Order Code RL33420
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Foreign Operations (House)/State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs (Senate):
FY2007 Appropriations
Updated May 25, 2006
Larry Nowels
Specialist in Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Connie Veillette
Analyst in Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Susan B. Epstein
Specialist in Foreign Policy and Trade
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and supplemental) by
Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also encompasses the
consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation, other spending
measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs and the spending
of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing statutes.
Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission
of the President’s budget at the beginning of the session. Congressional practices governing
the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary measures are rooted in the
Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to one of the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers each
year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House Subcommittee on
Foreign Operations and the Senate Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs. It summarizes the status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and
related congressional activity, and is updated as events warrant. The report lists the key
CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at
[http://beta.crs.gov/cli/level_2.aspx?PRDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=73].
Foreign Operations (House)/State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs (Senate): FY2007
Appropriations
Summary
The annual Foreign Operations appropriations bill in the House, and the State,
Foreign Operations measure in the Senate are the primary legislative vehicles through
which Congress reviews the U.S. international affairs budgets and influences
executive branch foreign policy making generally. They contain the largest shares
— the House bill, about two-thirds; the Senate bill, about 97% — of total U.S.
international affairs spending.
Due to subcommittee structural differences between the House and Senate, the
House Appropriations Committee considers the Foreign Operations request separate
from the State Department budget, with the latter falling under the jurisdiction of the
Science, State, Justice, and Commerce (SSJC) Subcommittee. The Senate
Appropriations Committee, however, combines Foreign Operations and State
Department funding requests.
Funding for Foreign Operations and State Department/Broadcasting programs
has been rising for six consecutive years, and amounts approved in FY2004 reached
an unprecedented level compared with the past 40 years. Emergency supplementals
enacted since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to assist the front line states
in the war on terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraq reconstruction, and for State
Department operations and security upgrades have pushed spending upward.
Major issues confronting Congress in considering the Foreign Operations and
State Department/Broadcasting appropriations request for FY2007 include:
! The overall size of the Foreign Operations request — a 14.4%
increase over regular FY2006 Foreign Operations funds;
! Proposed cuts in spending on core bilateral development assistance
and programs in Latin America;
! A 71% increase in appropriations for the Millennium Challenge
Account; and
! Secretary Rice’s Transformational Diplomacy initiative for the State
Department which calls for repositioning American diplomats,
creating regional public diplomacy centers, localizing small posts
outside foreign capitals, training in new skills and languages, and
fostering working relationships with the Defense Department and
other federal agencies.
On May 25, 2006, the House Appropriations Committee recommended a $21.3
billion Foreign Operations spending measure, $597 million larger than current
FY2006 levels, but nearly $2.4 billion less than the request. This report will be
updated to reflect congressional action on the appropriations measure.
Key Policy Staff
Subject
Name
Telephone
E-Mail
General: Foreign Operations Policy Issues/Budget
Larry Nowels
7-7645
lnowels@crs.loc.gov
Curt Tarnoff
7-7656
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
Connie Veillette
7-7127
cveillette@crs.loc.gov
General: State Dept Policy Issues/Budget
Susan Epstein
7-6678
sepstein@crs.loc.gov
Africa Assistance
Ted Dagne
7-7646
tdagne@crs.loc.gov
Agency for International Development
Larry Nowels
7-7645
lnowels@crs.loc.gov
Curt Tarnoff
7-7656
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
Connie Veillette
7-7127
cveillette@crs.loc.gov
Asia Assistance
Thomas Lum
7-7616
tlum@crs.loc.gov
Broadcasting, International
Susan Epstein
7-6678
sepstein@crs.loc.gov
Central Asia Assistance
Jim Nichol
7-2289
jnichol@crs.loc.gov
Debt Relief
Marty Weiss
7-5407
mweiss@crs.loc.gov
Development Assistance (bilateral)
Larry Nowels
7-7645
lnowels@crs.loc.gov
Curt Tarnoff
7-7656
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
Connie Veillette
7-7127
cveillette@crs.loc.gov
Disaster/Humanitarian Aid
Rhoda Margesson
7-0425
rmargesson@crs.loc.gov
Drug/Counternarcotics Programs
Raphael Perl
7-7664
rperl@crs.loc.gov
Drug/Counternarcotics, Andean Region
Connie Veillette
7-7127
cveillette@crs.loc.gov
Export-Import Bank
James Jackson
7-7751
jjackson@crs.loc.gov
Family Planning Programs
Connie Veillette
7-7127
cveillette@crs.loc.gov
Health Programs, including HIV/AIDS
Tiaji Salaam
7-7677
tsalaam@crs.loc.gov
International Affairs Budget
Larry Nowels
7-7645
lnowels@crs.loc.gov
Connie Veillette
7-7127
cveillette@crs.loc.gov
Iraq Reconstruction
Curt Tarnoff
7-7656
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
Latin America Assistance
Connie Veillette
7-7127
cveillette@crs.loc.gov
Microenterprise
Curt Tarnoff
7-7656
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
Middle East Assistance
Jeremy Sharp
7-8687
jsharp@crs.loc.gov
Military Aid/Arms Sales
Richard Grimmett
7-7675
rgrimmett@crs.loc.gov
Millennium Challenge Account
Larry Nowels
7-7645
lnowels@crs.loc.gov
Curt Tarnoff
7-7656
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
Multilateral Development Banks
Jonathan Sanford
7-7682
jsanford@crs.loc.gov
Marty Weiss
7-5407
mweiss@crs.loc.gov
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
James Jackson
7-7751
jjackson@crs.loc.gov
Peace Corps
Curt Tarnoff
7-7656
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
Peacekeeping
Marjorie Browne
7-7695
mbrowne@crs.loc.gov
Nina Serafino
7-7667
nserafino@crs.loc.gov
Public Diplomacy
Susan Epstein
7-6678
sepstein@crs.loc.gov
Refugee Aid
Rhoda Margesson
7-0452
rmargesson@crs.loc.gov
Russia/East Europe Assistance
Curt Tarnoff
7-7656
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
Terrorism
John Rollins
7-5529
jrollins@crs.loc.gov
Trafficking in Persons
Francis Miko
7-7670
fmiko@crs.loc.gov
U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA)
Connie Veillette
7-7127
cveillette@crs.loc.gov
U.S. Institute of Peace
Susan Epstein
7-6678
sepstein@crs.loc.gov
U.N. Voluntary Contributions
Marjorie Browne
7-7695
mbrowne@crs.loc.gov
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Foreign Operations Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
State Department/Broadcasting Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Related Foreign Policy Authorization Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Foreign Operations and State Department Policy Trends and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Foreign Aid Policy Shifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Impact of the September 11 Terrorist Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Transformational Development and the Director of Foreign Assistance . . . . 9
Foreign Operations and State Department Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Foreign Operations Appropriations Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Growing Importance of Supplementals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
State Department/Broadcasting Appropriation Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Foreign Operations/State Department, the FY2007 Budget Resolution, and
Section 302(b) Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Foreign Operations/State Department Appropriations Request for FY2007 . . . . 17
Foreign Operations Request Overview and Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Fighting the War on Terrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Iraq Reconstruction and Stabilization Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Egypt Assistance and Political Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Development Assistance: Funding Priorities and Policy Differences . . . . 21
Examining Program Sector Distribution Across All Foreign
Operations Accounts: A Mixed Picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Regional Allocations for FY2007: Latin America and Africa . . . . . . . 28
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
The Millennium Challenge Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Other Key Elements of the FY2007 Request and Congressional Action . . 32
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Leading Foreign Aid Recipients Proposed for FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
State Department Appropriations and Related Agencies Overview and
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
FY2007 Funding Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Administration of Foreign Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Diplomatic & Consular Programs (D&CP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Embassy, Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) . . . . . . . 37
Worldwide Security Upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Educational and Cultural Exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Capital Investment Fund (CIF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
International Commissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
International Organizations and Conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Contributions to International Peacekeeping (CIPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Related Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
The Asia Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
National Endowment for Democracy (NED) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
East-West Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
The International Center for Middle Eastern-Western Dialogue
Trust Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
International Broadcasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
FY2006 Emergency Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Selected Websites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
List of Figures
Figure 1. Foreign Operations Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 2. Supplemental Funding for Foreign Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 3. State Department/Broadcasting Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 4. Budget Function 150 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
List of Tables
Table 1. House Status of Foreign Operations, FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 2. Senate Status of State, Foreign Operations, FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3. Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY1996 to FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 4. State Department/Broadcasting Appropriations, FY1996 to FY2007 . . 15
Table 5. Foreign Operations Significant Increases FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 6. Development Assistance Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 7. Economic Aid Allocations for All Foreign Operations Accounts,
by Program Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 8. U.S. International HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Programs . . 26
Table 9. Basic Education Programs for Selected Regions and Recipients . . . . . 27
Table 10. Latin America and Africa Economic Aid Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 11. Leading Recipients of U.S. Foreign Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 12. State Department and Foreign Aid Funds in FY2006
Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 13. Foreign Operations: Detailed Account Funding Levels . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table 14. State Department/Broadcasting: Detailed Account Funding
Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Foreign Operations (House)/State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs
(Senate): FY2007 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On May 25, 2006, the House Appropriations Committee recommended a $21.3
billion FY2007 Foreign Operations spending measure. The approved level is $573
million, or 2.8%, higher than regular FY2006 funding (excluding supplementals), but
$2.387 billion, or 11.2%, below the President’s $23.69 billion request.
The recommendation, which is expected to be debated by the full House in June,
includes full funding ($3.43 billion) for HIV/AIDS, but more than doubles the
amount requested for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.
The legislation further creates a new account — the Trade Capacity Enhancement
Fund — consolidating resources from multiple accounts that support trade capacity
building efforts. The recommendation also proposes full or near-full funding for
several fragile and post-conflict states of Afghanistan, Haiti, Liberia, and Sudan, and
provides $522 million for Iraq, about $150 million less than requested. The measure
includes $2 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), $1 billion less
than requested. During the full committee markup, Representative Obey offered an
amendment to reduce U.S. military assistance to Egypt pending political and human
rights reforms. The amendment was defeated by voice vote.
Meanwhile, Congress is considering an FY2006 emergency supplemental
measure (H.R. 4939) that includes over $2 billion in additional Foreign Operations
appropriations for this year. The conferees did not reach agreement prior to the
Memorial Day break, and final consideration of the conference report has been put
off until Congress returns.
Introduction
Amounts appropriated for Foreign Operations programs and for the Department
of State and related agencies comprise about 96% of the total International Affairs
budget and represent roughly 3.6% of discretionary budget authority under the
jurisdiction of House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
At the beginning of the 109th Congress, House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations reorganized their subcommittee structures. The House panel reduced
the number of subcommittees to ten and reconfigured several of their jurisdictions.
These changes, however, do not affect the previous organizations for Foreign
CRS-2
Operations and State Department/Broadcasting programs. The jurisdiction of the
House Foreign Operations Committee remains the same, while State Department,
Broadcasting, and related activities continue to be funded within the re-titled
Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies (SSJC).
The Senate Appropriations Committee chose to restructure its subcommittees
differently from the House by maintaining twelve sub-panels. The Senate
configuration combined Foreign Operations with the State Department, Broadcasting,
and related agencies, creating a re-titled Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations
and Related Programs. After passing separate and structurally different bills in
2005, House and Senate leaders agreed that for FY2006 funding measures,
conference consideration would follow the House organization. Consequently, State
Department funds were removed from the Senate-passed legislation (H.R. 3057) and
incorporated into H.R. 2862, the SSJC measure.1 For the 2nd session of the 109th
Congress, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees are maintaining the
same jurisdiction structure as last year — House Foreign Operations and Senate
State/Foreign Operations. It is expected, however, that when the Committees meet
later in 2006 to resolve differences between House and Senate bills, conferees will
follow the Senate appropriations bill structure and consider Foreign Operations and
State Department spending levels in a single bill.
This report covers funding and policy issues related to Foreign Operations, as
addressed in the House and Senate, and State Department programs as debated in the
Senate. The discussion and accompanying tables are designed to track the House
Foreign Operations Appropriation measure, as well as the broader Senate State,
Foreign Operations spending bill.
Foreign Operations Overview
Foreign Operations, the larger of the two components with a request of $23.72
billion for FY2007, is the primary legislative vehicle through which Congress
reviews and votes on the U.S. foreign assistance budget and influences major aspects
of executive branch foreign policy-making generally.2
The legislation funds all U.S. bilateral development assistance programs,
managed mostly by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID),
together with several smaller independent foreign aid agencies, such as the Peace
1 H.R. 3057, enacted as P.L. 109-102, November 14, 2005; H.R. 2862, enacted as P.L. 109-
108, November 22, 2005.
2 Although the Foreign Operations appropriations bill is often characterized as the “foreign
aid” spending measure, it does not include funding for all foreign aid programs. Food aid,
an international humanitarian aid program administered under the P.L. 480 program, is
appropriated in the Agriculture appropriations bill. Foreign Operations also include funds
for the Export-Import Bank, an activity that is regarded as a trade promotion program, rather
than foreign aid. In recent years, funding for food aid has run somewhat higher than for the
Eximbank, so Foreign Operations is slightly smaller than the official foreign aid budget.
Nevertheless, throughout this report, the terms Foreign Operations and foreign aid are used
interchangeably.
CRS-3
Corps and the Inter-American and African Development Foundations. Foreign
Operations also includes resources for the two newest Administration initiatives: the
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and the Global AIDS Initiative managed
by the State Department’s HIV/AIDS Coordinator. Most humanitarian aid activities
are funded within Foreign Operations, including USAID’s disaster/famine program
and the State Department’s refugee relief office. Foreign Operations includes
separate accounts for aid programs in the former Soviet Union (also referred to as the
Independent States account) and Central/Eastern Europe, activities that are jointly
managed by USAID and the State Department.
Security assistance (economic and military aid) for countries of strategic
importance to the United States is part of the Foreign Operations spending measure,
programs primarily administered by the State Department, in conjunction with
USAID and the Department of Defense. Foreign Operations appropriations also fund
reconstruction programs in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. contributions to the World
Bank and other regional multilateral development banks, managed by the Treasury
Department, and voluntary payments to international organizations, handled by the
State Department, are funded in the Foreign Operations bill. Finally, the legislation
includes appropriations for three export promotion agencies: the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC), the Export-Import Bank, and the Trade and
Development Agency.
State Department/Broadcasting Overview
Budgets for the Department of State, including embassy construction and
security and public diplomacy, are within the State Department and related programs
title of the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce (SSJC) appropriations in the House
and the State, Foreign Operations measure in the Senate. This title, for which the
Administration requests $10.09 billion in FY2007, also funds the Broadcasting Board
of Governors (BBG), and U.S. assessed contributions to United Nations (U.N.),
International Organizations, and U.N. Peacekeeping. State Department and related
programs further include funding for the Asia Foundation, the National Endowment
for Democracy, and several other small educational and exchange organizations.
This title also appropriates resources for international commissions, and under the
Senate bill structure, it includes the U.S. Institute for Peace and several foreign
policy-related commissions.
Related Foreign Policy Authorization Measures
Intertwined with both Foreign Operations and State Department appropriations
are foreign policy authorization bills that, by law, Congress must pass in advance of
spending by the State Department, USAID, or other agencies managing appropriated
foreign policy appropriations. When Congress does not pass these authorization
measures, as has been the case thus far in the 109th Congress, the appropriation bills
must waive authorization requirements for foreign policy agencies and programs to
continue to function.3 In some cases, this results in the attachment of foreign affairs
3 For details on foreign relations authorization legislation from the 109th Congress, see CRS
(continued...)
