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

---

Second FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for
Military Operations, International Affairs, and Other
Purposes
Summary
On Thursday, May 15, by a vote of 141-149 with 132 voting “present,” the
House rejected a measure providing $162.5 billion in FY2008 and FY2009
supplemental appropriations for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The
House agreed, however, to two other measures as amendments to H.R. 2642, which
has now become the vehicle for FY2008 and FY2009 supplemental funding. One
amendment, adopted by a vote of 227-196, sets out a number of Iraq-related policies,
including a requirement that combat forces be withdrawn from Iraq within 18
months. Another, agreed to by a vote of 256-166, provides expanded GI bill
educational benefits, offset by a tax surcharge, extends unemployment compensation
payments, delays new Medicaid regulations that would reduce payments to the states,
and provides $20 billion for a number of domestic and international affairs programs,
including gulf coast hurricane protection and emergency international food aid.
Also on May 15, the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up its version
of a supplemental bill. The Senate bill provides $103 billion in FY2008 and $65.9
billion in FY2009 for the Department of Defense, including military construction;
$10.4 billion for hurricane protection; $850 million in FY2008 and $395 million in
FY2009 for international food assistance; $1.2 billion for science programs; and
more than $2 billion for other domestic programs, including secure schools, VA
trauma centers, law enforcement grants, highways, and the FDA. It also includes
expanded GI bill education benefits, though without a revenue offset, and extended
unemployment compensation, and it delays new Medicaid rules. In the markup, the
committee added funds for other programs, including $1 billion for low-income
energy assistance. Senate Republicans have brought up an alternative bill, sponsored
by Senators Graham, McCain, and others, to expand veterans’ education benefits.
The Senate is expected to take up its version of the supplemental bill during the
week of May 19, after which, the measure may then return to the House for
consideration of the Senate-amended version. The White House has warned that the
President will veto a bill that requires troop withdrawals from Iraq or that exceeds
$108 billion in funding in FY2008.
During its first session, the 110th Congress approved FY2008 emergency
supplemental 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. This left Administration requests for $102.5 billion for
defense and $5.4 billion for international affairs unresolved. This CRS report will be
updated regularly to report on congressional action on remaining FY2008
supplemental appropriations and on FY2009 supplemental funding included in
supplemental funding bills. 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, which will not be updated further.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background: Status of FY2008 Supplemental Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Congressional Action on FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations Through
December 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Administration Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
An Overview of Remaining FY2008 and Additional FY2009
Supplemental Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Remaining FY2008 and Additional FY2009 Defense Request . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Possible Issues in Debate over the Remaining Defense Request . . . . . . . . . 12
Iraq Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Readiness of U.S. Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Major Weapons Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
International Affairs Remaining FY2008 and Additional FY2009
Supplemental Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Iraq Reconstruction Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
House Action on Iraq Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Senate Action on Iraq Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
House and Senate Action on Iraqi Role in Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . 22
Afghanistan Reconstruction Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
The FY2009 Regular and Supplemental Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
The FY2008 Original and Amended Emergency Supplemental
Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
The FY2009 Regular and Supplemental Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
The FY2008 Original and Amended Supplemental Request . . . . . . . . 29
Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
FY2008 Additional Emergency Supplemental Request . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Other Humanitarian Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Other International Affairs Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Domestic Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Expansion of Montgomery GI Bill Education Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
The Graham alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
PAYGO, military retention, and transferability issues . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Hurricane Katrina Repairs and Coastal Louisiana Restoration . . . . . . . . . . 35
The Census and Other Domestic Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Decennial Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
List of Tables
Table 1. Remaining FY2008 and Additional FY2009 Supplemental Funding
Requested for the Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 2. FY2008 Emergency Supplemental State Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

---

Table 3. FY2008 Foreign Operations Emergency Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 4. Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 5. Afghanistan Reconstruction Assistance, FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 6. Sudan Emergency Supplemental, FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

---

Second FY2008 Supplemental
Appropriations for Military Operations,
International Affairs, and Other Purposes
Most Recent Developments
On May 15, the House rejected a measure to provide $162.5 billion in FY2008
and FY2009 emergency funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but
approved a number of Iraq-related policy provisions and provided expanded veterans
educational benefits, an extension of unemployment compensation payments, and
$20 billion for domestic and international affairs programs. Procedurally, as a
vehicle for considering supplemental appropriations without a committee markup,
the House brought to the floor the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2642, the FY2008
military construction/veterans’ affairs appropriations bill. The House then
considered three amendments as substitutes for the text of the bill.
! By a vote of 141-149 with 132 voting present, the House rejected the
first amendment to provide $96.6 billion in FY2008 and $65.9
billion in FY2009 funding for military operations.
! By a vote of 227-196, the House approved a second amendment to
require the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq within 18 months;
establish readiness requirements for the deployment of U.S. troops;
require that any agreement on the status of U.S. forces in Iraq be
authorized by Congress; mandate that Iraq match U.S. reconstruction
aid dollar-for-dollar and agree to subsidize fuel costs for U.S. forces;
make contractors in war zones subject to prosecution for offenses
that would violate U.S. law; prohibit the establishment of permanent
bases in Iraq; and prohibit interrogation techniques not authorized in
the Army Field Manual.
! And, by a vote of 256-166, the House approved a third amendment
providing funds $20 billion for domestic and international affairs
programs, expanding veterans educational benefits, with an offset,
and extending unemployment compensation payments.
As described by a May 7 House Appropriations Committee summary, had the
leadership bill been approved intact, it would have provided $183.7 billion in
discretionary appropriations in FY2008 and FY2009. That amount has now been
reduced by $162.5 billion to a total of $21.2 billion. The bill also includes an
expansion of veterans’ Montgomery GI bill educational benefits at a cost of $52
billion in mandatory spending over the next ten years, and extended unemployment
compensation at a cost of $11 billion. The bill as approved provides $5.9 billion in
FY2008 and $5.1 billion in FY2009 for international affairs, including emergency

---

CRS-2
food aid; $5.8 billion in FY2009 for Gulf Coast levee construction; and $644 million
for other domestic programs. It also includes a measure to delay new Medicaid
regulations that would reduce payments to the states.
The House-passed Iraq policy provisions require that troops begin redeployment
from Iraq within 30 days of enactment of the legislation with a goal of completing
withdrawal of combat troops by December, 2009; that any agreement on the status
of U.S. forces in Iraq be authorized by Congress; that Iraq match U.S. reconstruction
aid dollar-for-dollar; that Iraq agree to subsidize fuel costs for U.S. forces; and that
U.S. troops meet guidelines for readiness before being deployed, including guidelines
for time at home between rotations. The Iraq policy amendment also makes
contractors in war zones subject to prosecution for offenses that would violate U.S.
law; prohibits the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq; and prohibits
interrogation techniques not authorized in the Army Field Manual.
Also on May 15, the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up its version
of a supplemental appropriations bill. The underlying Chairman’s bill provides $103
billion in FY2008 and $65.9 billion in FY2009 for the Department of Defense,
including military construction; $10.4 billion for hurricane protection; $850 million
in FY2008 and $395 million in FY2009 for P.L. 480 international food assistance;
$1.2 billion for science programs in several agencies; and more than $2 billion for
other domestic programs, including secure schools, VA trauma centers, law
enforcement grants, highways, and the Food and Drug Administration. It also
includes expanded GI bill educational benefits and extended unemployment
compensation, it delays new Medicaid rules, and it includes a cost containment
measure to limit Medicare payments to new specialty hospitals. In the markup, the
committee approved amendments to add funds for several programs, including
! $50 million for Adam Walsh Act sex offender tracking;
! $100 million for drug-related law enforcement grants;
! $300 million in additional aid to Jordan for refugee programs; and
! $1 billion for the Low-Income Home Energy Program (LIHEAP).
The Senate committee also approved a package of Iraq-related policy provisions,
though it does not mandate a timetable for withdrawal. Policy provisions in the bill
require that units be fully mission capable before being deployed, with a Presidential
waiver; set limits on the time units may be deployed of one year in the Army and
seven months in the Marine Corps, also with a waiver; require that units be based at
home for the same periods between rotations, with a waiver; prohibit permanent
bases in Iraq; state that the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should shift to counter-
terrorism, training, and force protection; require congressional approval of any
security agreements with Iraq; prohibit an agreement that would place U.S. forces
under Iraqi criminal jurisdiction; require a report on Iraq’s budget; require Iraq to
reimburse U.S. forces for fuel costs; establish criminal statutes against profiteering
and other fraud and abuse; prohibit U.S. funding of large-scale infrastructure projects
in Iraq; require an agreement with Iraq to share costs of military operations; and
require that the International Red Cross be informed of and have access to any
detainees. The bill also includes expanded oversight of contractors and an extension
of laws governing extraterritorial jurisdiction over contractor personnel.

