT&E, Army
163
--
163
+48
211
RDT&E, Navy
611
--
611
+21
632
RDT&E, AF
1,487
--
1,487
+62
1,549
RDT&E, DW
684
--
684
+260
945
Total RDT&E
2,946
--
2,946
+391
3,33
Military Construction
Military Construction, Army
1,441
--
1,441
+127
1,568
FY2005 BRAC - Army
--
--
--
+560
560
Military Construction, Navy
238
--
238
+95
332
FY2005 BRAC - Navy
--
--
--
+97
97
Military Construction, Air Force
305
--
305
+98
403
FY2005 BRAC - AF
--
--
--
+129
129
Military Construction, Defense-Wide
28
--
28
--
28
FY2005 BRAC - Defense Wide
416
--
416
--
416
Total Military Construction
2,427
--
2,427
+1,107
3,534
Family Housing
Fam Housing Construction, Navy & Marine Corps
--
12
--
12
Total Family Housing
12
--
12
--
12
Revolving and Management Funds
Working Capital Fund, Army
1,364
720
644
+6
651
Working Capital Fund, Navy
43
--
43
+229
272
Working Capital Fund, Air Force
237
--
237
+358
595
Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide
313
280
33
+287
320
National Defense Sealift Fund
5
--
5
--
5
Total Revolving & Mngmnt Funds
1,963
1,000
963
+880
1,843
Total Budget Authority
189,316
86,830
102,486
--
102,486
Source: Department of Defense.
Notes: Further changes in request for Iraq Freedom Fund are pending. “BRAC” refers to Base Realignment
and Closure.

CRS-9
Possible Issues in Debate over the Remaining Defense
Request

Several issues may be debated when Congress considers the remaining defense
supplemental request.
Iraq policy. Last year, FY2007 and FY2008 supplemental appropriations bills
were vehicles for debate over U.S. policy in Iraq, though Congress was never able to
enact a measure requiring troop withdrawals. On May 1, the President vetoed an
initial House- and Senate-passed bill providing FY2007 supplemental appropriations
for the war, H.R. 1591, that would have required the Secretary of Defense to begin
withdrawing troops from Iraq starting either on July 1 or on October 1, depending in
the Iraqi government’s performance in meeting specific benchmarks. On May 2, by
a vote of 222-203, with approval of 2/3 required, the House failed to override the
veto. The final FY2007 supplemental bill, H.R. 2006, P.L. 110-28, established 18
benchmarks for performance by the Iraqi government and required reports on
progress toward the benchmarks in July and again in September. These reports then
provided a basis for later debates.7
Congress again considered troop withdrawals in debate over FY2008
supplemental funding. In November, the House initially passed a bill, H.R. 4156,
requiring the withdrawal of most forces from Iraq by December 2008, but it died
when the Senate failed to invoke cloture – see above for a discussion.
This year, some legislators may again propose amendments mandating a time
line for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.8 It is unclear if the House and Senate
leadership will back any specific withdrawal measures, however. In April 2008
congressional hearings with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, many
legislators expressed dissatisfaction with the current policy.9 That policy, confirmed
by President Bush on April 10, calls for withdrawing the remaining “surge” forces
from Iraq, evaluating the situation for 45 days, and then conducting an assessment
to determine whether and when additional forces might be withdrawn. One
legislative approach may be to require more specific criteria from the Administration
on factors that would permit troop withdrawals, or to ask for an assessment of how
7 For a full review of congressional action on FY2007 supplemental appropriations, see CRS
Report RL33900, FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, Foreign Affairs, and
Other Purposes
, by Stephen Daggett, Amy Belasco, Pat Towell, Susan B. Epstein, Connie
Veillette, Curt Tarnoff, Rhoda Margesson, and Bart Elias, final update July 2, 2007.
8 Josh Rogin and Adam Graham Silverman, "Democrats Plan New Push on Iraq," CQ Today,
March 28, 2008. The article reports that Representative Murtha is considering withdrawal
targets and that Senator Feingold plans to offer an amendment to require that troop
withdrawals begin in ninety days and be completed within nine months.
9 In addition to other appearances, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified
before the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
on April 8, 2008, and before the House Armed Services Committee and the House Foreign
Affairs Committee on April 9, 2008. Also Secretary of Defense Gates and Joint Chiefs
Chairman Admiral Mullen testified on Iraq before the Senate Armed Services Committee
on April 10, 2008.