CRS-4
authorizing provisions to Foreign Operations and State Department appropriation
measures, adding increased importance to the appropriation bills in terms of both
funding and setting policy priorities for U.S. foreign policy.
This has been the situation especially for Foreign Operations. For two decades,
the Foreign Operations appropriations bill has been the principal legislative vehicle
for congressional oversight of foreign affairs and for congressional involvement in
foreign policy making. Congress has not enacted a comprehensive foreign aid
authorization bill since 1985, leaving most foreign assistance programs without
regular authorizations originating from the legislative oversight committees.4 As a
result, Foreign Operations spending measures developed by the appropriations
committees increasingly have expanded their scope beyond spending issues and
played a major role in shaping, authorizing, and guiding both executive and
congressional foreign aid and broader foreign policy initiatives. It has been largely
through Foreign Operations appropriations that the United States has modified aid
policy and resource allocation priorities since the end of the Cold War. The
legislation has also been the channel through which the President has utilized foreign
aid as a tool in the war on terrorism since the attacks of September 11, 2001, and
launched Afghan and Iraqi reconstruction operations.
These appropriations measures have also been a key instrument by which
Congress applies restrictions and conditions on the Administration’s management of
foreign assistance, actions that have frequently resulted in executive-legislative
clashes over presidential prerogatives in foreign policy making.
Key Foreign Operations/State Department
Funding Issues for FY2007
While appropriation bills funding foreign aid, State Department operations,
embassy construction, public diplomacy, and contributions to international
organizations can address the entire range of U.S. foreign policy issues, the FY2007
budget request poses several key matters that the 109th Congress is likely to examine
closely and debate. For Foreign Operations programs, major issues include:
! The overall size of the request — a 14.3% increase over regular
FY2006 Foreign Operations funds — and whether competing budget
proposals for domestic programs and efforts to reduce the deficit
will permit full funding of the $23.72 billion recommendation.
3 (...continued)
Report RL33000, Foreign Relations Authorization, FY2006 and FY2007: An Overview, by
Susan B. Epstein.
4 Although Congress has not approved a broad, comprehensive foreign aid authorization,
individual foreign aid components have been authorized, including legislation for the
Millennium Challenge Account, the President’s HIV/AIDS initiative, Afghanistan
reconstruction, assistance for the former Soviet states (Freedom Support Act) and Eastern
Europe (SEED Act), microenterprise programs, and the Peace Corps.
CRS-5
! Foreign aid in support of the global war on terror and whether the
FY2007 proposal fully addresses this high national security priority.
Congress will likely focus on reconstruction and other aid in Iraq for
which the Administration seeks $771 million. This is in addition to
a pending $1.6 billion FY2006 emergency supplemental proposal for
Iraq.
! The Millennium Challenge Account and whether progress thus far
on this new, innovative foreign aid program justifies a 71% funding
increase to $3 billion in FY2007.
! Global health funding, especially amounts for HIV/AIDS, a new
Presidential Malaria Initiative, and avian flu, and whether reductions
for other health activities are warranted.
! “Core” bilateral development aid programs and whether proposed
funding reductions for some activities are justified, especially given
the large increases for MCA and HIV/AIDS programs.
! The creation of the new Director of Foreign Assistance within the
State Department, announced in early 2006, and whether the change
will result in better coordination and policy coherence of various
U.S. foreign aid programs.
On State Department operations, key policy and funding issues include:
! Transformational Diplomacy: the FY2007 request includes $102.8
million to begin implementing Secretary Rice’s vision of U.S.
diplomacy in the 21st Century, providing funds for repositioning
American diplomats, creating regional public diplomacy centers,
localizing small posts outside foreign capitals, training in new skills
and languages, and fostering working relationships with the Defense
Department and other federal agencies.
! Public Diplomacy: educational and cultural exchange funds increase
in the FY2007 request by 11% and broadcasting operations by 4%.
CRS-6
Status
Table 1. House Status of Foreign Operations, FY2007
Subcomm.
Conf. Report
Markup
House
House
Senate Senate
Conf.
Approval
Public
Report Passage Report Passage Report
Law
House Senate
House Senate
5/19
5/25
Table 2. Senate Status of State, Foreign Operations, FY2007
Subcomm.
Conf. Report
Markup
House
House
Senate Senate
Conf.
Approval
Public
Report Passage Report Passage Report
Law
House Senate
House Senate
Note: Because House and Senate bills do not contain the same program structure, as discussed above,
the status of House and Senate action is tracked using two separate tables.
Foreign Operations and State Department
Policy Trends and Goals
Arguably, from the end of World War II until the early 1990s, the underlying
rationale for foreign aid and diplomatic efforts was the defeat of communism. U.S.
aid programs were designed to promote economic development and policy reforms,
in large part to create stability and reduce the attraction to communist ideology and
to block Soviet diplomatic links and military advances. Other security assistance
activities provided defense equipment and training to American allies and friendly
states, some of which faced Soviet or Soviet-proxy threats. Aid programs also were
used to help the United States gain access to military bases around the world in order
to forward deploy American armed forces. Diplomacy emphasized strengthening
alliances and building coalitions to isolate and confront the Soviet threat.
Foreign aid and diplomatic programs also supported a number of secondary U.S.
policy goals in the developing world, such as reducing high rates of population
growth, promoting wider access to health care, expanding the availability of basic
education, advancing U.S. trade interests, and protecting the environment. If these
secondary goals were also achieved, U.S. aid programs could be promoted as
delivering “more bang for the buck.”
With the end of the Cold War, the focus of American foreign policy shifted to
support more extensively other U.S. national interests, including stopping the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, curbing the production and trafficking
CRS-7
of illegal drugs, expanding peace efforts in the Middle East, seeking solutions to
conflicts around the globe, protecting human rights and religious freedom, and
countering trafficking in persons.
Foreign Aid Policy Shifts
Foreign assistance, in particular, underwent significant changes during the
1990s. The United States launched expansive aid programs in Russia and many
eastern-bloc states. While these and other new elements of American foreign aid
emerged, no broad consensus developed over what the new overarching rationale for
U.S. aid programs should be. Throughout the 1990s, policymakers and Congress
explored a number of alternative strategic frameworks around which to construct a
revised foreign assistance policy rationale. Not only did a policy consensus fail to
emerge, but repeated efforts to overhaul the largely Cold War-based foreign aid
legislation also did not succeed.
During this period, the Clinton Administration emphasized the promotion of
“sustainable development” as the new, post-Cold War, main strategy of those parts
of the foreign aid program under the aegis of USAID. Economic assistance
supported six inter-related goals: achievement of broad-based economic growth;
development of democratic systems; stabilization of world population and protection
of human health; sustainable management of the environment; building human
capacity through education and training; and meeting humanitarian needs.
Early in the Bush Administration these goals were modified around three
“strategic pillars” of: 1) economic growth, agriculture, and trade; 2) global health;
and 3) democracy, conflict prevention, and humanitarian assistance. More recently,
a USAID White Paper on American foreign aid identified five “core” operational
goals of U.S. foreign assistance:
! Promoting transformational development, especially in the areas of
governance, institutional capacity, and economic restructuring;
! Strengthening fragile states;
! Providing humanitarian assistance;
! Supporting U.S. geostrategic interests, particularly in countries such
as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, and Israel; and
! Mitigating global and international ills, including HIV/AIDS.5
Impact of the September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The most defining change in U.S. foreign policy, however, came following the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States. Since 9/11, American
foreign aid and diplomatic efforts have taken on a more strategic sense of importance
and have been cast frequently in terms of contributing to the war on terrorism. In
September 2002, President Bush released his Administration’s National Security
Strategy that established global development, for the first time, as the third “pillar”
5 U.S. Agency for International Development. U.S. Foreign Aid: Meeting the Challenges
of the Twenty-First Century. January 2004.
CRS-8
of U.S. national security, along with defense and diplomacy.6 Also in 2002,
executive branch foreign assistance budget justifications began to underscore the war
on terrorism as the top foreign aid priority, highlighting amounts of U.S. assistance
to 28 “front-line” states in the terrorism war — countries that cooperated with the
United States in the war on terrorism or faced terrorist threats themselves.7 The
substantial reconstruction programs in Afghanistan and Iraq — which totaled more
in FY2004 than the combined budgets of all other aid programs — are also part of
the emphasis on using foreign aid to combat terrorism. State Department efforts
focused extensively on building coalitions to assist in the war on terror and finding
new and more effective ways of presenting American views and culture through
public diplomacy.
At roughly the same time that fighting terrorism became the leading concern of
U.S. foreign policy, the Bush Administration announced other significant initiatives
that have defined and strengthened two additional key foreign assistance goals:
promoting economic growth and reducing poverty, and combating the global
HIV/AIDS pandemic. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is a new aid
delivery concept, proposed by President Bush in March 2002 and authorized by
Congress and established in early 2004 by P.L. 108-199, that is intended to
concentrate significantly higher amounts of U.S. resources in a few low- and low-
middle income countries that have demonstrated a strong commitment to political,
economic, and social reforms. If fully funded to its proposed level, $5 billion will
be available annually to support these “best development performers” in order to
accelerate economic growth and lower the number of people living in absolute
poverty.
Addressing global health problems has also become a core U.S. aid objective
in recent years. Congress created a separate appropriation account for Child Survival
and Health activities in the mid-1990s and increased funding for international
HIV/AIDS and other infectious disease programs. President Bush’s announcement
at his 2003 State of the Union message of a five-year, $15 billion effort to combat
AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis has added greater emphasis to this primary foreign
assistance objective. Subsequently, the President launched a new initiative in mid-
2005 aimed specifically at malaria (President’s Malaria Initiative, PMI), pledging
$1.2 billion in more resources through 2010.
Beyond these recently emerging foreign policy goals, other prominent objectives
that have continued since the early 1990s have included supporting peace in the
Middle East through assistance to Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians;
fostering democratization and stability for countries in crisis, such as Bosnia, Haiti,
Rwanda, Kosovo, Liberia, and Sudan; facilitating democratization and free market
economies in Central Europe and the former Soviet Union; suppressing international
6 Development was again underscored in the Administration’s re-statement of the National
Security Strategy released on March 16, 2006.
7 According to the State Department, these “front-line” states included Afghanistan, Algeria,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Colombia, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary,
India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazhakistan, Kenya, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Russia,
Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.
CRS-9
narcotics production and trafficking through assistance to Colombia and other
Andean drug-producing countries; and alleviating famine and mitigating refugee
situations in places throughout the world.
Transformational Development and the Director of Foreign
Assistance8
A new dimension this year to the annual congressional debate on Foreign
Operations is the Administration’s “transformational” development agenda and the
creation of the position at the State Department of Director of Foreign Assistance.
Although not a funding issue, the realignment of responsibilities at the Department
and USAID will have a direct impact on programs funded within the Foreign
Operations spending measure.
The Director of Foreign Assistance (DFA), who concurrently holds the position
of USAID Administrator, maintains authority over foreign assistance programs
managed by USAID and the State Department. In addition, the DFA will “provide
guidance” for foreign assistance delivered through other government agencies, such
as the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). Randall Tobias, previously the
State Department’s Global AIDS Coordinator, was confirmed by the Senate on
March 29, 2006, as the new USAID Administrator and also serves as the Director of
Foreign Assistance.
The DFA is charged with two missions: to develop a coordinated U.S. foreign
assistance strategy; and to direct a transformation of foreign assistance to achieve the
President’s Transformational Development Goals.9 As both the USAID
Administrator and the DFA, he will serve at the level equivalent to Deputy Secretary,
reporting directly to the Secretary of State. While USAID is, and remains, an
independent agency under the restructuring, the USAID Administrator reports to, and
serves under, the foreign policy guidance of the Secretary of State.
The degree to which the DFA will be able to guide and coordinate those entities
falling outside the State Department and USAID has not been fully articulated and
is likely to be one of the most difficult challenges the new Director faces.
Ambassador Tobias said at his confirmation hearing that he hoped to put in place a
“formal process” for achieving the DFA’s mandate of coordinating across the
government.10 Similar approaches have been tried in the past, but with limited
impact. An entity established in 1973 by Section 640B of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 (FAA) — the Development Coordinating Council (DCC) — was intended
to coordinate government-wide foreign assistance activities. The DCC, however,
8 For further discussion on the Director of Foreign Assistance, see CRS Report RS22411,
Restructuring U.S. Foreign Aid: The Role of the Director of Foreign Assistance, by Larry
Nowels and Connie Veillette.
9 U.S. Department of State Fact Sheet: New Direction for U.S. Foreign Assistance, January
19, 2006.
10 See exchange between Senator Lugar and Ambassador Tobias at the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee hearing on March 7, 2006.
CRS-10
rarely met and, according to USAID, exists today “only as an unimplemented
provision in the FAA.”11
As with any restructuring initiative, the creation of the DFA raises a number of
questions with regard to implementation. Many applaud the restructuring initiative
as marking the beginning of what they perceive as a long overdue effort to reform a
cumbersome and fragmented U.S. foreign assistance program. Some supporters of
the plan, however, believe it does not go far enough and that the Administration is
missing an opportunity for launching a much bolder, and necessary reform effort.
Some critics have expressed strong concern that the new initiative may lead to a
greater degree of aid politicization and that USAID will be further marginalized as
a key decision maker of U.S. development policy. Congress is not required to
legislate the restructuring plan, although key congressional committees are likely to
maintain close oversight as the plan moves forward.
Foreign Operations and State Department
Funding Trends
Foreign Operations Appropriations Trends
As shown in Figure 1, Foreign Operations funding levels, expressed in real
terms taking into account the effects of inflation, have fluctuated widely over the past
30 years.12 After peaking at over $35 billion in FY1985 (constant FY2007 dollars),
Foreign Operations appropriations began a period of decline to a low-point of $15.3
billion in FY1997. While funding for regular, continuing foreign aid programs
began to rise modestly after FY1997, supplemental spending for special activities,
such as Central American hurricane relief (FY1999), Kosovo emergency assistance
(FY1999), Wye River/Middle East peace accord support (FY2000), a
counternarcotics initiative in Colombia and the Andean region (FY2000), aid to the
front line states in the war on terrorism and Iraq-war related assistance (FY2003-
FY2005), has been chiefly responsible for the growth in foreign aid appropriations
during the past decade.
11 See “USAID History,” found at [http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/usaidhist.html].
12 Some of these swings in budget levels are not the result of policy decisions, but are due
to technical budget accounting changes involving how Congress scores various programs.
The large increase in FY1981, for example, did not represent higher funding levels, but
rather the fact that export credit programs began to be counted as appropriations rather than
as “off-budget” items. Part of the substantial rise in spending in FY1985 came as a result
of the requirement to appropriate the full amount of military aid loans rather than only the
partial appropriation required in the past. Beginning in FY1992, Congress changed how all
Federal credit programs are scored in appropriation bills, which further altered the scoring
of foreign aid loans funded in Foreign Operations. All of these factors make it very difficult
to present a precise and consistent data trend line in Foreign Operations funding levels.
Nevertheless, the data shown here can be regarded as illustrative of general trends in
congressional decisions regarding Foreign Operations appropriations over the past 30 years.