---

CRS-3
The enhanced GI bill educational benefits that are included in the House and
Senate measures appear to have become a critical issue. While the House leadership
agreed to offset the costs, the Senate committee bill does not include offsets. If the
Senate does not agree to offsets, it is unclear whether conservative House Democrats
will support expanded benefits in a final bill. In addition, the Defense Department
has opposed the legislation, and Senate Republicans are proposing an alternative. At
a May 8 press conference, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs
Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen complained that the measure being proposed in
the House and Senate bills would undermine retention of personnel because it would
make full educational benefits available for service members who have not reenlisted
for a second term. On May 6, at an event to honor military spouses, the President
said that he was sending to Congress legislation that would improve benefits for
military families, including a measure that would allow educational benefits to be
transferred to children or spouses.
On May 14, Senate Republicans brought up an alternative GI bill expansion
proposal sponsored by Senator Graham as an amendment to pending collective
bargaining legislation.1 Reportedly, the amendment is based on S. 2938, a measure
to increase veterans education benefits that Senator Graham proposed on April 29
with a number of co-sponsors, including Senator McCain. The Graham bill provides
larger benefits for military personnel who serve for at least 12 years and permits
benefits to be transferred to other family members. The education benefit measure
included in the House and Senate supplemental bills, in contrast, is based on a bill,
S. 22/H.R. 5740, sponsored by Senator Webb and Representative Mitchell, that
provides maximum benefits after thirty-six months of service.
On May 2, the White House sent Congress an amendment to its FY2009 budget
formally requesting $70 billion in emergency FY2009 funding, including $66 billion
for the Department of Defense and $4 billion for international affairs programs. The
$66 billion request for the Defense Department constitutes a “bridge fund” sufficient
to allow the services to carry on both day-to-day peacetime activities and military
operations overseas until the middle of 2009. Approval of a bridge fund – which the
appropriations committees had planned to provide before the White House made its
formal request – will allow Congress to avoid a debate over war funding during the
fall election period, and also provide the 111th Congress time to act on a full-year war
supplemental after the next President takes office.
The $4 billion FY2009 international affairs request includes $770 million in
emergency food-related assistance announced on May 1 (though FY2009 funding
would not be available until October 1, 2008), $1.4 billion for aid to Iraq, $1.1 billion
for aid to Afghanistan, $350 million for the Middle East, $193 million for Pakistan,
$123 million for stabilization operations in Africa, $36 million for security for
diplomats in the Middle East, Sudan, and Somalia, and $15 million for the six party
agreement on North Korean nuclear programs.
1 Bart Jansen, Josh Rogin and Kathleen Hunter, “GOP Slips McCain's GI Bill Alternative
into Play on Senate Floor,” CQ Today Online News, May 14, 2008.

---

CRS-4
On May 1, the President announced a new request for $770 million in FY2009
emergency supplemental appropriations for international food aid. The
Administration had requested $350 million for P.L. 480 international food assistance
in its October, 2007, budget amendment to the FY2008 supplemental request.
Senators Durbin and Casey had proposed adding $200 million in food aid to the
supplemental.
Background: Status of FY2008
Supplemental Funding
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 for the Army 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.2 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.3
For defense, much of the remaining requested funding is to repair, replace, and
upgrade weapons and other equipment used in the war. For foreign operations,
remaining funding includes additional sums for reconstruction assistance to Iraq and
2 The regular FY2008 defense appropriations bill provides $3.7 billion of general transfer
authority which, subject to approval by the congressional defense committees, can be used
to shift funds between accounts. The consolidated appropriations act provides $3.7 billion
in the Iraqi Freedom Fund, which may be transferred to personnel, operation and
maintenance, or other accounts for operations either in Iraq or in Afghanistan and then
transferred back again. The consolidated appropriations act also provides authority, again
subject to congressional approval, to transfer up to $4.0 billion of the $70 billion in
emergency defense funding in the bill between accounts. Additional amounts may be
available in cash balances of working capital funds.
3 See CRS Report RL34275, How Long Can the Defense Department Finance FY2008
Operations in Advance of Supplemental Appropriations?, by Stephen Daggett and Pat
Towell and CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War
on Terror Operations Since 9/11, by Amy Belasco.

---

CRS-5
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.
As action proceeds on the remaining FY2008 supplemental appropriations
amounts, 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. Senators Ben Nelson and Susan Collins have said they will offer an
amendment to limit the amount of reconstruction assistance that can be provided to
Iraq as grants rather than loans.4 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.5
It has also been announced that the leadership bill will include a $65 billion or
so “bridge fund” to cover costs of military operations through June or July of 2009.
That would be FY2009 money, however, so, though it would push the total in the bill
to $170 billion or more, it would not technically break the President’s limit on
FY2008 supplemental funding. Moreover, the Administration’s budget documents
included a $70 billion placeholder amount in the FY2009 defense budget plan for
overseas military operations, and on May 2, the White House sent Congress a formal
request for $70 billion in emergency FY2009 appropriations, of which $66 billion is
for the Department of Defense and $4 billion is for international affairs programs.6

A key issue for the congressional Democratic leadership has been whether to
challenge the President’s veto threat by adding substantial amounts of unrequested
funding for domestic programs. On this, there appears to be a substantial difference
4 A version of their proposal was approved as an amendment to the Senate committee
version of the FY2009 defense authorization in the Senate Armed Services Committee
markup of the bill on April 30, 2008; see Megan Scully, “Levin to Seek Broader Limit on
Iraq Reconstruction Funds,” National Journal Congress Daily PM, May 1, 2008.
5 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.
6 White House Office of Management and Budget, “Estimate #2 — FY 2009 Emergency
Budget Amendments: Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Selected
Other International Activities,” May 2, 2008, available online at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/amendment_5_2_08.pdf].