CRS-10
long U.S. forces should remain in Iraq if the political and security environment does
not improve.
In the same hearings, several Members inquired about Iraqi progress in meeting
the 18 benchmarks that were laid out in the FY2007 supplemental. Ambassador
Crocker agreed to share the results of an ongoing Administration assessment of the
progress toward the benchmarks with congressional committees by April 17, 2008.
One legislative approach may be to tie reconstruction assistance or other support to
Iraq’s progress on the benchmarks. Amendments are also expected to require the
Iraqis to pay of the costs of reconstruction and, perhaps, of the war. See below for a
discussion of proposals to provide reconstruction assistance as loans rather than
grants. There has also been some discussion of establishing funds to which the Iraqi
government would contribute to cover some U.S. military costs.
In addition, there may be a renewed debate on the supplemental over
negotiations with Iraq about the status of U.S. forces. In the past, Congress has
included language in Iraq spending bills prohibiting permanent stationing of U.S.
forces in Iraq. White House signing statements, however, have objected to such
provisions, saying they impinge on the President’s authority. The UN mandate that
authorizes foreign troops to operate in Iraq expires at the end of the 2008, and the
Administration has been discussing a “status of forces” agreement with Iraq to
replace it. It is not clear whether such a framework would allow a permanent U.S.
military presence. Some Members of Congress from both parties have insisted that
the Administration should submit any agreement with Iraq as a treaty requiring
Senate confirmation rather than as an executive agreement.10
Readiness of U.S. forces. Last year Congress considered several
amendments to supplemental funding bills concerning the readiness of U.S. military
forces, not only for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but for possible unexpected
requirements elsewhere. The initial, vetoed FY2007 supplemental, H.R. 1591,
included provisions requiring the President to certify that troops meet specific
requirements before being deployed. Later, on a number of different bills, Senator
Webb proposed a measure to prohibit the deployment of units abroad if they have not
spent as much time at home between deployments as they have spent overseas. That
measure may again be proposed this year.11
A related issue is whether sufficient resources are being devoted to operations
in Afghanistan. Some argue that the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating in part
because the U.S. emphasis Iraq has limited the number of forces and other resources
that the United States can afford to deploy in Afghanistan. A decision to send 3,500
more Marines to Afghanistan has been seen as a further strain on the Marine Corps.
Some legislative measures may address whether troops are capable of maintaining
10 For a discussion, see Peter Baker and Karen DeYoung, “Bush Backs Petraeus On
Indefinite Suspension Of Troop Pullout In Iraq,” Washington Post, April 11, 2008, and
Adam Graham-Silverman, “Lawmakers Remain Skeptical of White House Plan for Status
Agreements With Iraq,” Congressional Quarterly Today, April 10, 2008.
11 See footnote 3.