CRS-11
Figure 1. Foreign Operations Funding Trends
Although Foreign Operations appropriations had been rising for five consecutive
years, combined amounts approved for FY2003 — FY2005, reached unprecedented
levels compared with funding for similar three-year periods over the past four
decades. Substantial supplementals of $7.5 billion, $21.2 billion, and $2.5 billion,
respectively, for assistance to the front line states in the war on terrorism and
Afghanistan and Iraq reconstruction, pushed spending upward. Foreign Operations
spending for FY2004 — $41 billion (constant FY2007 dollars) — was the highest
level, in real terms, since the early 1960s. The enacted level for FY2006 of $20.8
billion (in constant terms), while less than in each of the three previous years, is the
largest Foreign Operations appropriations, in real terms, in all other years in over a
decade. Moreover, the FY2006 total is likely to increase with anticipated passage of
an emergency supplemental containing over $2.2 billion in Foreign Operations
funding.13
13 For a more detailed discussion of foreign aid and State Department spending trends over
the past three decades, see CRS Report RL33262, Foreign Policy Budget Trends: A Thirty-
Year Review, by Larry Nowels.
CRS-12
Table 3. Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY1996 to FY2007
(discretionary budget authority in billions of current and constant dollars)
FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06
FY07
current
12.46 12.27
13.15
15.44
16.41
16.31
16.54
23.67
39.05
22.27
20.83
23.69
$s
constant 15.83 15.30 16.24 18.81 19.51 18.95 18.92 26.53 42.73 23.56 21.37 23.69
FY07 $s
Note: FY1999 excludes $17.861 billion for the IMF. FY2006 includes the regular appropriation, plus emergency
supplementals, rescissions, and a 1% across-the-board reduction provided in P.L. 109-148, the Defense Appropriation
for FY2006. FY2006 does not include a pending $2.2 billion emergency supplemental in H.R. 4939.
Growing Importance of Supplementals. Supplemental resources for
Foreign Operations programs, which in FY2004 exceeded regular Foreign Operations
funding, have become a significant channel of funding for U.S. international
activities, especially those related to reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Due to the nature of rapidly changing overseas events and the emergence of
unanticipated contingencies to which it is in the U.S. national interest to respond, it
is not surprising that foreign aid and defense resources from time to time are the
major reason for considering and approving emergency supplemental spending
outside the regular appropriation cycle. Supplementals have provided resources for
such major foreign policy events as the Camp David accords (FY1979), Central
America conflicts (FY1983), Africa famine and a Middle East economic downturn
(FY1985), Panama and Nicaragua government transitions (FY1990), the Gulf War
(FY1991), and Bosnia relief and reconstruction (FY1996).
But after a period of only one significant foreign aid supplemental in eight years,
beginning in FY1999 Congress approved Foreign Operations supplemental
appropriations exceeding $1 billion in each of the past seven years. Relief for
Central American victims of Hurricane Mitch, Kosovo refugees, and victims of the
embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in FY1999 totaled $1.6 billion, and was
followed in FY2000 by a $1.1 billion supplemental, largely to fund the President’s
new counternarcotics initiative in Colombia. As part of a $40 billion emergency
supplemental to fight terrorism enacted in September 2001, President Bush and
Congress allocated $1.4 billion for foreign aid activities in FY2001 and FY2002.
Another $1.15 billion supplemental cleared Congress in FY2002 to augment Afghan
reconstruction efforts and assist other front-line states in the war on terrorism.
CRS-13
Figure 2. Supplemental Funding for Foreign Operations
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
'98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05
Supplemental
Regular
Until FY2003, these additional resources accounted for between 7% and 11%
of total Foreign Operations spending. The $7.5 billion Iraq war and reconstruction
supplemental for FY2003, however, went well beyond these standards, representing
nearly one-third of the FY2003 Foreign Operations budget, and was surpassed, as
noted above, only by FY2004 supplemental appropriations, which more than doubled
the Foreign Operations budget for the year. Congress approved another large Foreign
Operations supplemental for FY2005 — $2.53 billion — largely for additional
Afghan reconstruction, tsunami disaster relief, and additional aid for Sudan —
representing about 11% of total Foreign Operations appropriations for that year.
State Department/Broadcasting Appropriation Trends
Over the past nearly three decades, the funding level for the State Department
and international broadcasting has reflected generally an upward trend. Although
there were a few brief periods of declining resources, appropriations continually
climbed to the point where the FY2007 budget request is more than double what was
requested in the 1978-1984 time period.
Many of the spikes in funding over the years were related to overseas security
issues. Since the Vietnam War, for example, American embassies increasingly have
been the targets of hostile action. Terrorist attacks grew in number in the 1970s, the
decade ending with the taking of American hostages in Tehran in 1979. Similarly,
in the early 1980s, the State Department recognized a greater need to tighten security
after the 1983 bombing of U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, and the bombing
CRS-14
of the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut in 1984. In 1985, a report by the Advisory
Panel on Overseas Security, headed by Admiral Bobby Inman, proposed new
standards for security measures at U.S. facilities around the world. In 1986,
Congress provided an embassy supplemental appropriation to meet those standards.
Again in August 1998, another major attack occurred on U.S. embassies in Kenya
and Tanzania. Later that year, Congress passed an emergency supplemental that
sharply increased total State Department spending. And, as noted above, following
the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, several emergency supplemental
appropriations raised State Department funding levels to an all-time high by FY2004.
From the outset of the George W. Bush Administration, then-Secretary of State
Colin Powell strongly asserted within the executive branch and in testimony to
Congress that State Department resource needs had been neglected during the
previous decade and that significant increases were needed to improve technology
and staffing challenges. The Administration of Foreign Affairs portion of State
Department spending, the area of the budget out of which personnel and technology
costs are paid, has risen from $4 billion FY2000 to about $6.4 billion in FY2006, a
60% increase, in real terms. The pending FY2006 emergency supplemental request
(H.R. 4939) of nearly $1.6 billion is likely to add to the existing Administration of
Foreign Affairs funding level, and the State Department seeks $6.8 billion for
FY2007.
Figure 3. State Department/Broadcasting Funding Trends
CRS-15
Table 4. State Department/Broadcasting Appropriations,
FY1996 to FY2007
(discretionary budget authority in billions of current and constant dollars)
FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07
current $s
4.77
4.87
5.06
6.91
6.16
6.91
7.71
8.05
9.29 10.78
9.43
10.05
constant
6.06
6.07
6.24
8.41
7.33
8.03
8.82
9.02 10.17 11.40
9.65
10.05
FY07 $s
Data Notes
Unless otherwise indicated, this report expresses dollar amounts in terms of
discretionary budget authority. The Foreign Operations and State Department
Appropriation bills include two mandatory retirement programs for USAID and
State Department officers that are not included in figures and tables. The two
retirement funds received $41.7 million and $131.7 million, respectively, for
FY2006.
In addition, funding levels and trends discussed in this report exclude U.S.
contributions to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which are enacted
periodically in Foreign Operations bills. Congress approved $17.9 billion for the
IMF in FY1999, the most recent appropriation and the first since FY1993.
Including these large, infrequent, and uniquely “scored” IMF appropriations would
distort a general analysis of Foreign Operations funding trends. Although
Congress provides new budget authority through appropriations for the full amount
of U.S. participation, the transaction is considered an exchange of assets between
the United States and the IMF, and results in no outlays from the U.S. Treasury.
In short, the appropriations are off-set by the creation of a U.S. counterpart claim
on the IMF that is liquid and interest bearing.
Foreign Operations/State Department, the FY2007
Budget Resolution, and Section 302(b) Allocations
Usually, Appropriations Committees begin markups of their spending bills only
after Congress has adopted a budget resolution and funds have been distributed to the
Appropriations panels under what is referred to as the Section 302(a) allocation
process. Section 302(a) is the pertinent authority in the Congressional Budget Act.
Following this, House and Senate Appropriations Committees separately decide how
to allot the total amount available among their subcommittees, staying within the
functional guidelines set in the budget resolution. This second step is referred to as
the Section 302(b) allocation. Foreign Operations and State Department funds fall
within the International Affairs budget function (Function 150), representing in most
years about 67% and 30%, respectively, of the function total. The other major
component of Function 150 — international food assistance — is funded in the
Agriculture spending measure.
CRS-16
How much International Affairs money to allocate among each of the
subcommittees, and how to distribute the funds among the numerous programs, are
decisions exclusively reserved for the Appropriations Committees. Nevertheless,
overall ceilings set in the budget
resolution can have significant
Figure 4. Budget Function 150
implications for budget limitations
FY 2006 Total = $31.64 billion
within which the House and Senate
subcommittees will operate when
Foreign Operations $20.84
they meet to mark up their annual
appropriations bills.
65.9%
On March 16, 2006, the Senate
approved a budget resolution for
3.9%
Food Aid - $1.24
FY2007 (S.Con.Res.83) that
reduces to $33.5 billion the amount
30.2%
of discretionary budget authority for
International Affairs funding. This
falls $1.6 billion, or 4.6%, less than
State Dept - $9.56
the Presidents’s request. The House
measure (H.Con.Res.376), which
passed on May 17, cuts Function 150 deeper than the Senate. The $33 billion
included in the House measure is $2.1 billion, or nearly 6%, below the
Administration’s proposal.
House and Senate Appropriations Committees, however, can choose to allocate
the final amount set out in the budget resolution among the various subcommittees
with jurisdiction over the International Affairs budget proportionally different than
what the President proposed or to alter the overall amount for foreign policy
activities. Depending on other competing priorities, the final allocations can diverge
significantly from those assumed in the budget resolution.
Nevertheless, the size of the reduction compared with the executive request
approved in House and Senate budget resolutions creates a challenging budget
picture for appropriation subcommittees with jurisdiction over Foreign Operations
and State Department/Broadcasting programs. This is evident by the House
Appropriations Committee approval on May 10 of a $21.3 billion allocation for
Foreign Operations. Although 2.8% above regular Foreign Operations appropriations
for FY2006, the allocation is 11% below the FY2007 request, by far the largest
percentage cut made by the House panel for any of its 11 Section 302(b) allocations.
The Committee decided to re-allocate $2.39 billion from Foreign Operations and
$4.8 billion from Defense and Military Quality of Life subcommittees in order to
increase spending levels in several domestic appropriations bills, most prominently
for Agriculture, Homeland Security, and Labor, HHS, Education.
CRS-17
Foreign Operations/State Department
Appropriations Request for FY2007
On February 6, 2006, the President submitted his FY2007 budget request,
including $23.69 billion for Foreign Operations and $10.09 billion for State
Department and Related Agencies appropriations (amounts are adjusted to reflect
CBO re-estimates of the request). These amounts are 14.3% and 6%, respectively,
higher than FY2006 amounts enacted in regular, non-supplemental appropriations.
The combined Foreign Operations/State Department request of $33.8 billion is 11.7%
larger than regular FY2006 funding. Currently pending in Congress is a $4 billion
emergency FY2006 supplemental for Foreign Operations and State Department
appropriations (H.R. 4939) that, if enacted, will close the gap between enacted
FY2006 and requested FY2007 levels.
Foreign Operations Request Overview and
Congressional Action
The 14.3% increase over regular FY2006 appropriations proposed for Foreign
Operations is one of the largest additions in the President’s request for discretionary
spending in FY2007. By comparison, the Administration seeks increases for two
other high-priority budget areas — defense and homeland security — of about 6%
and 3%, respectively.
Despite the large overall increase for Foreign Operations, much of the added
funding is concentrated in a few areas. The FY2007 budget continues to highlight
foreign aid in support of the war on terrorism and Iraq reconstruction as the highest
priorities, with nearly $7 billion proposed. As shown in Table 5, increases for Iraq
and Afghanistan are especially sharp.14 Resources would continue to grow for the
President’s two cornerstone foreign aid initiatives — the Millennium Challenge
Account (MCA) and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
The $3 billion MCA request is 71% higher than in FY2006, while Foreign
Operations funds for PEPFAR would rise from $2.79 billion in FY2006 to $3.67
billion in the FY2007 request. (Additional PEPFAR funds are proposed in the
Labor/HHS appropriation measure, bringing the total FY2007 PEPFAR request to
$4.26 billion.)
After failing to win congressional approval the past four years for a contingency
fund that could be used to respond to unanticipated foreign policy emergencies, the
White House again proposes $75 million for a Crisis Response Fund. Funding for
debt reduction programs would nearly triple — to $183 million — largely to cancel
debt owed by the Democratic Republic of Congo. Peacekeeping funds for non-U.N.
14 The Administration also seeks an additional $1.6 billion in aid for Iraq in the pending
FY2006 emergency supplemental measure (H.R. 4939).
CRS-18
sponsored operations would grow by 16%, mainly due to additional resources for
African Union peacekeeping activities in the Darfur region of Sudan.15
Table 5. Foreign Operations Significant Increases FY2007
(in billions of current $s)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007 +/-
Regular*
Request
FY2006
Foreign Operations Total
$20.727
$23.687
14.3%
Significant increases for FY2007:
-Afghanistan
$0.931
$1.124
20.7%
-Iraq
$0.061
$0.771
1163.9%
-Anti-Terrorism programs
$0.136
$0.157
15.4%
-Millennium Challenge Account
$1.752
$3.000
71.2%
-Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
$2.790
$3.665
31.4%
-Conflict Response Fund
—
$0.075
—
-Debt Reduction
$0.064
$0.183
185.9%
-Peacekeeping Operations
$0.173
$0.201
16.2%
Significant increases for FY2007, Total
$5.907
$9.176
55.3%
Remaining Foreign Operations Programs
$14.820
$14.511
-2.1%
* FY2006 Regular excludes enacted and pending emergency supplemental funding.
Combined, funding for these major elements of the Foreign Operations request
totals $9.2 billion, or 55% higher than for FY2006. By contrast, the $14.8 billion
proposed for all other Foreign Operations activities is 2.1% less than FY2006 regular
appropriations amounts.
Each of these high-priority items in the FY2007 Foreign Operations budget
request, plus other issues that raise concern, are discussed below.
Fighting the War on Terrorism
Since the terrorist attacks in September 2001, American foreign aid programs
have shifted focus toward more direct support for key coalition countries and global
counterterrorism efforts. In total, Congress has appropriated approximately $52.3
billion in FY2002-FY2006 Foreign Operations funding to assist the approximately
28 front-line states in the war on terrorism, implement anti-terrorism training
programs, and address the needs of post-conflict Iraq and other surrounding
15 The pending FY2006 emergency supplemental request includes $123 million more for
African Union operations in Darfur, an amount that the House and Senate have increased
to $173 million in preliminary action on the legislation (H.R. 4939).
CRS-19
countries. About 43% of all Foreign Operations appropriations in the past five years
have funded war on terror and Iraq war-related purposes.
Although there is disagreement regarding the extent to which foreign aid can
directly reduce the threat of terrorism, most agree that economic and security
assistance aimed at reducing poverty, promoting jobs and educational opportunities,
and helping stabilize conflict-prone nations can indirectly address some of the factors
that terrorists use to recruit disenfranchised individuals for their cause.
The FY2007 budget continues the priority of fighting terrorism with about $7
billion, or 29%, of Foreign Operations resources assisting the front-line states and
Iraq. The largest recipients for FY2007 include Afghanistan ($1.12 billion), Iraq
($771 million), Pakistan ($739 million), and Jordan ($457 million).
Foreign Operations spending to fight the war on terror would have been greater
in FY2005 and FY2006, and potentially higher for FY2007, except for an
Administration decision to transfer funding and program responsibility for security
forces training and equipping in Iraq and Afghanistan from the State Department to
the Department of Defense. In FY2005, Congress approved in an emergency
supplemental $6.9 billion for security force aid in Afghanistan and Iraq, and has
under consideration for FY2006 (H.R. 4939) an additional $5.9 billion for the same
purposes. Military assistance programs have maintained a long tradition of falling
under the policy authority of the Secretary of State and civilian diplomats at the
Department, with DOD given responsibility to manage the programs. Congress
approved the shift from Foreign Operations to Defense Department funds for Afghan
military aid in the FY2005 Emergency Supplemental, but only after adding the
requirement that the Secretary of State concur with DOD decisions over how to
program these funds.