---

CRS-6
between the views of senior House and Senate Democrats. Senator Byrd, the
chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, has repeatedly said that the bill
should include substantial amounts of additional domestic spending. Representative
Obey, however, the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has
reportedly tried to discourage substantial additions of funds.7
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
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.8
7 Josh Rogin and David Clarke, “Rift Between Leaders, Appropriators Threatens to Hold
Up Supplemental,” CQ Today, May 1, 2008.
8 White House Office of Management and Budget, “Estimate #5 — FY 2008 Emergency
Budget Amendments: Department of Defense (Global War on Terror — Mine Resistant
Ambush Protected Vehicles),” July 31, 2007 online at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
budget/amendments/amendment_7_31_07.pdf].

---

CRS-7
! 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.9
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 2007 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, 2007, the House and Senate approved a conference
agreement on the FY2008 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 3222,10
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, providing $50 billion for U.S. military
9 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, online 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, online at [http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget
/fy2008/Supplemental/FY2008_October_Global_War_On_Terror_Amendment.pdf].
10 See CRS Report RL33999, Defense: FY2008 Authorization and Appropriations, by Pat
Towell, Stephen Daggett, and Amy Belasco.

---

CRS-8
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, 2007, by a vote of 53-45, with 60 votes required,
the Senate refused to close debate on a motion to proceed to
consideration of H.R. 4156 as passed by the House, effectively
killing the measure. The Senate also rejected, by a vote of 45-53, a
motion to proceed to consideration of H.R. 2340, a substitute offered
by Senator McConnell, to provide $70 billion for the Defense
Department without requiring withdrawal from Iraq. (Ultimately,
however, with some revisions in the allocation of funds, the
McConnell amendment was approved as part of the final
consolidated appropriations act — see below.)
! Meanwhile, in a November 15, 2007, Pentagon press conference,
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned that the Army and Marine
Corps would have to begin implementing steps to limit operations
unless Congress approved additional funding very soon.11 Without
additional money, he said, the Army would have to cease operations
at all Army bases by mid-February 2008, which would require
furloughs of about 100,000 government employees and a like
number of contractor personnel. Plans would have to begin to be
implemented in mid-December, he said. On November 20, the
Defense Department announced that it was transferring $4.5 billion
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
11 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-9
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.
An Overview of Remaining FY2008 and Additional
FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations
Remaining FY2008 and Additional FY2009 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) total FY2008 supplemental funding
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.
In preparing a bill to provide remaining FY2008 defense funds, the
congressional appropriations committees decided to add a “bridge fund” for FY2009
that would provide enough money to sustain both day-to-day peacetime activities and
war-related operations until well into calendar year 2009. This would leave it to the

---

CRS-10
next Administration to decide what it will request in total supplemental funding to
cover war costs based on any planned changes in strategy. The committees discussed
with the Defense Department how to allocate funds among accounts so as to sustain
critical operations through about June of 2009.
On May 2, the Office of Management and Budget formally sent Congress a
request for $70 billion in FY2009 supplemental funding, of which $66 billion was
for defense and intelligence and $4 billion was for international affairs. Along with
the pending FY2008 supplemental request, Table 1 shows the breakdown of the
May 2 Administration request for a $66 billion defense bridge fund. CRS calculates
that a bridge fund of about $57 billion, if allocated by account to maximize the
amount of time critical operating accounts would last, could allow the services to
operate through the end of July, 2009, at DOD’s planned monthly rates of
obligations.12
Table 1. Remaining FY2008 and Additional FY2009 Supplemental
Funding Requested for the Department of Defense
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Original
FY2008
FY2008
Remaining
FY2008
Enacted
Remaining
DOD
Adjusted
Amended
through
FY2008
Adjust-
FY2008
FY2009
Request
Dec. 2007
Request
ment
Request
Request
Military Personnel
Military Personnel, Army
12,318
783
11,535
+329
11,864
3,500
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
95
Reserve Personnel, Navy
70
—
70
+3
73
—
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
1,790
56
1,734
+3
1,737
85
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps
15
—
15
+1
17
—
Military Personnel, Air Force
1,416
138
1,278
+8
1,286
105
Reserve Personnel, Air Force
3
—
3
+4
7
—
National Guard Personnel, Army
—
—
—
—
—
20
National Guard Personnel, Air
—
—
—
+6
6
—
Force
Total Military Personnel
17,840
1,072
16,767
+789
17,556
3,805
Operation and Maintenance
O&M, Army
53,872
35,152
18,720
-1,577
17,143
35,560
O&M, Army Reserve
197
78
119
+38
157
—
O&M, Army National Guard
757
327
430
+383
813
—
12 The largest requirement, by far, would be for Army Operation and Maintenance. If
monthly obligations for Army O&M, both for peacetime and for war-related operations,
average $6.9 billion in FY2009, which is about the FY2008 rate, then the $31 billion
requested for Army O&M in the base defense budget for FY2009 would last until about the
middle of February, 2009. An additional $38 billion would be needed to sustain operations
at the same rate through the end of July.

---

CRS-11
Original
FY2008
FY2008
Remaining
FY2008
Enacted
Remaining
DOD
Adjusted
Amended
through
FY2008
Adjust-
FY2008
FY2009
Request
Dec. 2007
Request
ment
Request
Request
O&M, Navy
6,163
3,664
2,499
+722
3,220
238
O&M, Marine Corps
4,272
3,966
306
+34
340
2,200
O&M, Navy Reserve
83
42
42
+66
108
—
O&M, Marine Corps Reserve
68
46
22
+1
23
34
O&M, Air Force
10,705
4,778
5,927
+830
6,758
3,644
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
3,194
Office of the Inspector General
4
—
4
—
4
—
Drug Interdiction and Counter-
258
193
65
—
65
130
Drug Activities, Defense
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
2,700
1,350
1,350
—
1,350
3,666
Iraq Security Forces Fund
3,000
1,500
1,500
—
1,500
2,000
Iraq Freedom Fund
3,851
3,747
104
+70
174
—
Defense Health Program
1,137
576
562
+197
759
—
Medical Support Fund
—
—
—
—
—
400
Total Operation and
92,533
57,599
34,934
+1,490
36,424
51,066
Maintenance
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
80
Joint Impr Explosive Dev Defeat
4,269
4,269
—
-65
-65
2,970
Fund
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
3,908
49
3,860
+191
4,050
—
Weapons Procurement, Navy
318
—
318
—
318
—
Procurement of Ammo, Navy &
610
305
305
—
305
—
MC
Other Procurement, Navy
1,607
91
1,515
—
1,515
—
Procurement, Marine Corps
3,148
703
2,444
—
2,444
—
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
3,946
51
3,895
—
3,895
1,209
Missile Procurement, Air Force
2
—
2
—
2
—
Procurement of Ammunition, Air
104
—
104
—
104
—
Force
Other Procurement, Air Force
2,461
31
2,430
—
2,430
1,468
Procurement, Defense-Wide
542
275
267
+8
275
73
Rapid Acquisition Fund
150
—
150
—
150
100
Mine Resistant Ambush Prot Veh
16,830
16,830
—
—
—
2,610
Fund
Total Procurement
71,597
27,159
44,438
-4,657
39,781
8,511
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
RDT&E, Army
163
—
163
+48
211
—
RDT&E, Navy
611
—
611
+21
632
113
RDT&E, AF
1,487
—
1,487
+62
1,549
72
RDT&E, DW
684
—
684
+260
945
194