CRS-11
the current level of operations in Iraq while also operating in Afghanistan and
preparing for other conflicts.
Major weapons programs. In the past, Congress has added substantial
amounts of unrequested funds for some major weapons programs to supplemental
funding bills. The FY2007 bridge fund,12 for example, included $2.1 billion to
procure 10 C-17 cargo aircraft, a program that the Administration was proposing to
shut down. Representative Murtha, the Chairman of the House defense
appropriations subcommittee, has said that he plans to add funds for C-17, C-130,
and F-22 aircraft to the pending FY2008 supplemental.13 The F-22 money is
intended to keep the production line open until the beginning of the next
Administration. Air Force officials have implied, however, that providing money for
additional aircraft in the supplemental may not be enough to avoid a costly shutdown
and restart of production, saying that additional funding for long-lead items for as
many as 24 aircraft is needed by November 2008.14 Some of these additions of funds
may be controversial
Remaining International Affairs Request
In its initial February 2007 budget and in the October 2007 budget amendment,
the Administration requested a total of $6.9 billion in emergency FY2008
appropriations for international affairs programs. Most of the request was for
embassy security and reconstruction assistance in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress
did not address these funding requests until it took up the FY2008 Department of
State/Foreign Operations appropriations bill, H.R. 2764, which ultimately became
the vehicle for consolidated FY2008 appropriations. Division J of the consolidated
appropriations bill comprises a conference agreement on the State/Foreign
Operations appropriations bill. It includes, in addition to regular FY2008
appropriations, $2.4 billion of emergency FY2008 funding.
Not all of that $2.4 billion was for programs that were part of the
Administration’s $6.9 billion emergency funding request. Furthermore, some
supplemental funds were allocated to the base international affairs budget when
Congress appropriated less than requested in regular funding. According to the State
Department, only about $1.5 billion of the new emergency funding was for programs
as requested, leaving $5.4 billion of the request still to be addressed, of which $2.3
billion is for State Department and related activities and $3.1 billion is for foreign
operations. Table 2 and Table 3 are State Department summaries of the remaining
$5.4 billion request. Table 2 shows the remaining request for the State Department
and international broadcasting. Table 3 shows the remaining request for foreign
operations.
12 Title IX of the regular FY2007 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 5631, P.L. 109-289, that
provided $70 billion in emergency war-related funding.
13 See footnote 3.
14 Testimony of Lt. Gen. David J. Hoffman, Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, to the Senate Armed Services Airland
Subcommittee, April 9, 2008.

CRS-12
Table 2. FY2008 Emergency Supplemental State Department

(millions of U.S. dollars)
State
Final
Dept
Total
Supp.
Pending
Regular
FY2008
H.R. 2764
State Dept
FY08
Request
Supp.
PL110-
FY08 Supp
Supp
Activity
FY2008
Request
161
Allocationa
Request
Total State Operations
7,317.1b
3,219.6
1,261.6
965.0
2,254.6
Diplomatic & Consular
4,942.7
2,283.0
781.6
575.0
1,708.0
Programs Iraq Operations

(2,120.6)
(575.0)
(575.0)
(1,545.6)
Worldwide Security
(964.8)
(162.4)
(206.6)
(— )
(162.4)
Protection
Embassy Security,
Construction &
1,599.4c
160.0


160.0
Maintenance
Contributions to
International Organizations
1,354.4
53.0


53.0
Contributions to
International Peacekeeping
1,107.0
723.6
468.0
390.0
333.6
Broadcasting
668.2

12.0
12.0

Total
9,003.5
3,219.6
1,261.6
977.0
2,254.6
Notes
a. These numbers differ from those in the FY2008 consolidated appropriations act, P.L. 110-161,
because the Department of State applied some of the supplemental funding to the FY2008 base budget
and because Congress provided some supplemental funding for activities not requested by the
Administration.
b. Includes funds for budget accounts not listed in this table – this table shows only budget accounts
for which supplemental funds were requested.
c. Includes worldwide security upgrade funds for embassies.

CRS-13
Table 3. FY2008 Foreign Operations Emergency Supplemental
(millions of U.S. dollars)
Finalb
FY2008
Total
Supp
FY08
Pending
Regular
Supp.
HR2764
Supp
FY08 Supp
Country/Account
Request
Request
PL110-161 Allocation
Request
Afghanistan
1,067.1a
839.0
na

839.0

ESF
693.0
834.0
NADR
21.7
5.0
USAID Operating Expenses

(16.0)
Iraq
391.8a
956.0
na

956.0
ESF
298.0
797.0
INCLE
75.8
159.0
Mexico — Central America
220.4a
550.0
0.0

550.0
Initiative
INCLE
31.7
550.0
West Bank/Gaza
77.0a
375.0
na
155.0
220.0
INCLE
3.5
25.0

ESF
63.5
350.0
155.0
Pakistan
785.0a
60.0
na

60.0
ESF
382.9
60.0
North Korea
2.0
106.0
na
53.0
53.0
ESF
2.0
106.0
53.0
53.0
Sudan
679.2a
70.0
na

70.0
ESF
245.9
70.0
70.0
Horn of Africa/Kenya

(110.0)