Congressional Action. The recommendation of the House Appropriations
Committee provides mixed funding levels for various countries and programs related
to fighting the war on terror. Aid for several front-line states is reduced:
! Afghanistan is set at $962 million, about $140 million below the
request;
! Pakistan would receive $500 million in security assistance, $150
million less than proposed;
! Indonesia security assistance would be $12 million less than
requested
Security aid for Jordan, on the other hand, is set at $468 million, $16 million higher
than proposed. For counterterrorism programs under the NADR account, the House
panel provides $143.6 million, $14 million below the request.
Iraq Reconstruction and Stabilization Assistance
A year ago, the Administration proposed $414 million for Iraq in FY2006, the
first request for such assistance since Congress approved $18.44 billion in the
FY2004 emergency supplemental (P.L. 108-106). At the time of the budget’s
submission, some critics argued that since large portions of the $18.44 billion
CRS-20
remained unobligated and even larger amounts were unspent, there were sufficient
funds available to meet current and future reconstruction needs in Iraq.
Subsequently, the pace of reconstruction spending increased, and by the time
Congress took final action on the FY2006 Iraq request, the Administration reported
that $14.77 billion, or 81%, of amounts appropriated in P.L. 108-106 had been
obligated and about 49% of the $18.44 billion total had been spent.16 Nevertheless,
with substantial amounts still remaining, Congress provided only $61 million of the
$414 million Iraq request for FY2006.
Despite its lack of success in obtaining full funding for Iraq reconstruction and
stabilization in the regular FY2006 budget, the Administration has requested nearly
$771 million in its regular FY2007 Foreign Operations budget, plus $1.6 billion more
in emergency FY2006 supplemental appropriations. About 90% of the $18.44 billion
appropriation has been obligated and nearly two-thirds has disbursed.17
Administration officials say that the entire amount will be obligated by the end of
FY2006. Most of the FY2007 request is composed of $478.8 million in Economic
Support Funds (ESF) to continue programs to sustain U.S.-funded infrastructure, and
support democracy, governance, civil society, private sector, and agriculture
programs. An additional $254.6 million is aimed at rule of law programs
(International Narcotics and Law Enforcement account - INL), $16.6 million is for
nonproliferation and anti-terrorism activities (Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, and
Demining account - NADR), $20 million is for refugee assistance (Migration and
Refugee Assistance account - MRA), and $1.2 million for IMET (International
Military Education and Training).
Congressional Action. The House Appropriations Committee recommends
$522 million for Iraq, about $250 million less than requested. Of this total, $205.8
million is provided for ESF support — $273 million less than proposed.
Egypt Assistance and Political Reforms18
Since 1979, Egypt has been the second largest recipient, after Israel, of U.S.
foreign assistance, receiving an annual average of over $2 billion in economic and
military aid. For FY2007, the Administration seeks $455 million in economic
support and $1.3 billion in military assistance.
Some lawmakers believe that U.S. assistance to Egypt has not been effective in
promoting political and economic reform and that foreign assistance agreements must
be renegotiated to include benchmarks that Egypt must meet to continue to qualify
for U.S. foreign aid. Others have periodically called for restrictions on U.S. aid to
16 Obligation and spending figures from Department of State. Iraq Weekly Status Report,
October 26, 2005, p. 17. For more details on the status and implementation of Iraq
reconstruction programs, see CRS Report RL31833, Iraq: Recent Developments in
Reconstruction Assistance, by Curt Tarnoff.
17 Department of State. Iraq Weekly Status Report, May 3, 2006, p. 11.
18 This section was prepared by Jeremy Sharp. For more information, see CRS Report
RL33003, Egypt: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jeremy Sharp.
CRS-21
Egypt on the grounds that Egypt indirectly supports Palestinian terrorism, suppresses
its own population, including minority Christians, and continues to allow Egyptian
state-owned media outlets to publish unsubstantiated conspiracy theories regarding
Israel and the Jewish people.
For years, Congress has specified in annual Foreign Operations appropriations
legislation that ESF funds to Egypt are provided with the understanding that Egypt
undertake certain economic reforms and liberalize its economy. More recently,
however, Congress has begun to attach conditions to Egyptian assistance intended
to support the political reform process. The FY2006 Foreign Operations
appropriations (P.L. 109-102), for example, designated $100 million in economic aid
for education and democracy and governance programming. The conference report
on the FY2006 spending measure (H.Rept. 109-265) stated that “not less than 50
percent of the funds for democracy, governance and human rights be provided
through non-governmental organizations for the purpose of strengthening Egyptian
civil society organizations, enhancing their participation in the political process and
their ability to promote and monitor human rights.”
Congressional Action. Although the House Foreign Operations
Subcommittee draft bill fully funds the Administration’s $1.76 billion Egyptian aid
package for FY2007, Representative Obey, ranking Member of the Appropriations
Committee, offered an amendment at the full Committee markup to reduce military
assistance to Egypt by $200 million. Under the amendment, a certain portion of
military aid would be limited until Egypt improves its record on human rights,
detention of democracy activists, election procedures, and other matters. A Kolbe
amendment, that passed by voice vote, rescinded $200 million in previously
appropriated but unspent funds to Egypt until certain financial reform benchmarks
were met. Previously, the Senate voted on May 3 (H.R. 4939; FY2006 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations) to cut $47 million in appropriated economic assistance
to Egypt as an offset for additional spending on humanitarian emergencies in Africa
and Guatemala.
Development Assistance: Funding Priorities and Policy
Differences
A continuing source of disagreement between the executive branch and
Congress is the size and allocation of the roughly $3 billion “core” budget for USAID
development assistance and global health programs, and whether proposed cuts by
the Administration are the result of increases for the Millennium Challenge
Corporation and the President’s Global AIDS Initiative (PEPFAR). Similar to
budget requests in recent years, the FY2007 proposal would reduce the two USAID
“core” accounts — Child Survival/Health and Development Assistance — by a
combined $363 million, or nearly 12%. On the other hand, MCC funding would
grow by $1.25 billion (+71%) and PEPFAR spending on the 15 “focus” countries
would rise by $919 million (+46%) (Table 6). Development Assistance (DA) and
Child Survival/Health (CSH) funds support education, agriculture, environment,
democracy, health, family planning, and other key long-term development activities
worldwide, largely in low-income countries. The MCC and PEPFAR programs, on
CRS-22
the other hand, are far more selective, focusing on a few, “best performing” countries
in the case of the MCC or those judged to have the worst HIV/AIDS problems.
Critics of the proposed DA and CSH reductions argue that these accounts are
fundamental to reducing poverty in the vast majority of countries assisted by the
United States, and that cuts in these programs affect large pockets of poor
populations around the globe. They have particularly objected to the DA and CSH
funding request for Latin America that would sustain substantial cuts in FY2007.
These critics, while supporting the MCC and PEPFAR programs, believe that
resources for these new initiatives should be in addition to and not a substitute for the
traditional USAID “core” accounts. Administration officials defend their budget
submission saying that the MCC in particular is not taking funds away from the
“core” accounts, but acknowledging that as the fiscal environment has become
constrained in recent years, priorities must be set and trade-offs may occur. They
also claim that when all Foreign Operations resources are taken into account, Latin
America will receive roughly the same amount of assistance in FY2007 as is
currently planned for FY2006.
Table 6. Development Assistance Funding
(in millions of current $s)
FY07 +/- FY06
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Actual
Estimate
Request
$
%
USAID “Core Development” Accounts:
Development Assistance
$1,448.3
$1,508.8
$1,282.0
($226.8)
-15.0%
Child Survival/Health
$1,537.6
$1,569.2
$1,433.0
($136.2)
-8.7%
Subtotal, “Core Development”
$2,985.9
$3,078.0
$2,715.0
($363.0)
-11.8%
Global AIDS Initiative
$1,373.9
$1,975.1
$2,894.0
$918.9
46.5%
Millennium Challenge Account
$1,488.0
$1,752.3
$3,000.0
$1,247.7
71.2%
Total, Development Aid
$5,847.8
$6,805.4
$8,609.0
$1,803.6
26.5%
Source: USAID.
Examining Program Sector Distribution Across All Foreign
Operations Accounts: A Mixed Picture. To fully understand the implications
of the FY2007 request for development priorities, it is necessary to look beyond just
the DA and CSH accounts and include funds drawn from other Foreign Operations
channels that provide assistance for the same purposes and are programmed in much
the same way as those in the “core development” accounts. Funds appropriated
under the State Department’s Global HIV/AIDS Initiative (GHAI) support the same
activities as HIV/AIDS resources in the CSH account, but specifically target 15
countries with the most severe HIV/AIDS problems. Resources provided through
the ESF account, assistance for former Soviet states (FSA) and Eastern Europe
(SEED), and alternative development activities supported with Andean
Counternarcotics Initiative (ACI) funds are largely spent in the same manner as those
CRS-23
flowing through the DA and CSH account.19 What is different about these funds is
the rationale for why the aid is given. Countries receiving ESF, FSA, SEED, and
ACI have a more strategic or political dimension in their relationships with the
United States that justify the size and type of aid received. Another difference, at
least in the past, is that these latter, more strategic aid accounts are co-managed by
the State Department and USAID, while DA and CSH funds are controlled directly
by USAID. Presumably, however, this may no longer be a relevant distinction under
Secretary Rice’s new foreign aid realignment in which the Director of Foreign
Assistance, who also serves as the USAID Administrator, will maintain control over
all State and USAID aid appropriations, with the exception of GHAI funds,
regardless of which agency has primary management responsibility.
Keeping these similarities and differences in mind, Table 7 compares the
FY2007 budget request with FY2006 enacted amounts, taking into consideration all
bilateral economic aid Foreign Operations accounts — DA, CSH, ESF, FSA, SEED,
and ACI — broken down by key development assistance sector priorities. Through
an examination of this broader array of funding channels, several key findings
emerge.
Table 7. Economic Aid Allocations for All Foreign Operations
Accounts, by Program Sector
(in millions of current $s)
FY2007
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
+/-
Development Sector
Actual
Enacted
Request
FY2006
Economic Growth/Agriculture/Trade
$4,900.7
$3,471.1
$3,392.8
-2.3%
Agriculture
$495.1
$431.5
$622.9
44.4%
Environment
$494.3
$423.8
$445.6
5.1%
Economic Growth
$2,963.9
$1,675.0
$1,541.4
-8.0%
Basic Education for Children
$412.8
$519.7
$455.7
-12.3%
Higher Education & Training
$127.5
$183.5
$207.2
12.9%
Israel Cash Transfer
$407.1
$237.6
$120.0
-49.5%
Global Health
$3,148.4
$3,835.3
$1,733.0
-54.8%
Child Survival/Maternal Health
$450.7
$461.4
$421.8
-8.6%
Vulnerable Children
$35.3
$37.7
$13.4
-64.5%
HIV/AIDS (USAID non-focus countries)
$376.4
$368.4
$343.9
-6.7%
HIV/AIDS (State Dept account)
$1,373.9
$1,777.1
$2,794.0
57.2%
Global Fund for AIDS, TB, & Malaria
$248.0
$445.5
$200.0
-55.1%
Other Infectious Diseases
$216.0
$310.2
$396.6
27.9%
19 This is not always the case, however. At times, ESF resources are provided on more
flexible terms, as budget support and cash transfers, than are CSH and DA funds. Portions
of U.S. ESF assistance to Egypt and Pakistan, for example, are cash transfers.
CRS-24
FY2007
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
+/-
Development Sector
Actual
Enacted
Request
FY2006
Family Planning
$448.1
$435.0
$357.3
-17.9%
Democracy, Conflict, & Humanitarian
$1,005.8
$1,048.1
$1,095.2
4.5%
Democracy & Local Governance
$781.6
$833.0
$856.2
2.8%
Human Rights
$46.8
$39.6
$30.1
-24.0%
Humanitarian Assistance
$49.4
$36.1
$45.0
24.7%
Conflict Management
$128.0
$139.4
$163.9
17.6%
State Dept. Initiatives
$490.7
$510.1
$730.3
43.2%
Source: USAID and CRS calculations.
Note: This table shows the distribution of economic aid funding, by sector, across all bilateral Foreign
Operations accounts: Development Assistance, Child Survival/Health, Economic Support Fund, East
European aid, former Soviet aid, Andean Counterdrug Initiative, and the State Department’s Global
HIV/AIDS Initiative.
! Agriculture programs increase but add-ons are limited to Iraq
and Afghanistan. The FY2007 request proposes a $192 million, or
44% increase in agriculture activities. USAID officials have argued
for a number of years that this sector has been under-funded, with
demands in developing countries far out-pacing available resources.
Congressional directives for higher spending on other sectors, they
contend, have squeezed the amount of resources available for
agriculture. Nevertheless, the entire increase for agriculture in
FY2007 is scheduled for Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving other nations
at or below FY2006 levels.
! Conflict Management increase targets Sudan. A 17.6% rise in
the FY2007 request for the conflict management sector is due to a
proposed $40 million increase — to $60 million — for activities in
Sudan.
! HIV/AIDS funds re-distributed. While HIV/AIDS resources for
non-focus countries channeled through CSH account are cut slightly
in the FY2007 request, overall resources in Foreign Operations to
fight the AIDS pandemic are up significantly in the proposed budget
(Table 8). Nevertheless, the FY2007 request continues a
fundamental disagreement between the executive branch and
Congress over the appropriate size of a U.S. contribution to the
multilateral Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and
Malaria. The Administration has proposed in every year since
FY2003 either $200 million or $300 million for the Global Fund,
while Congress has appropriated amounts ranging between $350
million and $550 million (including funds provided in the
Labor/HHS appropriations measure). For FY2007, the
Administration again requests $300 million for the Global Fund,
CRS-25
while boosting amounts for the 15 focus countries from $1.335
billion to $2.136 billion.
! Other infectious diseases funding grows due to malaria initiative
and avian flu. The category of other infectious diseases — which
mainly includes funding for malaria, tuberculosis, and recently to
combat the anticipated avian influenza pandemic — would rise by
$86 million, or 28% in FY2007. In mid-2005, President Bush
announced a plan to provide $1.2 billion in additional funding
through FY2010 for malaria. The FY2007 request of $225 million
for malaria represents the second year of the plan that will increase
from three to seven focus countries next year. The FY2007 also
includes $55 million to deal with international aspects of avian flu.
CRS-26
Table 8. U.S. International HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria
Programs
(in millions of current $s)
FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2007
Program
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Est.
Request
House
USAID Child Survival/Health
$395.0 $587.6 $513.4 $347.2
$346.5 $325.0 $426.6
account for HIV/AIDS - regular
USAID Child Survival/Health
$50.0
$248.4
$397.6
$248.0 $247.5
$100.0
$200.0
account for the Global Fund
USAID Global Fund Carry-over
—
—
-87.8a
$87.8
—
—
—
USAID Child Survival/Health
$165.0
$129.0
$155.0
$168.6 $178.2
$304.0
$257.6
account for TB & Malaria
USAID other economic assistance
$40.0
$38.2
$51.7
$51.1
$42.6
$40.4
$45.5
State Dept Global AIDS Init.