---

CRS-12
Original
FY2008
FY2008
Remaining
FY2008
Enacted
Remaining
DOD
Adjusted
Amended
through
FY2008
Adjust-
FY2008
FY2009
Request
Dec. 2007
Request
ment
Request
Request
Total RDT&E
2,946
—
2,946
+391
3,33
379
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-
28
—
28
—
28
—
Wide
FY2005 BRAC - Defense Wide
416
—
416
—
416
—
Total Military Construction
2,427
—
2,427
+1,107
3,534
—
Family Housing
Fam Housing Construction, Navy
12
—
12
—
12
—
& Marine Corps
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-
313
280
33
+287
320
2,200
Wide
National Defense Sealift Fund
5
—
5
—
5
—
Total Revolving & Mngmnt
1,963
1,000
963
+880
1,843
2,200
Funds
Other Non-DOD Intelligence
FBI Counter-terrorism
—
—
—
—
—
39
Total Other Intelligence
—
—
—
—
—
39
Total Budget Authority
189,316
86,830
102,486
—
102,486
66,000
Source: Department of Defense for FY2008 amounts, Office of Management and Budget, “FY 2009 Emergency Budget
Amendments: Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Selected Other International Activities,” May
2, 2008.
Notes: Further changes in request for Iraq Freedom Fund are pending. “BRAC” refers to Base Realignment and Closure.
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 the main legislative focuses of debate over U.S. policy in Iraq. Though
majorities both in the House and in the Senate supported such measures, Congress

---

CRS-13
was never able to enact provisions either requiring troop withdrawals or revising the
missions of deployed troops. 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. 2206, P.L. 110-28, established 18 benchmarks
for performance by the Iraqi government and required reports from the
Administration on progress toward the benchmarks in July and again in September.
The bill also required a report on the benchmarks from the Government
Accountability Office in September 2007. These reports then provided a basis for
later debates.13 (GAO has also recently been tasked to provide a progress report on
Iraq by June 2008.)
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, both in the House and in the Senate, may again
propose amendments mandating a time line for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.14
Recently Representative Murtha said, “We must begin a redeployment from Iraq,”
and indicated that Democrats may set timelines for withdrawal.15 A version of troop
withdrawal language previously proposed by Senators Levin and Reed is also,
reportedly, under discussion by several Democrats, and a troop withdrawal proposal
with tighter timelines by Senator Feingold may once again come to a vote.16 It is
unclear if the House and Senate leadership will back any specific withdrawal
measures, however.
Whether or not Congress votes on withdrawal proposals, other Iraq policy
measures may be considered. In April 2008 congressional hearings with General
Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, many legislators expressed dissatisfaction with
13 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.
14 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.
15 Josh Rogin and Alan K. Ota, “Timing Slips, But Details Start to Emerge for War
Supplemental,” CQ Today, May 1, 2008
16 Josh Rogin, “House to Take up Supplemental as Early as Next Week,” CQ Today, April
29, 2008.

---

CRS-14
the current policy.17 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 about the conditions that would permit troop
withdrawals, or to ask for an assessment of how 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
progress toward the benchmarks with congressional committees by April 17, 2008.
As of May 1, these overdue results were still reportedly under review by the
Administration. 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, some costs 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 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 U.N. mandate that authorizes a multinational force 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. The Administration
has insisted that neither the status of forces agreement, or its partner document, a
security framework, will establish permanent bases in Iraq.18 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.19
17 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.
18 Testimony of Ambassador David M. Satterfield, Coordinator for Iraq, Department of
State, before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittees on the Middle East and
South Asia, and on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight, March 4,
2008, available online at [http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/sat030408.htm].
19 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.

---

CRS-15
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.20
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 proposals may address whether troops are capable of maintaining
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,21 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.22 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 2008.23 It has been reported recently that
the proposed House bill will include long-lead money for future aircraft production.24
Some of these additions of funds may be controversial.
20 See footnote 3.
21 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.
22 See footnote 3.
23 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.
24 Josh Rogin and David Clarke, “Rift Between Leaders, Appropriators Threatens to Hold
Up Supplemental,” CQ Today, May 1, 2008, as does the Senate Armed Services Committee
version of the FY2009 defense authorization bill — see Megan Scully, “Levin To Seek
Broader Limit On Iraq Reconstruction Funds,” National Journal Congress Daily, PM, May
1, 2008.

---

CRS-16
International Affairs Remaining FY2008 and Additional
FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations25
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.
In addition to the FY2008 pending supplemental funds, on May 2, 2008, the
Administration amended its regular FY2009 State-Foreign operations request by
adding $2.24 billion to the Department of State FY2009 regular request and nearly
$2.88 billion in foreign assistance funding, including $770 million for food security
and food aid. Table 2 and Table 3 are State Department and foreign operations
summaries of the remaining $5.4 billion request as well as the FY2009 regular and
supplemental request. Table 2 shows the remaining FY2008 request and the FY2009
request for the State Department and international broadcasting. Table 3 shows the
remaining FY2008 request the FY2009 request for foreign operations.
25 Prepared by Susan B. Epstein, Specialist in Foreign Policy.

---

CRS-17
Table 2. FY2008 Emergency Supplemental State Department
(millions of U.S. dollars)
Enacted
State
State
Supp.
Dept
Dept
Total
H.R.
FY08
Pending
FY2008
2764
Supp
FY08
FY2009
FY2009
Supp.
PL110-
Allocati
Supp
Regular
Supp
Activity
Request
161
ona
Request
Request
Request
Total State
$3,219.6
$1,261.6
$965.0
$2,254.6
11,223.1
$1,121.3
b
Operations
Diplomatic &
2,283.0
781.6
575.0
1,708.0
$5,364.3
1,064.5
Consular
(2,120.6)
(575.0)
(575.0)
(1,545.6)
(921.0)
Programs Iraq
Operations
(162.4)
(206.6)
( — )
(162.4)
(45.8)
Worldwide Security
Protection
Embassy Security,
Construction &
$160.0
—
—
$160.0
$1,789.7
—
Maintenance
Office of Inspector
—
—
—
—
$35.5
$16.8
General
Contributions to
International
$53.0
—
—
$53.0
1,529.4c
$40.0
Organizations
Contributions to
International
$723.6
$468.0
$390.0
$333.6
$1,497.0
—
Peacekeeping
Broadcasting
—
$12.0
$12.0
—
$699.5
—
Total
$3,219.6
$1,261.6
$977.0
$2,254.6
$10,915.
$2,242.6
4
Source: For FY2009 figures, Office of Management and Budget, “FY 2009 Emergency Budget
Amendments: Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Selected Other
International Activities,” May 2, 2008.
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-18
Table 3. FY2008 Foreign Operations Emergency Supplemental
(millions of U.S. dollars)
Total
Enacteda
Pending
FY2008
Supp
FY08
FY08
FY2009
FY2009
Supp.
HR2764
Supp
Supp
Regular
Supp
Account
Request
PL110-161 Allocation
Request
Request
Request
Afghanistan
839.0
n.a
—
839.0
1,054.0b
924.9
ESF
834.0