(110.0)
PL480
7.0
(110.0)
0.0
Southern Africa

(135.0)

(135.0)
PL480

(135.0)
0.0
Migration/Refugee Assist.
773.5
230.0
200.0
200.0
30.0
Intern’l Disaster Assist.
297.3
80.0
80.0
80.0

PL480
1,219.4
350.0
0.0 —
350.0
USAID Operating Expenses
609.0
61.8
na
20.8
41.0
Total
6,121.7
3,677.8
1,123.4
508.8
3,169.0
Acronyms: ESF-Economic Support Fund; INCLE-International Narcotics Control and Law
Enforcement; IDFA-International Disaster and Famine Assistance; MRA-Migration and Refugee
Assistance; NADR-Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs; and PL480-
Food for Peace; USAID-U.S. Agency for International Development.
a. Country totals include other accounts for which supplemental funds were not requested.
b. Some supplemental funds were not designated in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying
H.R. 2764 with regard to destination, and are marked as “na.” As more information becomes
available, this table will be updated.

CRS-14
Iraq Reconstruction Assistance15
The major unresolved issue in congressional action on supplemental funding for
international affairs may be how much to provide for Iraq reconstruction, and
whether to continue to provide it as grants or instead to provide loans that the Iraqi
government must repay. With the passage of the consolidated FY2008
appropriations act, nearly half of the Administration’s $4.9 billion supplemental
request for Iraq reconstruction was approved. However, of the roughly $2.1 billion
appropriated in this category of assistance, only about $230 million was for economic
aid under the foreign operations portion of the bill, the bulk of enacted assistance
being in the form of DOD appropriations. Currently outstanding and to be
considered in the Second FY2008 supplemental is roughly $2.9 billion, of which
$986 million is for foreign operations economic assistance.
The foreign operations request is for three accounts — $797 million in the
Economic Support Fund (ESF), $159 million in International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement (INCLE), and $30 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA).
ESF is the primary source of funding for assistance disbursed by the Provincial
Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), which have grown in number under the surge to 31,
including 13 newly established ePRTs (embedded PRTs) embedded with U.S.
combat battalions and concentrated mostly in Baghdad and Anbar province. The
ePRTs are intended to help stabilize areas secured by U.S. and Iraqi forces by
supporting local small-scale, employment-generating, economic projects, using ESF-
funded community development grants, job training and micro-loan programs,
among other activities. PRTs also utilize ESF to increase the capacities of local
government officials to spend Iraqi-owned capital funds allocated by the Iraqi
government for infrastructure programs. At the national level, ESF supports
ministerial capacity development, agriculture and private sector reform, and the
strengthening of democratization efforts.
Of the ESF request, $25 million, accompanied by proposed authorization
language, would allow the Administration to establish a new Iraq enterprise fund
based on the model created for east Europe and the former Soviet Union in the late
1980s and early 1990s. Enterprise funds are U.S. government-funded private sector-
run bodies that primarily provide loans or equity investments to small and medium
business. In the former communist countries, enterprise funds also encouraged
growth of the private sector, including support for mortgage lending markets and
establishment of private equity funds. The most successful example, the Polish
Fund, made many profitable investments, helping companies grow that otherwise
were unable to obtain financial support in the period just after the fall of communism.
Some of the funds, however, have been much less successful, either because they
took on poor investment risks, or because they were unable to locate promising
businesses due to the poor business climate or competition from other private sector
funding sources. Some observers question the usefulness of the funds because their
15 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
, by Curt Tarnoff.