—
—
$488.1 $1,373.9 $1,775.1 $2,794.0 $2,528.0
(GHAI)
GHAI for the Global Fund
—
—
—
—
$198.0
$100.0
$244.5
Foreign Military Financing
—
$2.0
$1.5
$2.0
$1.9
$1.6
—
Subtotal, Foreign Operations
$650.0 $1,005.2 $1,519.5 $2,278.6 $2,789.8 $3,665.0 $3,702.2
CDC Global AIDS Program
$143.8 $182.6 $273.9 $123.8
$122.7 $121.9
CDC International Applied
$11.0 $11.0 $9.0 $14.0
$10.9 $0.0
Prevention Research
CDC International TB & Malaria
$15.0
$15.8
$11.0
$11.0
$10.9
$11.0
NIH International Research
$218.2
$278.6
$317.2
$332.3 $346.5
$368.0
Global Fund contribution,
$125.0 $99.3
$149.1 $99.2
$99.0
$100.0
NIH/HHS
Labor Dept AIDS in the
$8.5 $9.9 $9.9 $2.0
$0.0 $0.0
Workplace
Subtotal, Labor/HHS/Ed
$521.5
$597.2
$770.1
$582.3
$590.0
$600.9
DOD HIV/AIDS prevention
$14.0 $7.0
$4.2 $7.5
$5.2 $0.0
education with African militaries
USDA Section 416(b) Food Aid
$25.0
$24.8
$24.8
$24.8
$24.8
$0.0
Total, all appropriations
$1,210.5 $1,634.2 $2,318.6 $2,893.2 $3,409.8 $4,265.9
Total, Global Fund
$175.0
$347.7
$458.9
$435.0
$544.5
$300.0
Sources: House and Senate Appropriations Committees, Departments of State and HHS, USAID, and CDC.
FY2004 and FY2005 figures are drawn from, Action Today, A Foundation for Tomorrow: The President’s
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, Second Annual Report to Congress. Feb. 2006. p. 155.
Note: Following the launch in FY2006 of the President’s Malaria Initiative, malaria funding is no longer
included in the overall PEPFAR total. However, because HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria have
traditionally been grouped together in years prior to FY2006, for comparability purposes they are included in
the totals for FY2006 and FY2007. Without malaria funding, the FY2006 total would be approximately $3.297
billion, FY2007 request would be about $4.032 billion, and the House Foreign Operations recommendation
would be $3.513 billion.
a. Reflects the amount that could not be transferred to the Global Fund in FY2004, but that was carried over
for and contributed in FY2005.
CRS-27
! Basic education allocation for FY2006 exceeds congressional
directive but FY2007 shifts funds to strategic countries. One of
the highest congressional development assistance priorities in recent
years has been basic education programs. In most years, Congress
has increased significantly levels proposed by the Administration.
This was the case for FY2006, where lawmakers increased the
executive’s $341 million request to $465 million. Ultimately,
however, the Administration allocated $520 million for basic
education in FY2006 and proposes $456 million for FY2007, nearly
meeting the level directed by Congress for FY2006. The FY2007
request, however, marks a significant shift in resources away from
Africa and Latin America in order to increase programs in more
strategic countries, including Afghanistan and Jordan (Table 9).
Table 9. Basic Education Programs for Selected Regions and
Recipients
(in millions of current $s)
FY2007
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
+/-
Region/Country
Actual
Enacted
Request
FY2006
Africa
$146.1
$183.4
$129.1
-29.6%
Latin America
$47.1
$57.2
$41.7
-27.1%
Afghanistan
$37.9
$51.8
$81.0
56.4%
Jordan
$36.2
$14.0
$34.0
142.9%
Source: USAID and CRS calculations.
! Family planning funds reduced. For the first time during the Bush
Administration, the executive branch is seeking less than $425
million for international family planning and reproductive health
programs.20 Consistently one of the most controversial policy
elements of the Foreign Operations spending bill, family planning
programs generally have been supported by Congress with larger
appropriations, ranging between $432 million and $480 million in
recent years. In defending the request for $357 million, USAID
Administrator Tobias told the House Foreign Operations
Subcommittee that family planning remains a “very big priority” of
20 In January 2001, President Bush announced that he would re-apply the so-called “Mexico
City” policy restrictions banning foreign non-governmental organizations that performed
abortions or promoted abortions as a method of family planning from receiving USAID
funds even if these activities were financed with non-U.S. government funds. At the same
time, however, the President said he remained committed to international family planning
and would continue the Clinton Administration $425 million funding request. Each
subsequent budget proposal through FY2006 sought $425 million. For more information
on the Mexico City policy, see CRS Report RL30830, International Family Planning, The
“Mexico City” Policy, by Larry Nowels.
CRS-28
the Agency, but that with the increases for malaria and avian flu,
funding trade-offs among various health activities were necessary.21
Regional Allocations for FY2007: Latin America and Africa. As noted
above, some observers and Members of Congress have been critical of proposed
reductions in economic assistance for Latin America. As shown in Table 10,
amounts for Latin America from the DA and CSH accounts are down sharply in the
FY2007 request — nearly 22%. Using a broader measure that includes all Foreign
Operations accounts, however, levels for Latin America are reduced in the FY2007
request, but not to the same degree as for the “core” USAID development accounts.
Combining DA and CSH funding with these other Foreign Operations accounts that
also provide development and poverty reduction aid — ESF, alternative development
under the Andean Counternarcotics Initiative, and the Global AIDS Initiative — the
FY2007 proposal for Latin America would cut amounts by $51 million, or about 6%
below FY2006. Administration officials also point out that FY2007 totals do not
include sizable support for Nicaragua and Honduras under the Millennium Challenge
Account, and that other regional countries may qualify for MCA assistance in the
future.22
Critics remain concerned, nevertheless, that the United States is withdrawing
foreign aid from Latin America where large pockets of poverty remain and where the
United States has substantial interests. They acknowledge that several regional
countries have benefitted from the more recent, selective U.S. initiatives — MCA,
HIV/AIDS, and ACI alternative development — but that a number of other Latin
American nations are excluded from these programs and are unlikely to qualify in the
near-term.
Economic assistance proposed for Africa, on the other hand, increases
significantly under the FY2007 proposal — by $860 million, or over one-third. U.S.
assistance to Africa has been increasing for several years, and at the 2005 G-8
summit, President Bush pledged to double U.S. aid to the continent by 2010. The
increase for Africa, however, is heavily concentrated in countries that are the primary
targets of the President’s HIV/AIDS and malaria initiatives. The 12 African AIDS
“focus” countries23 alone account for $755 million of the $860 million regional
increase. Similar to the case in Latin America, nations that are not participants in the
newest selective foreign aid initiatives are scheduled for flat or reduced assistance in
FY2007.24
21 House Foreign Operations Subcommittee hearing, April 26, 2006.
22 For more discussion of these issues, see CRS Report RL32487, U.S. Foreign Assistance
to Latin America and the Caribbean, by Connie Veillette, Clare Ribando, and Mark
Sullivan.
23 Botswana, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda,
South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia.
24 For further details on U.S. aid to Africa, see CRS Issue Brief IB95052, Africa: U.S.
Foreign Assistance Issues, by Ted Dagne.
CRS-29
Table 10. Latin America and Africa Economic Aid Allocations
(in millions of current $s)
Latin America
Africa
Foreign Operations
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007
Appropriation Account
Actual
Est.
Request
Actual
Est.
Request
Development Assistance
$247.3
$254.4
$181.8
$517.6
$588.5
$563.4
Child Survival/Health
$144.6
$140.9
$128.0
$370.3
$391.9
$478.5
Subtotal, DA & CSH
$391.9
$395.3
$309.8
$887.9
$980.4 $1,041.9
Economic Support Fund
$163.0
$120.8
$152.1
$126.2
$121.3
$164.3
ACI, Alternative Development
$227.3
$226.5
$206.9
—
—
—
Global AIDS Initiative
$58.8
$65.3
$88.0
$885.7 $1,238.7 $1,994.0
TOTAL
$841.0
$807.9
$756.8 $1,899.8 $2,340.4 $3,200.2
Source: USAID and CRS calculations.
Congressional Action. The House Appropriations Committee
recommendation increases many of the reductions proposed by the Administration
for development assistance. Overall, the Committee provides $1.565 billion for the
Child Survival/Health account, $133 million higher than the request, with increases
proposed for child survival and maternal health, vulnerable children, family planning,
and other infectious diseases. Overall, including all Foreign Operations accounts, the
House measure includes $432 million for family planning programs, $75 million
above the request. The draft bill also includes $34 million for the U.N. Population
Fund.
For HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, as shown in Table 8, the House
Committee proposes $3.7 billion for the Foreign Operations portion of the PEPFAR
initiative, slightly higher than the Administration’s request. The House measure,
however, shifts some of the funds from bilateral activities to increase contributions
to the Global Fund to $444.5 million.
The Development Assistance account is set at $1.29 billion, $12 million higher
than the request. Because of the creation of a new account for trade capacity building
and the transfer of Committee proposed funds for trade capacity out of the DA
account, the House measure provides substantially more for DA programs than the
account comparison suggests. With $214 million shifted from DA to the Trade
Capacity Enhancement Fund, the actual increase for other DA activities is about $225
million, or nearly 20% higher than proposed by the Administration. For specific
activities, across all Foreign Operations accounts, basic education receives $550
million, nearly $100 million more than the request. The newly created Trade
Capacity Enhancement Fund provides $522 million for such activities. This is the
same funding level as for FY2006, but will consolidate all resources for trade
capacity building in the Foreign Operations measure into a single account. The
legislation further directs USAID to create a new office — the Director of Trade
Capacity Enhancement.
CRS-30
The House Appropriations Committee recommendation further expresses
concerns over the proposed reductions in economic assistance for Latin America.
The measure directs the Administration to allocate in FY2007 not less than the
amounts provided in FY2006. This directive specifically applies to the DA and
Trace Capacity accounts, providing the same levels for FY2007 as allocated in
FY2006.
The Millennium Challenge Account25
The largest funding increase in the FY2007 Foreign Operations budget is for the
Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), a foreign aid program announced in early
2002 and created by statute in February 2004. The MCA is designed to transform the
way the United States provides economic assistance, concentrating resources on a
small number of “best performing” developing nations. MCA funds are managed by
the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), which provides assistance through
a competitive selection process to countries that are pursing political and economic
reforms in three areas:
! Ruling justly — promoting good governance, fighting corruption,
respecting human rights, and adhering to the rule of law;
! Investing in people — providing adequate health care, education,
and other opportunities promoting an educated and healthy
population; and
! Fostering enterprise and entrepreneurship — promoting open
markets and sustainable budgets.
The MCA concept is based on the premise that economic development succeeds
best where it is linked to the principles and policies of a free market economy and
democracy, and where governments are committed to implementing reform measures
in order to achieve such goals. The MCA differs in several fundamental respects
from past and current U.S. aid practices:
! the size of the $5 billion annual commitment;
! the competitive process that will reward countries for past actions
measured by 16 objective performance indicators;
! the pledge to segregate the funds from U.S. strategic foreign policy
objectives that often strongly influence where U.S. aid is spent; and
! the requirement to solicit program proposals developed solely by
qualifying countries with broad-based civil society involvement.
The request for FY2007 is $3 billion, the same as for FY2006, but substantially
higher than the $1.75 billion appropriated by Congress for this year. The requests of
$3 billion for each of the past two years fall well below the $5 billion target for
FY2006 and beyond that the President pledged when he announced the initiative in
25 For a complete discussion of the Millennium Challenge Account, see CRS Report
RL32427, The Millennium Challenge Account: Implementation of a New U.S. Foreign Aid
Initiative, by Larry Nowels.
CRS-31
March 2002. The MCC’s Board of Directors selected 23 countries26 to participate
in the program in FY2004-FY2006, and the Corporation has signed eight
agreements, or Compacts, with Madagascar, Honduras, Cape Verde, Nicaragua,
Georgia, Benin, Vanuatu, and Armenia between April 2005 and May 2006.
Some Members of Congress, however, believe the initiative has started more
slowly than they had anticipated, spending only small amounts of the roughly $3.7
billion appropriated in total for FY2004-FY2006. Increasing the budget of an
untested foreign aid program while other traditional development assistance
programs are scheduled for reductions in FY2007, they assert, may not be the best
allocation of Foreign Operations resources. The MCC, and its new CEO,
Ambassador John Danilovich, argue that changes have been made that will accelerate
the signing of more Compacts — three have been signed in 2006 — and that new
Compacts will be larger in size helping the MCC fulfill its vision of being a
“transformational” development agency. MCC officials say that existing resources
are likely to be fully committed by the end of calendar 2006, and that an additional
$3 billion is necessary to finance new Compacts signed in FY2007.
Another concern frequently raised is that additional spending for the MCC
comes at the expense of other core development aid accounts. President Bush
pledged in 2002 when the MCC concept was first announced that spending on the
new initiative would be additional, and not a substitute for existing foreign assistance
resources. It is usually impossible to attribute an increase in one program with
reductions in others, given the complicated process through which budgets are
compiled and the multiple, but not necessarily directly linked, trade-offs that occur.
The FY2007 Foreign Operations request is the first budget proposal since
establishment of the MCC where Compacts have been signed in countries where
USAID maintains programs. In each of these six countries — Armenia, Benin,
Honduras, Georgia, Madagascar, and Nicaragua — USAID resources decline. In
some cases, decisions to reduce regular aid programs are most likely unrelated to
MCC resources. For example, the Administration has been trying to reduce
assistance to Armenia and Georgia for a number of years, but congressional earmarks
keep levels higher. For other countries, however, executive officials have not
explained why traditional assistance has declined, especially for economic growth
programs that are the primary focus of MCC Compacts.
Congressional Action. The House Appropriations Committee provides $2
billion for the MCC, $1 billion under the request. While expressing strong support
for the MCC, the Committee’s report notes the constraints imposed by a reduced
Section 302(b) allocation and the lack of flexibility to fully fund the Administration’s
request.
26 The 23 countries are: Armenia, Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, East Timor,
El Salvador, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Honduras, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia,
Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, and Vanuatu.
CRS-32
Other Key Elements of the FY2007 Request
and Congressional Action
Beyond these specific and prominent issues, the Foreign Operations proposal
for FY2007 seeks to increase aid activities in a few areas while cutting resources for
several programs. Significant appropriation increases include the following:
! USAID administrative costs would grow substantially under the
request, with operating expenses climbing by 9% and capital
investment costs nearly doubling. The largest new expense would
be for overseas construction in Burundi, Ethiopia, Madagascar,
Serbia, Philippines, Congo (Kinshasa), and Zambia where USAID
will co-locate within new U.S. embassy compounds.
! Refugee assistance resources would rise by 9% in the request over
FY2006 regular appropriations (excluding supplementals), with
most of the increase planned for refugee admissions into the United
States and for the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance
(ERMA) contingency fund. Overseas refugee assistance would
decline slightly.
! Conflict Response Fund, a contingency resource available to the
Secretary of State to respond quickly to unforseen foreign crises,
would receive $75 million in the FY2007 proposal. Funds could
also be used to establish a U.S. civilian ground presence in post-
conflict situations. In the past, Congress has been reluctant to
approve this type of contingency fund for which it can apply little
oversight. The Administration had asked lawmakers to launch
somewhat similar crisis funds in several recent emergency
supplemental and Foreign Operations appropriation requests,
proposals that were rejected in each case.
! Debt restructuring spending would nearly triple in — from $64
million in FY2006 to $183 million — in FY2007. The additional
resources would be used largely to cover the costs of canceling debt
owed to the United States by the Democratic Republic of Congo,
estimated at $175 million, and to provide for additional
contributions to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC)
initiative.
! Peacekeeping funds would grow by 16%, mainly to increase
funding for the Trans-Sahara Counter-terrorism Initiative, support
for the African Union (AU) mission in Darfur, and for operations in
Liberia. Additional funds for AU operations in Darfur are under
consideration in the FY2006 emergency supplemental
appropriations.