707.0
749.9
NADR
5.0
31.6
—
INCLE
—
250.0
175.0
USAID Operating Expenses
(16.0)
—
Iraq
956.0
n.a
—
956.0
397.0b
212.8
ESF
797.0
300.0
212.8
INCLE
159.0
75.0
—
Mexico — Central America
550.0
0.0
—
550.0
501.0b
—
Initiative
477.8
INCLE
550.0
West Bank/Gaza
375.0
n.a
155.0
220.0
100.0b
200.0
INCLE
25.0
—
25.0
50.0
ESF
350.0
155.0
75.0
150.0
Pakistan
60.0
n.a
—
60.0
826.3b
170.0
ESF
60.0
453.2
70
FMF
300.0
100.0
North Korea
106.0
n.a
53.0
53.0
2.0b
15.0
ESF
106.0
53.0
53.0
2.0
15.0
Somalia
40.3b
40.0
PKO
—
—
—
—
11.6
40.0
Sudan
70.0
n.a
—
70.0
332.6b
—
ESF
70.0
70.0
254.1
Lebanon
142.4b
50.0
FMF
—
—
—
—
62.2
50.0
Poland
29.2b
20.0
FMF
—
—
—
—
27.0
20.0
Jordan
535.4b
100.0
ESF
—
—
—
—
263.5
100.0
Stabilization/Peacekeeping
—
—
—
—
247.2
80.0
Horn of Africa/Kenya
(110.0)

—
(110.0)
—
—
PL480
(110.0)
0.0
Southern Africa
(135.0)
—
(135.0)
—
—
PL480
(135.0)
0.0
Migration/Refugee Assist.
230.0
200.0
200.0
30.0
764.0
191.0
Intern’l Disaster Assist.
80.0
80.0
80.0
—
298.1
45.0
PL480
350.0
0.0
—
350.0
1,225.9
395.0
Other Food Security (DA &
—
—
—
—
—
375.0
IDA)
USAID Operating Expenses
61.8
n.a
20.8
41.0
767.2
60.0
Total
3,677.8
1,123.4
508.8
3,169.0
7,262.6
2,878.7
Acronyms: ESF=Economic Support Fund; INCLE=International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement;
FMF=Foreign Military Financing; PKO=peacekeeping Operations; IDA-International Disaster Assistance;

---

CRS-19
DA=Development 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.
Source: For FY2009 figures, Office of Management and Budget, “FY 2009 Emergency Budget Amendments:
Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Selected Other International Activities,” May 2,
2008.
Notes:
a. 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.
b. Country totals include other accounts for which supplemental funds were not requested.
Iraq Reconstruction Assistance26
A major issue in congressional action on supplemental funding for international
affairs is how much to provide for Iraq reconstruction, and whether to continue to
provide it as grants or by some other method that increases the role of the Iraqi
government. 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 reconstruction assistance being in
the form of DOD appropriations. Currently outstanding from the FY08 request 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 outstanding FY2008 foreign operations request was 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). However, the bulk of the pending 2nd FY2008 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), 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), and for the Task Force to Improve
Business and Stability Operations in Iraq ($100 million under the Iraq Freedom Fund
account).
On May 2, 2008, the Administration issued a request for FY2009 emergency
supplemental funding. The request includes $398.8 million for foreign operations
reconstruction — $212.8 million in ESF, $141 million in MRA, and $45 million in
IDA accounts. The DOD appropriations reconstruction request includes $2 billion
for the ISFF, $1.7 billion for the CERP in Iraq and Afghanistan, of which at least half
would go to Iraq, and $50 million for the Business Task Force. Both DOD and
26 Prepared by Curt Tarnoff, Specialist in Foreign Affairs. For more detailed discussion of
the U.S. program of assistance to Iraq, see CRS Report RL31833, Iraq: Reconstruction
Assistance.

---

CRS-20
Foreign Operations portions of the FY2009 emergency request are being considered
by Congress at the same time as the FY2008 supplemental.
The accounts to be funded under both FY2008 and FY2009 supplemental
requests support a wide range of reconstruction programs. 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
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 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.

---

CRS-21
The DOD Business 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.27
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. The new FY2009 supplemental
request includes funding for PRT operations (an unspecified portion of a total $921
million Embassy/PRT request), $23.6 million for USAID operational expenses, and
$15 million for the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR).
House Action on Iraq Reconstruction. The combined funding
amendments #1 and #3 to H.R. 2642, containing versions of the FY08 and FY09
supplementals, would have provided a total of $4.0 billion in additional economic
and security reconstruction funding for Iraq, about two thirds of the Administration
request for the two years of assistance. See the Table below for details under each
account. However, DOD reconstruction appropriations were contained in
amendment #1, which was rejected in a House vote on May 15. Of the total FY2008
and FY2009 DOD appropriations request of $4.9 billion, the failed amendment
would have provided $4.0 billion, or 83%.
Only amendment #3 of the two funding amendments was approved. It contains
the foreign operations portion of Iraq reconstruction assistance. Of the total FY2008
and FY2009 foreign operations request of $1.4 billion, the House bill provides $921
million, or 66%.
Judging by the allocations made by the Appropriations Committee for the $440
million in FY2008 ESF, a significant shift in the direction of the economic aid
program may result favoring more local-level assistance programs. Of this amount,
at least $355 million would be targeted to provincial and local community activities,
rather than programs supporting the national government. PRT programs would get
$140 million. Related community-based programs, the Community Stabilization
Program (CSP) and the Community Action Program (CAP), would receive $100
million and $75 million respectively.28 Provincial economic growth, including
microcredit and agriculture, would get $40 million. The only significant national-
level effort, the National Capacity Development program, would receive $70 million,
a cut of $178 million from the request. Another request for a nationally-based effort,
$70 million for the provision of infrastructure security protection, was cut entirely.
Democracy assistance, requested under ESF, is being provided under the Democracy
27 “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.
28 The request for the Community Stabilization Program was cut by $55 million and half
of funds provided are to be withheld until a concern about possible misuse of funds is
resolved.

---

CRS-22
Fund account at $75 million, and is expected to be implemented through the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED) and other NGOs.
Two other reconstruction provisions in the amended bill are noteworthy. No
funding was provided for the Iraqi Enterprise Fund, and such a fund is specifically
prohibited. The FY2008 INCLE Iraq program funding, at $85 million, was cut
substantially, by $74 million, from the request, and no prison construction funding
was included.
Because operational funds for the PRTs are blended with those of the Embassy
and USAID operating expenses are provided for both Iraq and Afghanistan, it is not
possible to say with certainty whether the full request was met by the House
amendment. The amendment did provide the SIGIR with $2.5 million and $46.5
million for FY2008 and FY2009, respectively.
Senate Action on Iraq Reconstruction. With regard to funding levels, the
Senate Committee bill differs from the House bill in only a few respects. Most
notably, it provides $200 million more for the CERP in Iraq and about $32 million
less in total ESF for Iraq. See Table below for account levels.
Like the House, the Senate bill shifts funding strongly in the direction of local-
level assistance programs. Of the $398 million in FY2008 ESF, at least $313 million
would be targeted to provincial and local community activities, rather than programs
supporting the national government. PRT programs would get $138 million. As in
the House bill, the CSP and CAP would receive $100 million and $75 million
respectively, and the National Capacity Development program would receive $70
million. Infrastructure security protection was cut out. Again, like the House, the
Senate bill would provide democracy assistance under the Democracy Fund account
at $75 million. The proposed enterprise fund would also not be funded in the Senate
bill.
House and Senate Action on Iraqi Role in Reconstruction. Reflecting
recent indications that Members of both parties desired to see the Iraqi government
pay a greater share of the costs of reconstruction, under the approved House
amendment #2, H.R. 2642 now contains a measure that would require most
reconstruction funds to be matched by the Iraqis on a dollar-for-dollar basis. The
exceptions are for democracy and human rights programs, the USAID Community
Action Program and other NGO-assisted programs, humanitarian demining, refugee
and displaced persons assistance, intelligence activities, and CERP projects with a
value less than $750,000. It is not clear from the language whether th e match would
have to be made project-by-project or whether total Iraqi funding for reconstruction
in general would suffice to permit continued U.S. assistance at the same level. If the
latter, the provision might not affect U.S. funding as, in the past year, the Iraqi budget
for security and economic reconstruction has surpassed the U.S. contribution.
The Senate Committee bill does not contain the above matching fund language,
but would prohibit funding of large-scale infrastructure projects costing over $2
million using DOD appropriations. As the CERP is exempted from this restriction,
the only likely affect would be to ensure that Iraq funds construction of security-
related facilities, such as military barracks and training centers.