CRS-15
ostensible development purpose seems often to conflict with pressures for economic
profit.
The INCLE account largely would support rule of law and corrections programs.
The Administration request was expected to fund prison construction, something that
Congress has sometimes cut from previous requests. The request was also intended
to extend judicial reform and anticorruption efforts to the provinces. The MRA
request would address the continuing refugee crisis in the region; an estimated 2.0
million Iraqis have fled the country and another 2.2 million have been displaced due
to sectarian violence and instability.
The bulk of the pending Second supplemental request for assistance to Iraq is
for DOD appropriations for the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces ($1.5
billion under the Iraq Security Forces Fund, ISFF), and for development programs
delivered under the Commander’s Emergency Response Program, CERP (Iraq could
expect at least half of the $719 million still outstanding for both Iraq and
Afghanistan). The CERP allows military commanders to support a wide variety of
economic activities at the local level, from renovating health clinics to digging wells
to painting schools, provided in the form of small grants. CERP also funds many
infrastructure efforts no longer supported with other U.S. assistance, such as
provision of electric generators and construction of sewer systems and roads.
Commanders are able to identify needs and dispense aid with few bureaucratic
encumbrances. More recently, the CERP has paid salaries to the so-called Sons of
Iraq, mostly Sunnis who are joining with U.S. forces to provide security.
Also requested is $100 million under the DOD-funded Iraq Freedom Fund
account for the Task Force to Improve Business and Stability Operations in Iraq. The
Task Force seeks to stimulate the economy and create employment for Iraqi citizens
by rehabilitating some of the roughly 200 state-owned enterprises that comprised a
large portion of the Iraqi economy prior to the U.S. occupation. News reports have
suggested some difficulty with the program, resulting from the lack of electricity, the
insecure environment, and a lack of enthusiasm from U.S. companies that had been
expected to invest in the facilities, among other reasons.16
Outstanding FY2008 supplemental funds include operational costs (not counted
in the reconstruction aid total or the table) for staffing and administering
reconstruction programs: $679 million for PRTs.
Congressional action on Iraq reconstruction. Even before a draft bill
has emerged there have been indications of possible amendments that would greatly
affect the reconstruction program. According to press reports, Senator Ben Nelson
has said he will offer an amendment making U.S. reconstruction aid available in the
form of loans rather than the current practice of grant aid.17
16 “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.
17 “Lawmakers Eager to See Iraq Pay Its Own Way,” CQ Today, April 3, 2008, p. 1.

CRS-16
Several efforts to provide loans for reconstruction instead of grants were
rejected in late 2003 when Congress deliberated approval of $18.4 billion in Iraq
Relief and Reconstruction Fund support under the FY2004 emergency supplemental
appropriations act (P.L. 108-106). Among arguments at the time were the possible
violation of international law that would prevent an occupying power from creating
a debt obligation on behalf of an occupied entity. In addition, the level of Iraqi needs
subsequent to the fall of Saddam Hussein appeared to vastly surpass the near-term
capability of Iraq to produce sufficient oil export profits. Today, Iraq is a sovereign
nation and appears to have considerable difficulty executing its capital projects
budget aimed at infrastructure and other related reconstruction programs. According
to a recent DOD report, the Iraqi government had executed only 55% of its $10.1
billion 2007 capital budget as of November 2007. With the increasing oil revenues
derived from a rising price for the commodity, Iraq has found itself with larger
amounts of available cash than anticipated. Of a 2008 government-wide budget of
$49.9 billion, about $13.2 billion is earmarked for capital investment. The Iraqi
government recently announced that, due to rising revenue, an additional $5 billion
will be added to the capital budget in June.18
Among concerns likely to be raised by opponents of a possible reconstruction
loan is the extent to which a loan limits the discretion of the U.S. government to
determine the direction of assistance. Currently, U.S. officials identify specific
objectives — for example, preventing corruption, increasing the capacity of the Iraqi
government to provide services and spend its capital budget, strengthening local
governance — and funds programs meant to meet those objectives. If Iraq borrows
money from the United States, it is not clear what leverage the United States will
have to bring about its priorities, in the event that Iraq does not share these. Further
concerns and arguments are likely to emerge as the loan vs. grant debate goes
forward.
18 Department of State, Iraq Weekly Status Report, April 2, 2008, p. 15; Department of
Defense, Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq, March 2008 Report to Congress, p. 9.