CRS-33
For several other Foreign Operations accounts, the FY2007 submission
represents a reduction below regular amounts approved in FY2006. The proposal
cuts funding in two main areas:
! Assistance to former Soviet states and Eastern Europe,
collectively, would decline by $151 million, or 17%, from FY2006
levels. The Administration proposes to graduate Bulgaria, Croatia,
and Romania from U.S. assistance and decrease every other program
in the region other than Kosovo, Ukraine, and the Kyrgyz Republic.
Large cuts are recommended for Armenia and Russia.
! Voluntary contributions to international organizations would
decrease 11% under the request, with reductions proposed for
UNICEF (-$2.7 million), the U.N. Fund for Women (-$2.3
million), and the U.N. Development Program (-$14.4 million).
Congressional Action. Overall, the May 25 House Appropriations
recommendation provides $21.3 billion for Foreign Operations programs in FY2007,
a level $573 million, or 2.8%, higher than current FY2006 funding (excluding
supplemental requests), but $2.387 billion, or 11.2%, below the President’s $23.7
billion request.
Beyond the specific initiatives discussed above, the Committee bill:
! deletes all funding for the $75 million Conflict Response Fund;
! reduces by $4.7 million the request for East European assistance
(after adjusting for the transfer of trade capacity building funds);
! cuts aid to the former Soviet states by $5.5 million from the request
(after adjusting for the transfer of trade capacity building funds);
! reduces debt relief to $20 million, eliminating resources for HIPC
expansion and for debt reduction for the Democratic Republic of
Congo;
! provides near or full funding for several for several fragile and post-
conflict states, including Sudan ($450 million), Liberia ($90
million), and Haiti ($164 million); and
! deletes ESF funds for the Palestinians, but includes amounts for
humanitarian and democracy programs.
Leading Foreign Aid Recipients Proposed for FY2007
While Iraq has been the largest recipient of U.S. assistance, cumulatively, since
FY2003, and Israel and Egypt remain the largest annual U.S. aid recipients,
significant changes among other benefactors of U.S. assistance have emerged. In the
aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the war in Iraq, and the initiation of
the President’s Emergency Program for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), foreign aid
allocations have changed in several significant ways. The request for FY2007
continues the patterns of aid distributions of the past four years, with the added
feature of several PEPFAR countries moving higher on the list of top recipients.
Table 11 includes those nations that have received an average of more than $150
CRS-34
million from the United States in FY2006 and requested for FY2007. Countries are
listed in the order of the combined amounts for those two years.
Since September 11, the Administration has used economic and military
assistance increasingly as a tool in efforts to maintain a cohesive international
coalition to conduct the war on terrorism and to assist nations that have both
supported U.S. armed forces and face serious terrorism threats themselves. Pakistan,
for example, a key coalition partner on the border with Afghanistan, had been
ineligible for U.S. aid, other than humanitarian assistance, due to sanctions imposed
after it conducted nuclear tests in May 1998, experienced a military coup in 1999,
and fell into arrears on debt owed to the United States. Since suspending aid
sanctions in October 2001, the United States has transferred over $3.3 billion to
Pakistan. Afghanistan, Jordan, and Indonesia also are among the top aid recipients
as part of the network of front-line states in the war on terrorism.
CRS-35
Table 11. Leading Recipients of U.S. Foreign Aid
(appropriation allocations; in millions of current $s)
FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2007
Total
Total
Total
Regular Supp Req
Total
Request
Israel
3,682
2,624
2,610
2,495
—
—
2,460
Egypt
2,204
1,865
1,822
1,780
—
—
1,758
Afghanistan
543
1,799
2,674
931
46
—
1,124
Pakistan
495
387
688
754
—
—
738
Colombia
602
574
569
561
—
—
561
Jordan
1,556
560
659
462
—
—
457
Iraq
2,485
18,439
28
61
1,610
—
771
South Africa
73
99
155
226
—
—
360
Kenya
59
85
162
226
—
—
320
Nigeria
73
80
136
182
—
—
320
Ethiopia*
56
74
135
177
—
—
284
Uganda
70
113
170
189
—
—
233
Sudan*
27
171
377
125
213
—
206
Zambia
57
82
132
162
—
—
190
Haiti*
35
102
150
163
—
—
164
Tanzania
41
59
109
135
—
—
190
Indonesia*
132
123
140
143
—
—
154
Mozambique
55
60
84
114
—
—
157
Source: U.S. Department of State.
Note: Countries are listed in order of the combined FY2006 and FY2007 estimates. Amounts for
countries that have signed Millennium Challenge Account Compacts are not considered for this listing
of top recipients. MCC Compacts are four- or five-year agreements. If the annual average of the
Compacts was added to regular aid totals for the current eight MCC Compact countries, none of the
eight would break into this list. As more Compacts are signed, however, some MCC countries might
begin to appear among the top recipients.
Note: Amounts in this table reflect only direct bilateral, non-food aid programs to these countries.
In several cases, especially those noted with an asterisk (*), countries that have or are experiencing
a crisis or natural disaster will receive considerable amounts of U.S. aid through worldwide emergency
humanitarian assistance accounts for disaster, refugee, and food relief. For example, assistance for
Sudan in FY2005 totaled more than $1 billion after including these emergency programs. In many
cases this emergency assistance is not identified on a country basis. It should be kept in mind that for
these selected countries, U.S. assistance is considerably higher in some years than the figures noted
here.
A new dimension in U.S. aid allocations — the impact of the President’s
international HIV/AIDS initiative — can also be seen in amounts allocated for
FY2004-FY2006 and proposed for FY2007. Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique,
Zambia, South Africa, Tanzania, and Nigeria, all PEPFAR focus countries, are now
among the leading recipients of U.S. assistance.
CRS-36
Missing from the list of top recipients are several countries in the Balkans and
the former Soviet Union — Serbia and Montenegro, Kosovo, Russia, Ukraine,
Armenia, and Georgia — which have seen levels decline in recent years. Armenia
and Georgia, however, have signed MCC Compacts and, including the annual
average amount of these Compacts, both countries fall just short of the $150 million
FY2006/FY2007 average cut-off for Table 12. Turkey, a leading recipient in most
years over the past 25 years, also falls off the list. Andean countries, which have
been large recipients of American counternarcotics aid for the past 15 years are also
missing. Only Colombia, where U.S. assistance also has a counterterror dimension,
remains on the list while Bolivia and Peru are no longer among the top 18 recipients.
State Department Appropriations and Related
Agencies Overview and Congressional Action
Background
The State Department, established on July 27, 1789 (1 Stat.28; 22 U.S.C. 2651),
has a mission to advance and protect the worldwide interests of the United States and
its citizens. The State Department supports the activities of more than 50 U.S.
agencies and organizations operating at 260 posts in 180 countries. Currently, the
State Department employs approximately 30,000 people, about 60% of whom work
overseas. As covered in Title IV of the House Science, State, Justice, and Commerce
(SSJC) appropriations measure, State Department funding categories include
administration of foreign affairs, international operations, international commissions,
and related appropriations, such as international broadcasting. The enacted FY2006
appropriation for Title IV was $9.56 billion (after adjusting for two rescissions),
9.4% higher than the previous year’s regular appropriation, but 11% lower than the
previous appropriations when including the FY2005 supplemental funds within P.L.
109-13 for Title IV. Typically, about three-fourths of State’s budget is for
Administration of Foreign Affairs (about 69% in FY2006), which consists of salaries
and expenses, diplomatic security, diplomatic and consular programs, technology,
and security/maintenance of overseas buildings.
FY2007 Funding Issues27
Administration of Foreign Affairs. The Administration’s FY2007 request
for State’s Administration of Foreign Affairs is $6.81 billion, 5.8% above the
27 See CRS Report RL32885, Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agency (SSJC)
Appropriations, by Susan B. Epstein (coordinator), for a full discussion of this
appropriations measure. The total funding level for State Department and related programs
in this report will not match exactly the amount discussed in CRS Report RL32885. This
is because the Senate bill organization for State Department and related programs includes
the U.S. Institute for Peace and several foreign policy-related commissions that are funded
separately from the State Department in the SSJC bill.
CRS-37
FY2006 estimated level of $6.57 billion (including rescissions).28 The President
submitted an FY2006 supplemental request the week after submitting his FY2007
budget request. (See section below regarding the FY2006 emergency supplemental
appropriation.)
Diplomatic & Consular Programs (D&CP). D&CP primarily covers
salaries and expenses, hiring, diplomatic expenditures, cost of living and foreign
inflation, as well as exchange rate changes. The FY2007 request of $4.65 billion
represents an increase of 7.7% as compared to the $4.32 billion funding level enacted
for FY2006. The FY2007 funding level request includes $795.2 million for
worldwide security upgrades, as compared to $680.7 million in the FY2006
appropriation. The D&CP funding request also includes $351 million, as compared
to $329.7 million in the FY2006 budget, designated only for public diplomacy. In
addition, the President’s FY2006 supplemental request includes $1.55 billion for
D&CP to pay for operational and security costs for U.S. Missions in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and public diplomacy in Iran.
Embassy, Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM). ESCM
provides funding for embassy construction, repairs, leasing of property for embassies
and housing facilities at overseas posts. The FY2007 request of $640.1 million is
12.1% above the FY2006 enacted level of $571.1 million (including rescissions).
Worldwide Security Upgrades. Ever since the bombings of two U.S.
embassies in eastern Africa in August 1998, Congress has appropriated additional
money within both D&CP and ESCM for increasing security. The funds in D&CP
for worldwide security upgrades are primarily for ongoing expenses due to the
upgrades that took place after 1998, such as maintaining computer security,
maintaining bullet-proof vehicles, ongoing salaries for perimeter guards, etc.
Worldwide security upgrades in ESCM are more on the order of bricks-and-mortar-
type expenses. The FY2007 request for upgrades within D&CP total $795.2 million
— $114.5 million (16.8%) above the enacted level of $680.7 million (reflecting
rescissions) for FY2006. The FY2007 request for worldwide security funding within
ESCM totals $899.4 million, virtually the same as the FY2006 level (after
rescissions). The combined total FY2007 request for State’s worldwide security
upgrades is $1.69 billion.
Educational and Cultural Exchanges. This line item includes programs
such as the Fulbright, Muskie, and Humphrey academic exchanges, as well as the
international visitor exchanges and some Freedom Support Act and SEED programs.
The Administration’s FY2007 request is for $474.3 million, 11.3% more than the
FY2006 estimated level of $426.3 million. The Administration request includes
$200.3 million for the Fulbright program and $351 million within the D&CP account
for public diplomacy expenses. The emergency supplemental appropriation
28 These figures for the Administration of Foreign Affairs include only discretionary budget
authority and do not include the mandatory appropriation for the Foreign Service Retirement
and Disability Fund, amounts that totaled $131.7 million in FY2006 and an estimated $126.4
million in FY2007.
CRS-38
legislation (H.R. 4939) includes $5 million for public diplomacy activities related to
Iran.
Capital Investment Fund (CIF). CIF was established by the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act of FY1994/95 (P.L. 103-236) to provide for purchasing
information technology and capital equipment which would ensure the efficient
management, coordination, operation, and utilization of State’s resources. The
FY2007 request is for $68.3 million, a 17.6% increase over the $58.1 million enacted
for FY2006 (after rescissions). In addition, the FY2006 appropriation also included
$68.5 million for the Centralized Information Technology Modernization Program.
The Administration did not request any funding for that account for either FY2006
or FY2007.
International Commissions
The International Commissions account includes the U.S.-Mexico Boundary and
Water Commission (IBWC), the International Fisheries Commissions (IFC), the
International Joint Commission (IJC), the International Boundary Commission (IBC),
and the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC). The IBWC’s
mission is to apply rights and obligations assumed by the United States and Mexico
under numerous treaties and agreements, improve water quality of border rivers, and
resolve border sanitation problems. The mission of the IFC is to recommend to
member governments conservation and management measures for protecting marine
resources. The IJC’s mission is to develop and administer programs to help the
United States and Canada with water quality and air pollution issues along their
common border. The IBC is obligated by the Treaty of 1925 to maintain an effective
boundary line between the United States and Canada. And, established by the North
American Free Trade Agreement, the BECC’s main purpose is to help local states
and communities to develop solutions to environmental problems along the U.S.-
Mexico border. The FY2007 funding request of $63.9 million represents a decrease
of 3.9% over the $66.5 million enacted in FY2006. The FY2007 requested decrease
is due largely to a decrease in funds for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
International Organizations and Conferences
The International Organizations and Conferences account consists of two line
items: U.S. Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) and U.S.
Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA). The FY2007 request
totals $2.4 billion for the overall account, up nearly 11% over the FY2006 level of
$2.17 billion, including rescissions.
Contributions to International Organizations (CIO). The CIO supports
U.S. membership in numerous international and multilateral organizations that
transcends bilateral relationships and covers issues such as human rights,
environment, trade, and security. The FY2007 request level for this line item is
$1.27 billion, 10.2% above the $1.15 billion enacted level for FY2006. The request
represents full funding of U.S. assessed contributions to the U.N. and other
international organizations. It does not include funding for prior-year funding
shortfalls.
CRS-39
Contributions to International Peacekeeping (CIPA). The United States
supports multilateral peacekeeping efforts around the world through payment of its
share of the U.N. assessed peacekeeping budget. The President’s FY2007 request of
$1.14 billion represents an increase of 11.1% over the FY2006 estimated level of
$1.02 billion (including rescissions). In addition, the Administration is requesting
$69.8 million for this account in the FY2006 emergency supplemental to support
U.N. peacekeeping efforts in southern Sudan and Darfur.
Related Appropriations
Related appropriations include those for the Asia Foundation, the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED), the East-West Center, and the International
Center for Middle-Eastern-Western Dialogue Trust Fund. The Administration’s
FY2007 request for related appropriations totals $103.7 million — 8.7% less than the
FY2006 enacted level of $113.6 million, after rescissions.
The Asia Foundation. The Asia Foundation (TAF) is a private, nonprofit
organization that supports efforts in Asia to strengthen democratic processes and
institutions, open markets, and improve U.S.-Asian cooperation. It receives both
government and private sector contributions. Government funds for the Foundation
are appropriated and pass through the Department of State. The FY2007 request of
$10 million reflected a 27.5% reduction over the FY2006 enacted funding level of
$13.8 million. The Foundation states that the $10 million will support programs that
promote tolerance within Muslim minority/majority countries such as in Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Nepal, and Cambodia; promote free and fair elections in Asia; and
develop democratic institutions for legal reform in China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and
Thailand. The Asia Foundation says it will continue to seek private funds and
expects to raise $4 million in private funds for FY2007.
National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The National Endowment
for Democracy is a private, nonprofit organization established during the Reagan
Administration that supports programs to strengthen democratic institutions in more
than 80 countries around the world. NED proponents assert that many of its
accomplishments are possible because it is not a U.S. government agency. NED’s
critics claim that it duplicates government democracy promotion programs and could
be eliminated, or could be operated entirely through private sector funding. The
FY2007 request is $80 million, the same level as was requested for FY2005 and
FY2006, and 8% higher than the final enacted level for FY2006 of $74.1 million,
including rescissions.
East-West Center. The Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange
between East and West (East-West Center), located in Honolulu, Hawaii, was
established in 1960 by Congress to promote understanding and cooperation among
the governments and peoples of the Asia/Pacific region and the United States. The
FY2007 request for the East-West Center is $12 million, a 36.8% decline from the
FY2006 enacted level of $19 million, after rescissions.