---

CRS-23
It is possible that a different approach may be taken to the issue of the Iraqi
funding role when the Senate bill reaches the floor. Some weeks ago, several
members had said they would offer an amendment to the Senate version of the
supplemental making U.S. reconstruction aid available in the form of loans rather
than the current practice of grant aid.29 S.Res. 506 (Nelson), H.Res. 1108 (Shays),
and H.Res. 1111 (Klein) all call on further U.S. reconstruction assistance to be
provided in the form of a loan.
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 bill (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, 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 in infrastructure and related reconstruction
programs. The Iraqi government recently announced that, due to rising revenue, an
additional $5 billion will be added to the capital budget in June. Further, the Iraqi
government appears to have considerable difficulty committing and spending its
capital projects budget. According to a recent DOD report, the Iraqi government had
executed only 55% of its $10.1 billion 2007 capital budget as of November 2007.30
One possible objection to a loan or similar proposals would concern the extent
to which they limit 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. On the other hand, some might
argue that, where there is mutual agreement between the United States and Iraq on
objectives, the Iraqis might pay reconstruction costs in a way that accommodates U.S.
interests. One precedent was set recently when the Iraqis established an “Iraqi
CERP” with $300 million that U.S. commanders are managing as they do U.S. funds.
In addition, the Iraqi government has employed $2 billion of its own resources to
purchase equipment and U.S. services using the U.S. Foreign Military Sales
Program.31
29 “Lawmakers Eager to See Iraq Pay Its Own Way,” CQ Today, April 3, 2008, p. 1.
30 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.
31 Testimony of General Petraeus, Senate Armed Services Committee, April 10, 2008.

---

CRS-24
Table 4. Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq Reconstruction
(millions of U.S. dollars)
International Affairs (Budget Function 150 Accounts)
Senate
Enacted Supp.
Second
H.R. 2642
Draft
H.R. 2642
Senate Draft
FY2009
Total FY2008
Allocation H.R. 2764
FY2008 Supp
Second
FY2008
FY09 Supp
FY2009
FY2009
Regular
Supp. Request
(PL110-161)
Request
FY2008 Supp
Supp
Request
Supp
Supp
Request
Economic Support Fund (ESF)
797.0
5.0
797.0
440.0
398.0
212.8
100.0
110.0
300.0
Democracy
Fund
— — —
75.0
75.0
—
—
—
—
International Narcotics Control
and Law Enforcement (INCLE)
159.0
—
159.0
85.0
85.0
—
— g
— 75.0
Migration and Refugee
Assistance (MRA)
195.0 a
149.5 a
30.0 a
30.0j
30.0j
141.0
141.0 h
141h
—
International DisasterAssistance
(IDA)
80.0 b
80.0 b
—
—
—
45.0
45.0i
45.0i
—
Nonprolif, Anti-Terror,
Demining (NADR)
—
—
—
—
—
—
4.5
4.5
20.0
TOTAL 150 Account
1,231.0
234.5
986.0
630.0
588.0
398.8
290.5
300.5
395.0
Department of Defense (Budget Function 050 Accounts)
Iraq Security Forces Fund
(ISFF)
3,000
1,500.0
1,500.0
(1,500.0)*
1,500.0
2,000.0
(1,000.0)*
1,000.0
—
Commander’s Emergency
Response Program (CERP)
609.7c
370.0d
359.7e
(544.9)*
744.9
850.0f
— —
—
Iraq Freedom Fund (for Task
Force to Improve Business)
100.0
—
100.0
(50.0)*
50.0
50.0
—
—
—
TOTAL 050 Account
3,709.7
1,870.0
1,959.7
(2,094.9)*
2,294.0
2,900.0
(1,000.0)*
1,000.0
—
GRAND TOTAL
150 & 050
4,940.7
2,104.5
2,945.7
(2,724.9)*
2,882.9
3,298.8
(1,290.5)*
1,300.5
395.0

---

CRS-25
Sources: Department of State and DOD FY2008 Congressional Budget Justifications; H.R. 2764; SIGIR, Report to Congress, April 2008; Office of Management and Budget, “FY 2009 Emergency Budget
Amendments: Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Selected Other International Activities,” May 2, 2008; Amendments to H.R. 2642 and Explanatory Statements.
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.
* 150 account funds were contained in amendment #1 to H.R.2642, which failed to pass on May 15, 2008. Amendment #3, containing 050 account appropriations,
was approved by Congress on that date.
a. H.R. 2764 provided $200 million for MRA account. The 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 April 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.
f. The total FY2009 supplemental CERP request of $1.7 billion is for both Iraq and Afghanistan. The amount
included here assumes that at least half of the request is for Iraq.
g. Total House FY2009 amount for INCLE account is $204.5 million, including an unspecified level of Iraq aid.
h. Total House and Senate bill amount for FY2009 MRA account is $350 million, including an unspecified level of Iraq aid.
i. Total House and Senate bill FY2009 amount for IDA account is $200 million.
j. Total House amount for FY2008 MRA account is $300 million, including an unspecified level of Iraq aid. Total Senate draft amount for MRA account is $330.5 million, including an unspecified level
of Iraq aid.

---

CRS-26
Afghanistan Reconstruction Assistance32
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 FY2009 Regular and Supplemental Request. On May 2, 2008, the
Administration issued an amendment to the regular FY2009. The regular FY2009
Administration request for Afghanistan totals $1.054 billion. The recent amendment
to that would provide supplemental funding for Afghanistan totaling $924.9 million,
including $749.9 million for ESF and $175 million for INCLE.
32 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy and
Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs.

---

CRS-27
The FY2008 Original and Amended Emergency Supplemental
Request. The Administration requested $339 million in ESF for Afghanistan
reconstruction assistance in the FY2008 emergency supplemental in February 2007.
Other parts of the supplement request for Afghanistan included increases in embassy
operations and security. The Administration amended the FY2008 supplemental
request in October 2007 for a total request of $839 million for reconstruction, which
included several provisions intended to continue U.S. efforts to stabilize Afghanistan
and continue economic reconstruction efforts.33
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:
33 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-28
! $5 million in Non-proliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and
Related Programs (NADR) to support the Afghan leadership through
the Presidential Protection Service.
Table 5. Afghanistan Reconstruction Assistance, FY2008
(millions of U.S. dollars)
Final
Total
Supp H.R.
Pending
FY2008
2764
FY2008
FY2009
FY2009
Activity
Supp
PL110-
Supp
Regular
Supp
(appropriation account)
Request
161
Request
Request
Request
Infrastructure aid (ESF)
834.0
—
834.0
707.0
749.9
Nonproliferation (NADR)
5.0
—
5.0
30.6
—
Int’l Narcotics Control
250.0
175.0
(INCLE)
Total
839.0
—
839.0
1,054.0*
924.9
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.
*includes other accounts for which supplemental funds were not requested.
Acronyms: ESF-Economic Support Fund, NADR-Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and
Related Programs, and INCLE-International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement.
Pakistan34
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.35 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
34 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy.
35 For more detail on Pakistan, see CRS Report RL33498, Pakistan-U.S. Relations by K.
Alan Kronstadt.

