Representative Chet Edwards, chair of the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies, introduced the appropriations bill on June 11, 2007. The House passed the bill on June 15 and sent it to the Senate. Senator Jack Reed proposed amendment of the bill when it was brought to the floor on September 4. After debate and additional amendment, the Senate adopted the measure on September 6. Conference on the bill was held on November 5, when was incorporated into Division B of the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill ( H.R. 3043 ). The House agreed to the revised bill on November 6. Nevertheless, during subsequent Senate debate, Division B was stripped after a point of order was raised. The appropriations bill was combined with others and added to the State Foreign Operations and Related Activities Appropriations bill ( H.R. 2764 ) on December 17, 2007, to form Division I of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The Senate concurred with the House amendments and both chambers cleared the bill for the White House on December 19. The President enacted the measure on December 26, 2007 ( P.L. 110-161 ). A detailed description of the legislative path for the appropriations bill, the accompanying national defense authorization bills, and several interim continuing resolutions can be found in section of this report entitled " Enactment of the Regular FY2008 Appropriations ." With the opening of the 110 th Congress, the House and Senate brought the responsibilities of their appropriations subcommittees more closely into alignment. On the House side, this resulted in a new alignment of jurisdictions and the renaming of several subcommittees. Non-construction quality-of-life defense appropriations that had been considered in the House version of this appropriations bill during the 109 th Congress, including Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization, Basic Allowance for Housing, Environmental Restoration, and the Defense Health Program, were transferred to the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. The former Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies became the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, mirroring its counterpart in the Senate. Congress typically funds this act by appropriating directly to broadly defined appropriations accounts, such as Military Construction – Army or Family Housing – Air Force . These appropriations are stated within the statutory language of the act itself. Nevertheless, within the budget documentation that the President submits to Congress each year are hundreds of detailed justifications for individual construction projects at specified locations for stated purposes in established funding amounts. The appropriations and authorization committees consider each of these as individual requests and indicate their approval, disapproval, or additions to the project lists in the explanatory statements reported to their respective chambers. While it is generally recognized by legal experts that statutory language, those provisions stated in the body of legislation passed by Congress and enacted by the President, carries the full weight of law, the legal standing of statements contained within what is generally considered supporting language, such as explanatory statements written into reports to the chambers by members of committees, is less clear. On January 29, 2008, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13457, titled "Protecting American Taxpayers From Government Spending on Wasteful Earmarks." In that E.O., the President stated, in part, that: For appropriations laws and other legislation enacted after the date of this order, executive agencies should not commit, obligate, or expend funds on the basis of earmarks included in any non-statutory source, including requests in reports of committees of the Congress or other congressional documents, or communications from or on behalf of Members of Congress, or any other non-statutory source, except when required by law or when an agency has itself determined a project, program, activity, grant, or other transaction to have merit under statutory criteria or other merit-based decisionmaking. The impact of E.O. 13457 on the current appropriation or implementation practices of either the executive or the legislative branches is unclear. For example, the order states that "executive agencies should [emphasis added] not commit, obligate, or expend funds ..." under certain circumstances. In law, "should" is interpreted as non-binding guidance to those to whom it is addressed. However, in a subsequent section of the E.O., the President directs that "the head of each agency shall [emphasis added] take all necessary steps ..." to implement the policy according to certain criteria that he then lays out. It should be noted that "shall" is a much stronger, directive term. The E.O. applies only to appropriations enacted after January 29, 2008, and will therefore not affect any existing or prior-year appropriation. The E.O. does not appear to bar the implementation of congressionally directed funding in cases where spending is "required by law or when an agency has itself determined a project, program, activity, grant, or other transaction to have merit under statutory criteria or other merit-based decisionmaking." Examples of such a situation have existed where particular construction projects have been directed in the text of previously enacted authorization acts. The President's order also allows agency heads to "consider the views of a House, committee, Member, officer, or staff of the Congress with respect to commitments, obligations, or expenditures to carry out any earmark" when "such views are in writing ... ." In addition, the definition of an "earmark" written into the E.O. may reduce somewhat the clarity of exactly what spending is to be avoided. That definition states that earmarks are "purported congressional direction ( whether in statutory text , report language, or other communication) [that] circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient" (emphasis added). While much of the E.O. stresses the necessity of adhering to the letter of the law, this definition could be interpreted as preventing an agency from observing some statutory text. More generally, the E.O. may raise a number of other questions regarding future expenditure of appropriated funds. Two examples are suggested below. 1. There are instances where a construction project is not stated within the statutory text of the law in question, but rather is referenced in the text of another. An example might be a statutory requirement for the Department of Veterans Affairs to construct a number of cemeteries for the use of veterans at specified locations for which appropriations are not provided until a number of years later. Would the E.O. bar the initiation of construction until such a statutory link is found and proven to unambiguously cover each project? 2. The E.O. grants agency heads the authority to accept congressionally directed funding when a project has "merit under statutory criteria or other merit-based decisionmaking," or when considering "the views of a House, committee, Member, officer, or staff of the Congress ... when such views are in writing ...." Do these provisions constitute a broad discretion on the part of agency heads to accept congressional guidance on spending? The 109 th Congress was unable to pass H.R. 5385 , the Military Construction, Military Quality of Life, and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007. In the absence of an annual appropriation, Fiscal Year 2007 funding for all of the accounts included in that bill was sustained by a series of continuing resolutions that spanned the final weeks of the 109 th Congress and the initial weeks of the first session of the 110 th Congress. Div. B of H.R. 5631 ( P.L. 109-289 ), the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007, continued appropriations for a variety of activities, including those covered by H.R. 5385 , from the beginning of Fiscal Year 2007 through November 16, 2006, using various formulas. In general, these equated to the lowest of the House-passed, Senate-passed, or last-enacted funding levels. H.J.Res. 100 ( P.L. 109-369 ) continued appropriations through December 18, 2006. H.J.Res. 102 ( P.L. 109-383 ) continued appropriations through February 15, 2007. H.J.Res. 20 ( P.L. 110-5 ) was passed by the 110 th Congress and enacted on February 15, 2007. It incorporated the previous continuing resolutions and extended them, with some modification to military construction and veterans benefits, through the end of Fiscal Year 2007 (September 30, 2007). Additional information regarding the recent history of and practices regarding continuing resolutions can be found in CRS Report RL30343, Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices , by [author name scrubbed], and CRS Report RL32614, Duration of Continuing Resolutions in Recent Years , by [author name scrubbed]. As part of his Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request, President George W. Bush included a recommendation for an additional $93.4 billion emergency supplemental appropriation to support what the Administration terms the Global War on Terror (GWOT). As stated in the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Appendix (Additional FY2007 and FY2008 Proposals) , the included military construction funds would be "used to build urgent facilities needed for the Global War on Terror, including buildings, perimeter fences and barriers, secure fuel facilities, and roads to improve the force protection and safety of U.S. military forces. The funds would also be used to construct theater-located operations facilities needed to improve the capabilities of combat forces. In addition, the funds would cover the cost of housing, maintenance, and training infrastructure needed to support an expansion of Army and Marine Corps ground combat forces."