CRS-17
Table 4. FY2008 Second Supplemental Appropriations
for Iraq Reconstruction
(millions of U.S. dollars)
International Affairs (Budget Function 150 Accounts)
Enacted
Supp.
Second
Total FY2008 Allocation
FY2008
FY2009
Supp.
H.R. 2764
Supp
Regular
Request
PL110-161 Request
Request
Economic Support Fund (ESF)
797.0
5.0
797.0
300.0
International Narcotics Control
and Law Enforcement (INCLE)
159.0

159.0
75.0
Migration and Refugee
Assistance (MRA)a
195.0 a
149.5 a
30.0 a

International DisasterAssistance
(IDA)b
80.0 b
80.0 b
— —
Nonprolif, Anti-Terror, Demining
(NADR)
— —

20.0
TOTAL 150 Account
1,231.0
234.5
986.0
395.0
Department of Defense (Budget Function 050 Accounts)
Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF)
3,000
1,500.0
1,500.0

Commander’s Emergency
Response Program (CERP)
609.7c
370.0d
359.7e

Iraq Freedom Fund (for Task
Force to Improve Business)
100.0

100.0

TOTAL 050 Account
3,709.7
1,870.0
1,959.7

GRAND TOTAL
150 & 050

4,940.7
2,104.5
2,945.7
395.0
Sources: Department of State and DOD FY2008 Congressional Budget Justifications; H.R. 2764.
Note: Not included are requests of $45.8 million in USAID Iraq operational expenses (OE) and $679
million for PRT OE. H.R. 2764 provided USAID with $20.8 million in OE.
a. H.R. 2764 provided $200 million for MRA account (total account request was $230 million). Table
shows amount requested/allocated for Iraq.
b. H.R. 2764 provided $110 million for Iraq and other countries affected by disasters. Total IDA
account request was $80 million. Table shows amount allocated for Iraq.
c. The total CERP request of $1,219.4 million is for both Iraq and Afghanistan. The amount included
here assumes that at least half will be used in Iraq.
d. Congress appropriated up to $500 million for the CERP. According to the SIGIR, Iraq has been
allocated $370 million as of end January 2008.
e. The total unenacted FY2008 CERP request of $719.4 million is for both Iraq and Afghanistan. The
amount included here assumes that at least half of the request is for Iraq.

CRS-18
Afghanistan Reconstruction Assistance19
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
started to enjoy new personal freedoms, particularly in the northern and western
regions of the country, that were forbidden under the Taliban. Women are beginning
to participate in economic and political life, including as ministers, provincial
governors, and senior levels of the new parliament. The next elections are planned
for 2009.
The insurgency, led by remnants of the former Taliban regime, escalated in
2006, after several years in which it appeared the Taliban was mostly defeated. U.S.
and NATO military commanders have had recent successes in counter-insurgency
operations, but the Taliban continues to present a considerable threat to peace and
security in parts of Afghanistan. Slow reconstruction, corruption, and the failure to
extend Afghan government authority into rural areas and provinces, particularly in
the south and east, have contributed to the Taliban resurgence. Political leadership
in the more stable northern part of the country have registered concerns about
distribution of reconstruction funding. In addition, narcotics trafficking is resisting
counter-measures, and independent militias remain throughout the country, although
many have been disarmed. The Afghan government and U.S. officials have said that
some Taliban commanders are operating across the border from Pakistan, putting
them outside the reach of U.S./NATO forces in Afghanistan. In 2007, the
Administration unveiled the Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZ) in
Afghanistan and the border regions with Pakistan, an initiative to stimulate economic
activity in underdeveloped, isolated regions.
The United States and partner stabilization measures focus on strengthening the
central government and its security forces and on promoting reconstruction while
combating the renewed insurgent challenge. As part of this effort, the international
community has been running PRTs to secure reconstruction. Despite these efforts,
weak provincial governance is seen as a key obstacle to a democratic Afghanistan
and continues to pose a threat to reconstruction and stabilization efforts.
The FY2008 original and amended emergency supplemental
request. The Administration requested $339 million in ESF for Afghanistan
reconstruction assistance in the FY2008 emergency supplemental in February 2007.
Other parts of the supplement request for Afghanistan included increases in embassy
operations and security. The Administration amended the FY2008 supplemental
request in October 2007 for a total request of $839 million for reconstruction, which
19 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy, and
Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs.