---

CRS-29
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.
The FY2009 Regular and Supplemental Request. The Administration
is seeking $826.3 million for Pakistan in its regular FY2009 budget request. On May
2, 2008, the Administration requested FY2009 supplemental funds for Pakistan
totaling $170.0 million, including $50 million for INCLE and $150 million for FMF.
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.
Sudan36
For the FY2009 regular request, the Administration is asking for a total of
$332.6 million for Sudan. Some FY2009 supplemental funding for Sudan would
include funds for diplomatic security, as well as USAID operation in Sudan.
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
36 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy.

---

CRS-30
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.
Table 6. Sudan Emergency Supplemental, FY2008
(millions of U.S. dollars)
Final
Supp.
FY2008
H.R.
Pending
Supp.
2764
FY2008
FY2009
FY2009
Activity
Request
PL110-
Supp.
Regular
Supp.
(appropriation account)
Total
161
Request
Request
Request
UNAMID (CIPAa )
723.6
468.0
333.6
——
—
Economic Support Fund (ESF)
70.0
—
70.0
254.1
—
Total
$868.6

$403.6
$332.6b
—
Source: FY2008- FY2009 budget materials.
Note: The Total line does not represent total aid or mission operations for Sudan.
a. CIPA-Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities
b. Includes accounts for which supplementals were not requested.
Other Humanitarian Assistance37
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
37 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy.

---

CRS-31
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 International Affairs Programs
Several other elements of the international affairs request also remain to be
resolved. In its October 2007 supplemental budget amendment, the Administration
included $550 million for the Mérida Initiative, a multi-year plan for U.S.
counterdrug and anticrime assistance to Mexico and Central America. The initiative
is aimed at helping the Mexican and Central American governments combat drug
trafficking, gangs, and other criminal organizations. Of the $550 million in proposed
supplemental assistance, Mexico would receive $500 million and Central America
would receive $50 million.38 The October 2007 budget amendment also included
a new request for $220 million for economic assistance in the West Bank and Gaza.
The October amendment included, as well, $350 million for P.L. 480
international food assistance. In April, Senators Durbin and Casey proposed adding
$200 million in response to recent global increases in food prices.39 On May 1, the
President announced a new request for $770 million in FY2009 emergency
supplemental funding for food-related international aid, including
! $395 million for P.L. 480 Title II emergency food assistance;
! $225 million for U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) disaster relief accounts, mainly for Africa, for local and
regional procurement of food abroad and for other humanitarian
needs created by high food prices;
! $150 million for USAID development assistance accounts for food
security and improved production in insecure countries.40
38 See CRS Report RS22837, Merida Initiative: Proposed U.S. Anticrime and Counterdrug
Assistance for Mexico and Central America, by Colleen W. Cook, Rebecca G. Rush, Clare
Ribando Seelke.
39 Ben Schneider and Christian Bourge, “Durbin Eyes Additional Food Aid, Seeks Assist
From Rice,” National Journal Congress Daily AM, April 29, 2008.
40 White House Office of Management and Budget, “Estimate #2 — FY 2009 Emergency
Budget Amendments: Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Selected
Other International Activities,” May 2, 2008, available online at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/amendment_5_2_08.pdf].

---

CRS-32
Domestic Programs
In addition to funding for defense and international affairs, Congress may
include funding for some domestic programs in the supplemental and may also
include some domestic policy measures. There continues to be some discussion of
using the supplemental as a vehicle for a further economic stimulus package, but that
appears, for the present at least, to have been put off. The most widely discussed
addition is an increase in Montgomery GI bill educational benefits for veterans, as
has been proposed by Senator Webb, with 56 cosponsors, in the Senate, and by
Representative Mitchell, with 261 cosponsors, in the House.
Other domestic measures that, it has been reported, may be added to the
supplemental include legislation to postpone new Medicaid regulations that would
reduce payments to the states,41 an extension of unemployment benefits, and funds
for wildfire firefighting, the census, Hurricane Katrina recovery, increased food
stamp benefits, Women Infant and Children (WIC) nutrition program shortfalls,
ready-to-go transportation infrastructure projects, and payments to Filipino World
War II veterans.42 Along with its regular FY2009 request for the Corps of Engineers,
the Administration asked for $5.8 billion in emergency FY2009 funds for Gulf Coast
hurricane protection measures.
In all, the domestic programs that are being considered could add as much as
$15 billion to the cost of the bill, though some of those amounts might be for FY2009
funding that the Administration has requested. The GI bill benefit expansion is
estimated to cost $2 to $4 billion initially and from $40 to $60 billion over ten years.
The President has said, however, that he will veto any bill that exceeds the $108
billion he has requested.43
Expansion of Montgomery GI Bill Education Benefits44
Both the House leadership bill and the Senate Appropriations Committee bill
include provisions that would enhance veterans’ educational benefits.45 The benefit
enhancements appear to be based on the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance
Act of 2008 (S. 22), sponsored by Senator Webb, which has broad bipartisan support,
41 Alex Wayne, “Senate GOP Picks Fight on Medicaid Bill; Democrats Look for Other
Vehicles,” CQ Today, April 29, 2008.
42 Jonathan Nicholson, “Some Domestic Spending Initiatives Expected in Supplemental
Spending Bill,” BNA Daily Report for Executives, April 28, 2008 and Christian Bourge,
“More Domestic Spending Sought In Emerging Supplemental,” National Journal Congress
Daily AM, April 28, 2008.
43 Nancy Ognanovich, “Bush Warns Against Add-Ons to War Bill, Says Supplemental
Cannot Top $108 Billion,” BNA Daily Report for Executives, April 30, 2008.
44 Prepared by Shannon Loane, Knowledge Services Group, Domestic Social Policy
Consulting Section.
45 For information on the current Montgomery GI Bill provisions, see CRS Report
RL33281, Montgomery GI Bill Education Benefits: Analysis of College Prices and Federal
Student Aid Under the Higher Education Act, by Charmaine Mercer.