The International Center for Middle Eastern-Western Dialogue Trust
Fund. The conferees added language in the FY2004 conference agreement for the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2004 to establish a permanent trust fund for the
CRS-40
International Center for Middle Eastern-Western Dialogue. The act provided $6.9
million for perpetual operations of the Center which is to be located in Istanbul,
Turkey. Despite the fact that the Administration did not request any FY2005 funding
for this Center, Congress provided $7.3 million for it in FY2005. The
Administration requested spending $0.8 million of interest and earnings from the
Trust Fund for program funding in FY2006. Congress appropriated $4.9 million for
this account in FY2006 and $0.9 million for the Trust. The Administration is
requesting $0.7 million of interest and earnings from the Trust Fund program for
FY2007.
International Broadcasting
International Broadcasting, which had been a primary function of the U.S.
Information Agency (USIA) prior to 1999, now falls under an independent agency
referred to as the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). The BBG includes the
Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Cuba
Broadcasting, Radio Sawa, Radio Farda, and Radio Free Asia (RFA). In addition to
the ongoing international broadcasting activities, the Administration initiated a new
U.S. Middle East Television Network — Alhurra.
The BBG’s FY2007 funding request totals $671.9 million, 4.3% above the
FY2006 level of $644 million, after rescissions. The FY2007 broadcasting request
includes $653.6 million for broadcasting operations, $18.3 million for capital
improvements, and $36.3 million for Broadcasting to Cuba. In addition, the
Administration is requesting $50 million in the emergency supplemental for
broadcasting into Iran.
FY2006 Emergency Supplemental29
On February 16, 2006, the Administration submitted an emergency FY2006
supplemental appropriations request totaling $92.2 billion for additional funding for
ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan ($67.9 billion), State Department
operations in Iraq and various foreign aid programs, including assistance for Iraq
($4.2 billion), and for recovery and reconstruction efforts in the hurricane-affected
Gulf Coast areas ($19.8 billion).
The supplemental proposal for international matters covers a range of activities
that were not addressed in the regular FY2006 appropriations, address circumstances
that have changed since passage of the regular spending measures, or, like military
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, have been funded largely through supplementals
rather than incorporated into the base of annual, on-going diplomatic and aid
operations. The request of $1.6 billion in Iraq stabilization assistance is the first
sizable aid package for Baghdad since Congress approved $18.45 billion in the
FY2004 emergency supplemental measure. Other foreign policy elements include
29 For a complete discussion of the supplemental request and congressional action, see CRS
Report RL33298, FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other International
Actvities; Additional Hurricane Katrina Relief, by Paul Irwin and Larry Nowels.
CRS-41
funding for U.S. diplomatic costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, reconstruction aid for
Afghanistan, democracy promotion programs for Iran, Darfur humanitarian relief and
peace implementation aid in Sudan, Pakistan earthquake reconstruction, Liberia
refugee repatriation, and food aid for Africa (see Table 12 for detailed funding
levels).
Congressional Action. As passed by the House, the international portion
of the emergency supplemental (H.R. 4939) declines to $4.1 billion, $66 million less
than requested. In most cases where reductions were made, the House
Appropriations Committee stated its view that the emergency nature of the requests
were not fully justified and that the Committee will address the issues again when
it considers the regular FY2007 appropriation proposal. The Senate-approved bill
provides $4.45 billion, about $220 million higher than the request.
Major items and changes to the Administration request in House and Senate
bills include:
! reductions in USAID security and operation costs in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Sudan (House only);
! cuts in security for Provisional Reconstruction Teams in Iraq —
$192 million in the House and $100 million in the Senate;
! near-full funding for Iraq stabilization assistance, with the
redirection of $26.3 million in the House bill from some prison and
judge security funds to counter-narcotics aircraft in Colombia;
! substantial cuts in Afghan reconstruction and debt relief proposals
in the House bill, but full funding in the Senate;
! a reduction from $75 million to $56 million in the House bill for
democracy and related programs in Iran, but full funding in the
Senate;
! increases (+$110 million) in both House and Senate bills for
humanitarian and peacekeeping funding for the Darfur region of
Sudan;
! full funding for Pakistan earthquake relief and emergency food
refugee aid for Africa in both bills;
! additional $50 million in economic aid for Liberia in both bills;
! additional assistance in the Senate bill for global refugee needs,
Haiti, Democratic Republic of Congo, Jordan, drought relief in West
Africa and the Horn of Africa, and Guatemala hurricane victims; and
! cuts in the Senate bill to off-set additional appropriations, including
reductions for State Department operations in Iraq and aid to Egypt.
CRS-42
Table 12. State Department and Foreign Aid Funds in FY2006
Supplemental
(in millions of current $s)
Activity*
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Iraq:a
U.S. mission operations
$1,097.5
$1,116.1 $1,037.5
Provincial reconstruction teams support
$400.0
$208.0
$300.0
Special Inspector General & State IGb
$25.3
$25.3
$25.3
USAID security and operations
$119.6
$61.6
$119.6
US Peace Institute
$0.0
$1.3
$0.0
Subtotal, Iraq mission security and support
$1,642.4
$1,412.3 $1,482.4
Provincial reconstruction teams/employmentc
$675.0
$675.0
$675.0
Infrastructure security
$287.0
$287.0
$287.0
Infrastructure sustainment
$355.0
$355.0
$355.0
Nat’l capacity building — democracy & rule of lawc
$172.0
$172.0
$172.0
Prison construction/Protection of judges
$107.7
$81.4
$104.4
Financial integration & security promotion
$13.0
$13.0
$13.0
Subtotal, Iraq stabilization assistance
$1,609.7
$1,583.4 $1,606.4
Total, Iraq
$3,252.1
$2,995.7 $3,088.8
Afghanistan:d
U.S. mission security
$50.1
$50.1
$50.1
USAID security
$16.0
$0.0
$16.0
Subtotal, Afghanistan mission security
$66.1
$50.1
$66.1
Power sector projects
$32.0
$5.0
$32.0
Debt cancellation
$11.0
$0.0
$11.0
Afghan refugees returning from Pakistan
$3.4
$3.4
$7.4
Subtotal, Afghanistan assistance
$46.4
$8.4
$50.4
Total, Afghanistan
$112.5
$58.5
$116.5
Iran:
Public diplomacy/independent TV & radio
$5.0
$5.0
$5.0
Iranian student fellowships/visitor programs
$5.0
$5.0
$5.0
Broadcasting
$50.0
$36.1
$30.3
Democracy programs
$15.0
$10.0
$34.8
Total, Iran
$75.0
$56.1
$75.1
Sudan/Darfur:
USAID mission in Juba
$6.0
$0.0
$6.0
Refugees returning to southern Sudan
$12.3
$12.3
$12.3
Food aid for southern Sudan
$75.0
$75.0
$75.0
CRS-43
Activity*
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
UN peacekeeping mission in Southern Sudan
$31.7
$31.7
$31.7
Subtotal, southern Sudan
$125.0
$119.0
$125.0
Humanitarian relief in Darfur
$66.3
$66.3
$66.3
Refugees/conflict victims in Darfur & Chad
$11.7
$11.7
$11.7
Food aid for Darfur
$150.0
$150.0
$150.0
African Union peacekeeping mission, Darfur
$123.0
$173.0
$173.0
UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur
$38.1
$98.1
$98.1
Subtotal, Darfur
$389.1
$499.1
$499.1
Total, Sudan/Darfur
$514.1
$618.1
$624.1
Liberia:
Refugee repatriation
$13.8
$13.8
$13.8
Economic aid
$0.0
$50.0
$50.0
Total, Liberia
$13.8
$63.8
$63.8
Other Refugee Aidf
$0.0
$0.0
$62.5
Haiti
$0.0
$0.0
$40.0
Congo, Democratic Republic of
$0.0
$0.0
$13.2
Jordan
$0.0
$0.0
$100.0
Pakistan earthquake reconstructione
$126.3
$126.3
$126.3
Food aid, East and Central Africa
$125.0
$125.0
$125.0
Drought relief for West/Horn of Africa
$0.0
$0.0
$35.0
Food aid for refugees through WFP
$10.0
$10.0
$20.0
Colombia
$0.0
$26.3
$5.8
Hurricane Stan relief for Guatemala
$0.0
$0.0
$12.0
Rescission of prior aid to Egypt
$0.0
$0.0
($47.0)
Rescission (House = Peacekeeping funds; Senate
$0.0
($17.0)
($13.2)
= Export-Import Bank)
TOTAL, State Dept. & Foreign Aid Funds
$4,228.8
$4,062.8 $4,447.9
Source: Department of State and CRS calculations based on H.Rept. 109-388 and S.Rept. 109-230,
with modifications to reflect House and Senate floor amendments.
a. In addition to these figures for Iraq, the Defense Department portion of the supplemental includes
$3.7 billion for training and equipping Iraq security forces. The FBI also seeks $32.5 million
for operations and support in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Department of Justice’s United States
Attorneys Office and the U.S. Marshals Service requests $5.5 million in legal support for Iraq’s
CRS-44
criminal justice system, the Bureau for Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives proposes
$5 million for firearms trafficking, explosives, and arson operations in Iraq, and the Treasury
Department seeks $1.8 million for its participation in the Iraq Finance Cell and to place a
Deputy Treasury Attache in Iraq.
b. Of the $25.3 million request, $1.3 million supports the work of the State Department’s IG in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
c. In addition to new appropriations for these activities, the House bill directs that funds be transferred
from previous Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF) appropriations for Provincial
Reconstruction Teams ($152 million) and for democracy and rule of law programs ($33.5
million). These amounts are the same as what the Administration had planned to spend for these
activities out of the IRRF account. The Senate bill directs that $104.5 million of ESF for Iraq
should be available for broad-based democracy programs in Iraq.
d. In addition to these figures for Afghanistan, the Defense Department portion of the supplemental
includes $2.2 billion for training and equipping Afghan security forces and $192.8 million for
counter-drug activities in Afghanistan and the Central Asia area. The FBI also seeks $32.5
million for operations and support in Iraq and Afghanistan.
e. Funds would reimburse several USAID accounts — Development Aid, Child Survival,
International Disaster & Famine Assistance, and ESF — for previously reprogrammed money,
plus support ongoing reconstruction projects.
f. The Senate adds $42.5 million in refugee funds that include Somalia $3 million; Horn and W.
Africa $10 million; Congo $15 million; UNCHR $4 million; North Caucasus $2.5 million;
North Asia $3 million; and Burma $5 million. In addition, the Senate bill provides $20 million
for Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance for the Horn of Africa.
For Additional Reading
Overview
CRS Report 98-916, Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. Programs and
Policy, by Curt Tarnoff and Larry Nowels.
CRS Report RL32885, Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies
(House)/ Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies (Senate): FY2006
Appropriations, by Susan Epstein and Ian Fergusson.
CRS Report RL33298, FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other
International Activities; Additional Katrina Hurricane Relief, by Paul Irwin and
Larry Nowels.
Foreign Operations Programs
CRS Report RL32252, AIDS Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC): Problems,
Responses, and Issues for Congress, by Tiaji Salaam.
CRS Report RL33073, Debt Relief for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries: Issues for
Congress, by Martin Weiss.
CRS Report 98-568, Export-Import Bank: Background and Legislative Issues, by
James Jackson.
CRS Report RS22032, Foreign Aid: Understanding Data Used to Compare Donors,
by Larry Nowels.
CRS-45
CRS Report RL33262, Foreign Policy Budget Trends: A Thirty-Year Review, by
Larry Nowels.
CRS Report RL31712, The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria:
Background and Current Issues, by Tiaji Salaam.
CRS Report RL32773, The Global Peace Operations Initiative: Background and
Issues for Congress, by Nina Serafino.
CRS Report RS21181, HIV/AIDS International Programs: Appropriations, FY2003-
FY2006, by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther.
CRS Report RL32714, International Disasters and Humanitarian Assistance: U.S.
Governmental Response, by Rhoda Margesson.
CRS Report RL33349, International Efforts to Control the Spread of the Avian
Influenza (H5N1) Virus: Affected Countries’ Responses, by Emma Chanlett-
Avery, Coordinator.
CRS Report RL30830, International Family Planning: The “Mexico City” Policy,
by Larry Nowels.
CRS Report RL33250, International Population Assistance and Family Planning
Programs: Issues for Congress, by Larry Nowels and Connie Veillette.
CRS Report RS22134, International Financial Institutions: Funding U.S.
Participation, by Jonathan Sanford.
CRS Issue Brief IB10150, International Narcotics Policy: Overview and Analysis,
by Raphael Perl.
CRS Report RL30932, Microenterprise and U.S. Foreign Assistance, by Curt
Tarnoff.
CRS Report RL32427, The Millennium Challenge Account: Implementation of a
New U.S. Foreign Aid Initiative, by Larry Nowels.
CRS Report 98-567, The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and
Legislative Issues, by James Jackson.
CRS Report RS21168, The Peace Corps: Current Issues, by Curt Tarnoff.
CRS Report RL32862, Peacekeeping and Conflict Transitions: Background and
Congressional Action on Civilian Capabilities, by Nina Serafino and Martin
Weiss.
CRS Report RS22411, Restructuring U.S. Foreign Aid: The Role of the Director of
Foreign Assistance, by Larry Nowels and Connie Veillette.
CRS-46
CRS Report RL30545, Trafficking in Persons: The U.S. and International Response,
by Francis Miko.
CRS Report RL32703, The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S.
Funding Debate, by Larry Nowels and Connie Veillette.
CRS Report RL33219, U.S. and International Responses to the Global Spread of
Avian Flu: Issues for Congress, by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther.
State Department/Broadcasting Programs
CRS Report RL31370, State Department and Related Agencies: FY2006
Appropriations and FY2007 Request, by Susan Epstein.
CRS Issue Brief IB90103, United Nations Peacekeeping: Issues for Congress, by
Marjorie Ann Browne.
CRS Issue Brief IB86116, United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues,
by Marjorie Browne and Vita Bite.
CRS Report RS21867, U.S. Embassy in Iraq, by Susan Epstein.
CRS Report RL32607, U.S. Public Diplomacy: Background and the 9/11
Commission Recommendations, by Susan Epstein.
Country and Regional Issues
Africa
CRS Report RL32489, Africa: Development Issues and Policy Options, by Raymond
Copson.
CRS Issue Brief IB95052, Africa: U.S. Foreign Assistance Issues, by Ted Dagne.
CRS Issue Brief IB10050, AIDS in Africa, by Nicholas Cook.
CRS Report RL33185, Liberia’s Post-War Recovery: Key Issues and Developments,
by Nicholas Cook.
CRS Issue Brief IB98043, Sudan: Humanitarian Crisis, Peace Talks, Terrorism and
U.S. Policy, by Ted Dagne.
East Asia/Pacific
CRS Report RL33316, U.S.-Vietnam Relations: Issues for Congress, by Mark
Manyin.
CRS Report RS21834, U.S. Assistance to North Korea: Fact Sheet, by Mark Manyin.
CRS-47
CRS Report RL31362, U.S. Foreign Aid to East and South Asia: Selected Recipients,
by Thomas Lum.
Europe and Eurasia
CRS Report RS21686, Conditions on U.S. Aid to Serbia, by Steven Woehrel.
CRS Report RL32866, U.S. Assistance to the Former Soviet Union, by Curt Tarnoff.
Latin America/Caribbean
CRS Report RL32001, AIDS in the Caribbean and Central America, by Mark
Sullivan.
CRS Report RL33253, Andean Counterdrug Initiative (ACI) and Related Funding
Programs: FY2006 Assistance, by Connie Veillette.
CRS Report RL33337, Article 98 Agreements and Sanctions on U.S. Foreign Aid to
Latin America, by Clare Ribando.
CRS Report RL32294. Haiti: Developments and U.S. Policy Since 1991 and
Current Congressional Concerns, by Maureen Taft-Morales.