CRS-19
included several provisions intended to continue U.S. efforts to stabilize Afghanistan
and continue economic reconstruction efforts.20
The FY2008 consolidated appropriations act funded most government
operations for which regular FY2008 appropriations bills — 11 in all — had not been
enacted. Although emergency funds for military operations in Afghanistan were
appropriated as part of the bridge supplemental in the consolidated appropriations act
($1.753 million), the supplemental request of $839 for reconstruction was not
appropriated.
Key elements of the FY2008 emergency supplemental requests include funding
for the ESF. In addition to the $339 million for ESF in the initial supplemental
request, the amended supplemental included additional funding for democratic
governance and reconstruction efforts to continue security and development strategy
that would be allocated as follows:
! $275 million to strengthen provincial governance and
responsiveness to the Afghan people. Funding would support a wide
range of programs, preparation activities for the 2009 election and
ongoing programs, such as the National Solidarity Program ($40
million), the Afghanistan Reconstruction Fund ($25 million), and
the Provincial Governance Fund ($50 million);
! $50 million as part of an effort to invest in basic social services,
such as health and education, particularly in rural areas; and
! $170 million for economic growth and infrastructure, including the
development of power sector projects ($115 million); road projects
($50 million) focused on those segments that are of strategic military
importance and provide key connections between the central and
provincial government capitals; and funding to support
Reconstruction Opportunity Zones ($5 million) in designated
economically isolated areas and to create employment alternatives.
In addition to ESF funding, the request includes:
! $5 million in Non-proliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and
Related Programs (NADR) to support the Afghan leadership through
the Presidential Protection Service.
20 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-20
Table 5. Afghanistan Reconstruction Assistance, FY2008
(millions of U.S. dollars)
Final
Activity
Total FY2008
Supp H.R. 2764
Pending FY2008
(appropriation account)
Supp Request
PL110-161
Supp Request
Infrastructure aid (ESF)
834.0

834.0
Nonproliferation (NADR)
5.0

5.0
Total
839.0

839.0
Source: FY2008-FY2009 budget materials.
Notes: Data in this table reflect ongoing and FY2008 proposed funding for programs the same as or
similar to those requested in the FY2007 supplemental. The total line does not represent total aid or
mission operations for Afghanistan. Excluded from this table is proposed funding requested for FBI
operations in Afghanistan.
Acronyms: ESF-Economic Support Fund, NADR-Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and
Related Programs.
Pakistan21
The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan are considered
strategically important to combating terrorism, while continued terrorist and militant
activities in the frontier region remain a threat to the United States and its interests
in Afghanistan. The Government of Pakistan has developed a FATA Sustainable
Development Plan to be implemented over 10 years. In support of this plan, the State
Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development have put forward a
five-year $750 million development assistance strategy for the frontier region (a
pledge of $150 million per year) that complements the Government of Pakistan’s
plan.22 The U.S. objectives are to improve economic and social conditions in the
FATA in order to address the region’s use by terrorists and militants. Programs
would include governance, health and education services, and economic
development, such as agricultural productivity, infrastructure rehabilitation, credit,
and vocational training.
On November 3, 2007, President Musharraf imposed emergency rule and
suspended Pakistan’s constitution. In light of these events, the Administration
announced a review of U.S. assistance. However, no action was taken in 2007 and
in February 2008, Pakistan held what was reported to be a reasonably credible
national election that seated a new civilian government. On April 9, 2008, Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice determined that a democratically elected government had
taken office in Pakistan on March 25, 2008, which permitted the removal of coup-
related sanctions on Pakistan and the resumption of assistance.
21 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy.
22 For more detail on Pakistan, see CRS Report RL33498, Pakistan-U.S. Relations, by K.
Alan Kronstadt.