---

CRS-33
with 56 co-sponsors in the Senate; and the House companion bill, H.R. 5740,
sponsored by Representative Mitchell, which has 261 cosponsors.46
S. 22 and H.R. 5740 would offer 36 months of tuition (limited to in-state tuition
charged at the most expensive public institution in the state in which the veteran is
enrolled), a monthly stipend to cover living expenses (based on average housing
prices in the area in which the veteran is enrolled), and a $1,000 annual stipend for
books and required educational expenses. Provisions for funds for tutorial assistance,
licensing, and certification tests are also included. The bills would apply to active
duty, Reserve, and National Guard members who serve some period of active duty
beginning on or after September 11, 2001. Servicemembers and veterans who serve
36 months on active duty would be eligible for full benefits. Individuals who serve
less than 36 months on active duty would be eligible for benefits calculated as a
percentage of the total maximum benefits.
The bills also establish a new program under which the government would
match dollar for dollar (up to 50% of the tuition difference) any voluntary additional
contributions to veterans from institutions whose tuition is more expensive than the
maximum educational assistance provided under the bills.
Differing views on the pros and cons of S. 22 were offered at a hearing before
the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs on May 9, 2007. Senator Webb argued
that S. 22 was comparable to the post-World War II GI bill, would lead to similar
economic growth and expansion, and would also have a positive effect on military
recruitment and on the readjustment experience of veterans.47 In the same hearing,
Daniel Cooper, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) Under Secretary for
Benefits, stated the VA’s opposition, criticizing the bill’s complexity, cost, and
administrative burden. He also argued that it might lead to lower rates of
reenlistment in the military services.48
The Graham alternative. An alternative to S. 22 and H.R. 5740 was
proposed by Senator Graham on April 29, 2008. S. 2938, the Enhancement of
Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education Act of 2008, proposes
increases in GI Bill educational benefits for servicemembers and veterans. For
individuals with 12 or more years of active duty service, the benefits would be $1,650
per month in FY2009, in addition to a $500 annual stipend for books and supplies
(for those attending on at least a half-time basis). As under the current Montgomery
GI Bill (MGIB), servicemembers would have accept a pay reduction of $100 per
month for the first 12 months of pay, the benefits would be for 36 months and would
have to be used within 10 years of discharge or release from active duty, and
46 See Josh Rogin, “Spending Add-ons Could Make for Largest War Supplemental Bill
Yet.” CQ Today, April 18, 2008
47 Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Webb, U.S. Senator from Virginia, Committee on
Veterans’ Affairs Hearing Regarding Pending Veterans’ Benefits Legislation, May 9, 2007
(pp. 6-7)
48 Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel L. Cooper, Under Secretary for Benefits, Department
of Veterans Affairs, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Hearing Regarding Pending Veterans’
Benefits Legislation, May 9, 2007 (p. 24)

---

CRS-34
provisions for tutorial assistance and licensing and certification tests are included.
In addition, active duty servicemembers would be able to use up to $6,000 per year
of educational benefits to repay federal student loans, and eligibility would be
extended to certain individuals not currently eligible for MGIB, including service
academy graduates and Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps officers (under some
conditions and with some stipulations).
The bill also proposes a matching grants program, the 'College Patriots Grant
Program,' in which up to an additional $3,000 per year could be paid by the
Department of Veterans Affairs in return for schools, through the use of institutional
or other non-federal aid, making a matching reduction in cost of attendance for a
servicemember.
Additionally, S. 2938 includes a transferability of benefits provision.
Servicemembers would be allowed to transfer up to half of their education benefits
to dependents after six years of service and to transfer all of their education benefits
after 12 years of service. Currently, the different service branches are authorized to
operate limited transferability programs, but only the Army offers one at this time.
The Army's program allows servicemembers in designated critical skills areas with
at least six years of service who re-enlist for at least four years to transfer up to 18
months, or half, of their educational benefits to dependents. President Bush proposed
expanding the transferability of veterans' educational benefits to dependents in his
State of the Union address and repeated it in his May 8 address commemorating
Military Spouse Day.49
PAYGO, military retention, and transferability issues. The GI bill
enhancements appear to have become a major issue, potentially holding up action on
the whole supplemental. In the House, members of the Democratic “Blue Dog”
caucus initially warned that they would not support a rule on the bill because the
cost – estimated at $52 billion over ten years – is not offset. At the beginning of the
110th Congress, the new Democratic majority agreed to changes in House rules to
require that increases in mandatory spending or cuts in revenues be paid for either by
cuts in other mandatory programs or by increases in revenues. These requirements,
which are based on provisions initially included in the Budget Enforcement Act of
1990, are known as “pay as you go” or PAYGO rules. The House leadership
subsequently agreed to support an income tax surcharge as an offset to the costs of
the bill. It is not clear, however, whether the Senate will approve offsets and
whether, in the absence of offsets, a conference agreement can be sustained.
In addition, the Defense Department has consistently been critical of the Webb
and Mitchell bill because of concern that it might weaken retention of military
personnel. Because the bill would provide full benefits to servicemembers after 36
months of service, DOD officials fear the bill will encourage personnel to leave for
49 The FY2002 national defense authorization act provided the Defense Department with
authority to allow transfers of current educational benefits to family members, and the
provision has been tested in an Army pilot project, with, it appears, a relatively low use of
the authority by military personnel. For a discussion, see Bart Jansen, Josh Rogin and
Kathleen Hunter, “GOP Slips McCain's GI Bill Alternative into Play on Senate Floor,” CQ
Today Online, May 14, 2008.

---

CRS-35
college rather than to reenlist in the military. Secretary of Defense Gates raised these
issues in an April 29 letter to Senator Levin and in a Pentagon press conference on
May 8, at which Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, echoed his
concerns.50
In the May 8 press conference, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen both
emphasized their preference, as well, for a bill that would permit servicemembers to
transfer educational benefits to family members. On May 6, President Bush
announced that he was sending legislation to Congress to permit benefit transfers as
well.51
Hurricane Katrina Repairs and Coastal Louisiana Restoration
The Administration included in its FY2009 budget, a request for $5.761 billion
in emergency supplemental funds for the Army Corps of Engineers for hurricane
protection programs on the Gulf Coast. The Corps is responsible for much of the
repair and fortification of the hurricane protection system of coastal Louisiana,
particularly in the greater New Orleans area. Since Hurricane Katrina, most of the
Corps’ work on the region’s hurricane protection system has been funded through
emergency supplemental appropriations, not through the annual appropriations
process. Congress has provided about $7 billion in emergency funding to date.
The Administration estimates that the $7 billion in previously appropriated
funds are insufficient to complete required measures because of increased costs,
improved data on costs, and other factors. The Corps anticipates that available funds
will be used by the end of FY2008, but that much remaining work is required to
reduce the hurricane flooding risk to the New Orleans area to a 100-year level of
protection (i.e., 1% probability of flooding in any given year) and to restore and
complete hurricane protection in surrounding areas to previously authorized levels
of protection by 2011.52
The Census and Other Domestic Issues
Several other, smaller domestic programs may also receive funding in the
pending supplemental.
Decennial Census. As a result of newly discovered difficulties with
equipment planned to be used in various aspects of the 2010 Decennial Census, the
Census Bureau is facing substantial shortfalls in funding for FY2008. At hearings,
50 Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy
Adm. Mike Mullen, “DoD Press Briefing,” May 8, 2008, on line
at:[http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4225].
51 President George W. Bush, “President Bush Commemorates Military Spouse Day,” The
White House, May 6, 2008.
52 See CRS Report RL34417, Energy and Water Development: FY2009 Appropriations, by
Carl E. Behrens, Coordinator, Anthony Andrews, David M. Bearden, Nicole T. Carter, Mark
Holt, Nic Lane, Daniel Morgan, and Fred Sissine

---

CRS-36
the Secretary of Commerce stated that the shortfall for FY2008 would be between
$160-$230 million, which they proposed to pay for through intra-departmental
transfers within the Department of Commerce. Congress may, instead, provide
funding in the FY2008 portion of the supplemental.53
53 Prepared by Royce Crocker, Government and Finance Division.

---