CRS Report RL32774, Plan Colombia: A Progress Report, by Connie Veillette.
CRS Report RL33200, Trafficking in Persons in Latin America and the Caribbean,
by Clare Ribando.
CRS Report RL32487, U.S. Foreign Assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean,
by Connie Veillette, Clare Ribando, and Mark Sullivan.
Middle East
CRS Report RL33003, Egypt: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jeremy Sharp.
CRS Report RL33376, Iraq: Debt Relief: Procedure and Potential Implications for
International Debt Relief, by Martin Weiss.
CRS Report RL31833, Iraq: Recent Developments in Reconstruction Assistance, by
Curt Tarnoff.
CRS Report RL31766, Iraq: United Nations and Humanitarian Aid Organizations,
by Tom Coipuram.
CRS Issue Brief IB93085, Jordan: U.S. Relations and Bilateral Issues, by Alfred
Prados.
CRS Report RL33222, U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel, by Jeremy Sharp.
CRS-48
CRS Report RS21457, The Middle East Partnership Initiative: An Overview, by
Jeremy M. Sharp.
CRS Report RS22370, U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians, by Jeremy Sharp.
CRS Report RL32260, U.S. Foreign Assistance to the Middle East: Historical
Background, Recent Trends, and the FY2007 Request, by Jeremy Sharp.
CRS Report RL32260, U.S. Foreign Assistance to the Middle East: Historical
Background, Recent Trends, and the FY2005 Request, by Jeremy M. Sharp.
South Asia
CRS Report RL32686, Afghanistan: Narcotics and U.S. Policy, by Christopher
Blanchard.
CRS Report RL30588, Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S.
Policy, by Kenneth Katzman.
CRS Report RL33196, The Earthquake in South Asia: Humanitarian Assistance and
Relief Operations, by Daniel Kronenfeld and Rhoda Margesson.
CRS Issue Brief IB94041, Pakistan-U.S. Relations, by K. Alan Kronstadt.
CRS Report RL33227, U.S. Assistance to Women in Afghanistan and Iraq:
Challenges and Issues for Congress, by Rhoda Margesson and Daniel
Kronenfeld.
CRS Report RL31362, U.S. Foreign Aid to East and South Asia: Selected Recipients,
by Thomas Lum.
Selected Websites
African Development Bank
[http://www.afdb.org/]
African Development Foundation
[http://www.adf.gov/]
Asian Development Bank
[http://www.adb.org/]
Broadcasting Board of Governors
[http://www.bbg.gov/]
CRS Current Legislative Issues: Foreign Affairs
[http://www.crs.gov/products/browse/is-foreignaffairs.shtml]
CRS-49
Export-Import Bank
[http://www.exim.gov/]
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria
[http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/]
Inter-American Development Bank
[http://www.iadb.org/]
Inter-American Foundation
[http://www.iaf.gov/]
International Fund for Agricultural Development
[http://www.ifad.org]
International Monetary Fund
[http://www.imf.org/]
Millennium Challenge Corporation
[http://www.mcc.gov]
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
[http://www.opic.gov/]
Peace Corps
[http://www.peacecorps.gov/]
Trade and Development Agency
[http://www.tda.gov/]
United Nations
[http://www.un.org/]
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
[http://www.unicef.org/]
United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
[http://www.undp.org/]
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
[http://www.unfpa.org/]
United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)
[http://www.unaids.org/en/default.asp]
U.S. Agency for International Development — Home Page
[http://www.usaid.gov/]
U.S. Agency for International Development — Congressional Budget Justification
[http://www.usaid.gov/policy/budget/]
U.S. Agency for International Development — Emergency Situation Reports
CRS-50
[http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/disaster_assistance/cou
ntries/fy2003_index.html]
U.S. Agency for International Development — Foreign Aid Data (“Greenbook”)
[http://qesdb.cdie.org/gbk/index.html]
U.S. Department of State — Home Page
[http://www.state.gov/]
U.S. Department of State — Foreign Operations Budget Justification, FY2007
[http://www.state.gov/m/rm/rls/cbj/2007/]
U.S. Department of State — International Affairs Budget Request, FY2007
[http://www.state.gov/m/rm/rls/iab/2007/]
U.S. Department of State — International Topics and Issues
[http://www.state.gov/interntl/]
U.S. Department of State — State Department Budget Request, FY2007
[http://www.state.gov/m/rm/rls/bib/2007/]
U.S. Department of the Treasury — Office of International Affairs
[http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/international-affairs/index.html]
World Bank
[http://www.worldbank.org/]
World Bank debt website
[http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTDEBTDEPT/0,,
menuPK:64166739~pagePK:64166681~piPK:64166725~theSitePK:469043,00.html]
CRS-51
Table 13. Foreign Operations: Detailed Account Funding Levels
(in millions of current $s — discretionary budget authority)
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Program
Totala
Regularb
Supp Reqc
Total
Request
House
Senate
Enactede
Title I - Export and Investment Assistance:
Export-Import Bank
98.9
138.8
(25.0)
113.8
57.6
57.6
Overseas Private Investment Corp.
(211.6)
(178.1)
—
(178.1)
(192.5)
(192.5)
Trade and Development Agency
51.1
50.4
—
50.4
50.3
50.3
Total, Title I - Export Aid
(61.6)
11.1
(25.0)
—
(84.6)
(84.6)
Title II - Bilateral Economic:
Development Assistance:
Child Survival & Health (CS/H)
1,537.6
1,569.2
79.7
—
1,433.0
1,565.6
Global AIDS Initiative
1,373.9
1,975.1
—
1,975.1
2,894.0
2,772.5
Development Assistance Fund (DA)
1,448.3
1,508.8
10.5
—
1,282.0
1,294.0
Trade Capacity Enhancement Fundd
—
—
—
—
—
522.0
Transition Initiatives
48.6
39.6
—
39.6
50.0
40.0
Subtotal, CS/H, AIDS, TI, DA, & Trade Capacity
4,408.4
5,092.7
90.2 2,014.7
5,659.0
6,194.1
Intl Disaster & Famine Aid
574.9
361.4
192.0
—
348.8
348.8
Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction Fund
656.0
—
—
0.0
—
—
Development Credit Programs
8.0
7.9
—
7.9
13.4
8.4
Subtotal, Development Aid
5,647.3
5,462.0
282.2
—
6,021.2
6,551.3
USAID Operating Expenses
637.5
623.7
141.6
—
678.8
646.0
USAID Inspector General
37.2
35.6
—
35.6
38.0
39.0
USAID Capital Investment Fund
58.5
69.3
—
69.3
131.8
105.3
CRS-52
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Program
Totala
Regularb
Supp Reqc
Total
Request
House
Senate
Enactede
Subtotal, Development Aid & USAID
6,380.5
6,190.6
423.8
—
6,869.8
7,341.6
Economic Support Fund (ESF)
3,896.2
2,607.7 1,637.5
— 3,214.5
2,650.7
Economic Support Fund rescission — Turkey
(1,000.0)
—
—
—
—
—
International Fund for Ireland
18.4
13.4
—
13.4
e 10.8
Eastern Europe/Baltic States
393.4
357.4
—
357.4
273.9
227.9
Former Soviet Union
625.5
508.9
—
508.9
441.0
371.3
Conflict Response Fund
—
—
—
—
75.0
0.0
Inter-American Foundation
17.9
19.3
—
19.3
19.3
19.3
African Development Foundation
18.8
22.8
—
22.8
22.7
22.7
Peace Corps
317.4
318.8
—
318.8
336.7
324.6
Millennium Challenge Corporation
1,488.0
1,752.3
—
1,752.3
3,000.0
2,000.0
Democracy Fund
—
94.1
—
94.1
0.0
0.0
Intl Narcotics/Law Enforcement
946.2
472.4
107.7
—
795.5
703.6
Intl Narcotics — Andean Initiative
725.2
727.2
—
727.2
721.5
506.9
Migration & Refugee Assistance
884.2
783.1
51.2
—
832.9
750.2
Emergency Refugee Fund (ERMA)
29.8
29.7
—
29.7
55.0
30.0
Non-Proliferation/anti-terrorism/demining
423.4
406.0
—
406.0
449.4
425.0
Treasury Dept. Technical Assistance
18.8
19.8
13.0
—
23.7
23.7
Debt reduction
99.2
64.4
—
64.4
182.8
20.0
Total Title II-Bilateral Economic
15,282.9
14,387.9
2,233.2
4,314.3
17,313.7
15,428.3
CRS-53
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Program
Totala
Regularb
Supp Reqc
Total
Request
House
Senate
Enactede
Title III - Military Assistance:
Intl Military Education & Training
89.0
85.9
—
85.9
88.9
88.0
Foreign Mil Financing (FMF)
4,995.2
4,455.0
—
4,455.0
4,550.9
4,454.9
Security in Asia (additional FMF for the Philippines)
—
9.9
—
9.9
0.0
0.0
Peacekeeping Operations
417.6
173.3
123.0
—
200.5
170.0
Total, Title III-Military Aid
5,501.8
4,724.1
123.0
—
4,840.3
4,712.9
Title IV - Multilateral Economic Aid:
World Bank - Intl Development Assn
843.2
940.5
—
940.5
950.0
950.0
World Bank Environment Facility
106.6
79.2
—
79.2
56.3
56.3
World Bank-Mult Investment Guaranty Agency
—
1.3
—
—
0.0
0.0
Inter-American Development Bank
10.9
1.7
—
1.7
25.0
23.0
Inter-American Investment Corporation
—
1.7
—
1.7
0.0
0.0
Asian Development Bank
99.2
99.0
—
99.0
139.0
115.3
African Development Fund
105.2
134.3
—
134.3
135.7
135.7
African Development Bank
4.1
3.6
—
3.6
5.0
5.0
European Bank for R & D
35.1
1.0
—
1.0
0.0
0.0
Intl Fund for Agriculture Development
14.9
14.9
—
14.9
18.0
18.0
Intl Organizations & Programs
325.8
326.2
—
326.2
289.0
327.6
Total, Title IV - Multilateral
1,545.0
1,603.4
0.0
—
1,618.0
1,630.9
Rescission
—
—
—
—
—
(388.1)
CRS-54
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Program
Totala
Regularb
Supp Reqc
Total
Request
House
Senate
Enactede
Total, Foreign Operations
22,268.1
20,726.5
2,331.2
4,314.3 23,687.4
21,299.4
Sources: House and Senate Appropriations Committee and CRS adjustments.
a. FY2005 includes “regular”and supplemental appropriations.
b. Amounts shown in this column are FY2006 “regular” appropriations provided in P.L. 109-102. Title III, Chapter 8 of P.L. 108-148, the FY2006 DOD Appropriations, required
a 1% across-the-board rescission for each account. Amounts are adjusted to reflect the required reduction for each account.
c. This column includes amounts requested for emergency FY2006 supplemental appropriations (H.R. 4939), a proposal that is pending in Congress. Also included in this column
are amounts enacted in Division B of P.L. 109-148, the FY2006 DOD Appropriations. Division B included emergency supplemental appropriations for Avian Influenza and
a rescission for the Export-Import Bank.
d. The Trade Capacity Enhancement Fund is a new account recommended by the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee. It does not add new money, but consolidates previous
funding for trade capacity building that has been included in the DA, ESF, and other Foreign Operations accounts.
e. The Administration’s FY2007 request includes $8.5 million for the International Fund for Ireland as part of the Economic Support Fund.
CRS-55
Table 14. State Department/Broadcasting: Detailed Account Funding Levels
(in millions of current $s — discretionary budget authority)
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Supp.
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Program
Total
Regular
Request
Total
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Administration of Foreign Affairs:
Diplomatic and Consular Program
4,906.2
4,319.7
1,552.6
—
4,651.9
[Public Diplomacy]
[$320.0]
[$329.7]
—
[$329.7]
[$351.0]
[Worldwide Security Upgrades]
[$649.9]
[$680.7]
—
[$680.7]
[$795.2]
Educational & Cultural Exchanges
355.9
426.3
5.0
—
474.3
Office of Inspector General
30.0
29.6
25.3
—
32.5
Representation Allowances
8.5
8.2
—
8.2
8.2
Protection of Foreign Missions & Officials
9.7
9.3
—
9.3
9.3
Embassy Security-Ongoing Ops & Non-Security
1,195.5
571.1
—
571.1
640.1
Construction
Embassy Security-Worldwide Security Upgrades
900.1
898.6
—
898.6
899.4
Emergencies in the Diplomatic & Consular Service
1.0
24.9
—
24.9
4.9
Repatriation Loans
1.2
1.3
—
1.3
1.3
Payment to the American Institute in Taiwan
19.2
19.5
—
19.5
15.8
Capital Investment Fund
51.5
58.1
—
58.1
68.3
Centralized IT Modernization Program
76.8
68.5
—
68.5
0.0
Total, Administration of Foreign Affairs
7,555.6
6,435.1
1,582.9
—
6,806.0
CRS-56
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Supp.
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Program
Total
Regular
Request
Total
Request
House
Senate
Conference
International Organizations and Conferences:
Contributions to International Organizations
1,166.2
1,151.3
—
1,151.3
1,268.5
Contributions to International Peacekeeping
1,163.5
1,022.3
69.8
—
1,135.3
Total, International Organizations and Conferences
2,329.7
2,173.6
69.8
—
2,403.8
International Commissions
63.3
66.5
—
66.5
63.9
Related Appropriations:
International Center for Middle Eastern-Western Dialogue
7.3
5.8
—
5.8
0.7
Asia Foundation
12.8
13.8
—
13.8
10.0
National Endowment for Democracy
59.2
74.1
—
74.1
80.0
East-West Center
19.2
19.0
—
19.0
12.0
Eisenhower Exchange
0.5
0.5
—
0.5
0.5
Israeli Arab Scholarship
0.4
0.4
—
0.4
0.4
Total, Related Appropriations
99.4
113.6
0.0
113.6
103.6
TOTAL, STATE DEPARTMENT
10,048.0
8,788.8
1,652.7
—
9,377.3
International Broadcasting:
Capital Improvements
10.9
10.8
—
10.8
18.3
Broadcasting Operations
587.9
633.2
50.0
—
653.6
Broadcasting to Cuba
a
a
—
a
a
Total, International Broadcasting
598.8
644.0
50.0
—
671.9
TOTAL, STATE DEPT./INT’L BROADCASTING
10,646.8
9,432.8
1,702.7
—
10,049.2
CRS-57
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Supp.
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Program
Total
Regular
Request
Total
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Commissions and Other:
Comm. for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad
0.5
0.5
—
0.5
0.5
Commission on International Religious Freedom
3.0
3.2
—
3.2
3.0
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
1.8
2.0
—
2.0
2.1
Cong-Executive Comm. on the People’s Republic of China
1.9
1.9
—
1.9
2.0
HELP Commission
1.0
0.0
—
0.0
—
U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission
3.0
3.0
—
3.0
4.0
U.S. Senate-China Interparliamentary Group
0.1
0.1
—
0.1
—
United States Institute for Peace
121.9
22.1
—
22.1
27.0
Total, Commissions and Other
133.2
32.8
—
32.8
38.6
Grand Total
10,780.0
9,465.6
1,702.7
—
10,087.8
Sources: House and Senate Appropriations Committee and CRS adjustments.
Note: This table reflects the Senate structure of the State, Foreign Operations Appropriations bill and is not identical to the State Department and Related Programs title in the House
SSJC bill. The Senate measure includes the U.S. Institute of Peace and several foreign policy-related commissions while the House SSJC bill funds these programs in separate titles
from the State Department and Related Programs.
a. Included in Broadcasting Operations.