CRS-21
The FY2008 original and amended supplemental request. The
Administration did not request funding for Pakistan in its original FY2008
emergency supplemental request in February 2007. In the FY2008 regular budget,
the President asked for $90 million for the frontier region development plan, which
left a gap of $60 million in the overall U.S. pledge of $150 million. The FY2008
amended supplemental request for $60 million for ESF would address this funding
gap and meet the full pledge as follows: Investment in governance and planning ($13
million); health and education programs ($15 million); and local economic
development ($32 million). The $60 million emergency supplemental request is in
addition to the regular appropriations from various accounts in the FY2008 budget.
Sudan23
No funding was requested for Sudan in the original FY2008 emergency
supplemental in February 2007. The Administration sought a total of $868.6 million
in the amended emergency supplemental for Sudan, most of which was for
humanitarian and peacekeeping support in the Darfur region. Under the consolidated
appropriations act, Sudan received $334.8 million in the regular FY2008 budget and
also $468 for the African Union/United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur
(UNAMID) peacekeeping mission.
FY2008 additional emergency supplemental request. Major elements
of the FY2008 amended emergency supplemental included the following:
! A $70 million request in ESF for Sudan to support upcoming
national elections that are to take place before July 2009, as
determined in the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement between
north and south Sudan. The assistance will focus on strengthening
political parties, drafting the electoral law, supporting an electoral
commission, promoting civic education, and supporting election-
related institutions and processes. The United Nations estimates that
the elections could cost nearly $400 million because of the logistical
hurdles in conducting elections in a post-conflict environment. $70
million remains in the pending FY2008 emergency supplemental;
and
! $723.6 million in support of the African Union/United Nations
Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) in the amended FY2008
supplemental. In the consolidated appropriations act, $468 million
was appropriated; $333.6 remains in the pending FY2008 emergency
supplemental.
23 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy.

CRS-22
Table 6. Sudan Emergency Supplemental, FY2008
(millions of U.S. dollars)
FY2008
Finala
Supp
Supp
Pending
Activity
Request
H.R. 2764
FY2008 Supp
(appropriation account)
Total
PL110-161
Request
UNAMID (CIPA)
723.6
468.0
333.6
Economic Support Fund (ESF)
70.0

70.0
Total
$868.6

$403.6
Source: FY2008-FY2009 budget materials.
Note: The Total line does not represent total aid or mission operations for Sudan.
Acronyms: CIPA-Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities; ESF-Economic Support
Fund.
Other Humanitarian Assistance24
Although proposed aid packages for specific countries anticipate and identify
some humanitarian needs, the Administration also seeks funding for what it describes
as unmet or unforeseen humanitarian needs, including $350 million in additional P.L.
480 - Title II assistance to meet emergency food needs in the Darfur region of Sudan
and eastern Chad and elsewhere worldwide, including places such as southern Africa,
and the Horn of Africa and Kenya.
In addition, the Administration’s original request asked for $230 million for
Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) for anticipated and unanticipated refugee
and migration emergencies, of which $195 million was requested for humanitarian
assistance to Iraqi refugees. This was an increase of $160 million for Iraqi refugees;
$35 million was requested in the earlier version of the FY2008 emergency
supplemental request. In addition, $35 million was requested for the emergency
needs of Palestinian refugees in Gaza and West Bank, and for Palestinian refugee
camps in Lebanon. $200 million was appropriated for MRA in the consolidated
appropriations act, of which $195 was allocated for Iraqi refugees. $30 million (of
the original $230 million request) remains as part of the pending FY2008
supplemental request for assistance to Iraqi refugees.
Other Issues
Several other elements of the international affairs request also remain to be
resolved, including $550 million for a major new counter-drug initiative in Mexico
and Central America, and $220 million requested for economic assistance in the
West Bank and Gaza. In addition, Congress may also consider using the
24 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy.

CRS-23
supplemental as a vehicle for a further economic stimulus package, for GI and
veterans benefits increases, or for other purposes.