Contents

• Continuing Resolution
• Past Year Developments
• House Legislation
• Senate Legislation
• State-Foreign Operations Overview
• Background and Trends
• Use of Supplemental and Forward Funding
• FY2011 Budget Request
• FY2011 Budget Request: State Department and Related Programs
• Key State Department Issues
• FY2011 Budget Request: Foreign Operations
• Top 10 U.S. Foreign Aid Recipient Countries
• Regional Distribution
• Sector Distribution
• Key Foreign Operations Issues

Summary

The annual State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations bill has been the primary legislative vehicle through which Congress reviews the U.S. international affairs budget and influences executive branch foreign policy making in recent years, as Congress has not regularly considered these issues through a complete authorization process for State Department diplomatic activities since 2003 and for foreign aid programs since 1985. Funding for Foreign Operations and State Department/Broadcasting programs has been steadily rising since FY2002, after a period of decline in the 1980s and 1990s. Ongoing assistance to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as large new global health programs and rapidly increasing assistance to Pakistan, has kept the international affairs budget at historically high levels in recent years. The change of Administration in 2009 did not disrupt this trend. However, increasing concern about the federal budget deficit and accountability for funds already provided has halted this growth in FY2011.

On February 1, 2010, President Obama submitted a budget proposal for FY2011 that requested $58.68 billion for the international affairs budget, a 3% increase over the enacted FY2010 funding level, including supplementals. If $1.8 billion in "forward funding" of FY2010 priorities appropriated in FY2009 supplemental legislation is counted toward FY2010 rather than FY2009 totals, as it was by the Administration, and the enacted FY2010 supplemental is factored in, the FY2011 request would represent a slight decrease from FY2010-enacted levels.

This report focuses only on the $56.82 billion requested for programs and activities funded through the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which excludes some portions of the International Affairs request and includes funding for certain commissions requested as part of other budget functions. The Administration requested significant increases for Global Health and Child Survival, Development Assistance, technical assistance and debt restructuring through the Treasury Department, Foreign Military Financing, and various multilateral environmental accounts. Programs for which the Administration recommended significantly reduced funding, compared with enacted FY2010 levels, are contributions to international organizations, commissions and foundations, and peacekeeping operations.

The House State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee approved a draft FY2011 bill on June 30, which totaled $52.81 billion. On the Senate side, the full Appropriations Committee marked up and approved its FY2011 State-Foreign Operations bill, S. 3676, on July 27, totaling $54.22 billion. Neither bill progressed further, however, and State Department and Foreign Operations activities, along with all federal programs, have been funded since October 1, 2010, through a series of continuing resolutions. On April 14, 2011, the House and Senate approved H.R. 1473, legislation embodying an agreement between the Administration and House and Senate leaders to fund the government for the remainder of FY2011. Signed into law on April 15, 2011, H.R. 1473 (P.L. 112-10) funds State and Foreign Operations accounts at $48.98 billion.

This report analyzes the FY2011 request, recent-year funding trends, and congressional action related to FY2011 State-Foreign Operations legislation.

Continuing Resolution

Congress has passed a series of continuing resolutions (CRs) to fund government programs since FY2011 began on October 1, 2010. In the meantime, the House and Senate majority leadership each proposed comprehensive legislation, H.R. 1 and Senate Amendment #149 to H.R. 1, respectively, to fund the government for the remainder of FY2011. Both proposals were rejected by the Senate on March 9, 2011. Ensuing negotiations between the Administration and House and Senate leaders resulted in an agreement that was introduced in the House on April 11 as H.R. 1473. The legislation became P.L. 112-10, approved by the House and Senate on April 14 and signed by the President on April 15.

P.L. 112-10 establishes FY2011 funding levels for State Department and Foreign Operations accounts at a total annual rate of $48.98 billion.¹ This represents a 14% decrease from the Administration's FY2011 request, and an 11% decrease from the total FY2010-enacted appropriation, including supplementals. The legislation had no accompanying report and provides limited details about country-level funding. The legislation directs the Administration to report back to Congress in 30 days on how it proposes to allocate the appropriated funds at the program, project, and activity level.

State Department and Foreign Operations highlights of P.L. 112-10 include the following:

• The State Department appropriation for Administration of Foreign Affairs, at $11.41 billion, is a 9% cut from the FY2010 total enacted level, but slightly higher than the pre-supplemental funding level. Within this title, Diplomatic and Consular Programs are cut 8% from the total FY2010-enacted level, including supplementals, the Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance account is cut by 10%, and Educational and Cultural Exchange programs are cut 6%. The legislation also terminates overseas comparability pay adjustment for foreign service officers.
• The legislation provides $747 million for International Broadcasting, including $10 million provided specifically to fight Internet access restrictions.
• U.S. Institute of Peace funding is cut 20% from the total enacted FY2010 level, to $39.4 million.
• USAID receives $1.66 billion for administrative accounts, an 8% reduction from FY2010.
• Bilateral economic assistance is funded at $25.03 billion, a 15% reduction from the total FY2010-enacted level. The Global Health & Child Survival and Development Assistance accounts remain level with the FY2010-enacted total, at $7.83 billion and $2.52 billion, respectively. Cuts in this title come primarily from strategic assistance accounts: Economic Support Fund is cut by 33% from FY2010 total enacted to $5.95 billion, while the Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia account is cut 6%, to $696 million. International Disaster and Famine Assistance, at $863 million, is 34% less than the total enacted FY2010 level, but slightly higher than the pre-supplemental funding level.
• Among independent agencies, the Millennium Challenge Corporation receives just under $900 million, a 19% cut from the FY2010-enacted level, while Peace Corps funding, at just under $375 million, is cut 6% from the prior-year level.
• Security assistance is reduced 2% overall from the total FY2010-enacted level, including supplemental funding. The International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement account is cut by 43% from the FY2010 total, to $1.60 billion (consistent with FY2010 pre-supplemental funding), while the Foreign Military Finance account increases by 25% to $5.37 billion. No foreign operations funding is provided for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, though $800 million for a similar fund is included under the Department of Defense section of the legislation.
• Multilateral assistance is reduced 13% from FY2010 total enacted levels, including supplementals. U.S. contributions to environmental funds are particularly hard hit, including a 38% cut to the International Clean Technology Fund, to $185 million, and a 33% cut to the Strategic Climate Fund, at $50 million. The Asian Development Bank receives no funding in the legislation, and funds for the African Development Fund are reduced 29%, to about $110 million.
• The legislation provides not less that $575 million for family planning/reproductive health programs, a major point of contention during negotiations, and further states that $40 million should be made available for the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) under the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) account.

Past Year Developments

On February 1, 2010, the Obama Administration submitted its FY2011 budget request to Congress, together with a request for supplemental FY2010 funding for foreign operations activities. Later that month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and before each chamber's State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee. Hearings on aspects of the international affairs budget request were held throughout March and April 2010.

On April 22, 2010, the Senate Budget Committee passed a budget resolution recommending $4 billion less than the Administration requested for the International Affairs account, prompting strong objections by foreign aid advocates, including a letter signed by all living former Secretaries of State urging Congress to fully fund the Administration's request.²

On July 15 and July 20, 2010, respectively, the Senate and House approved FY2011 discretionary funding allocations for each appropriations subcommittee, enabling work on appropriations legislation to move forward in the absence of a budget resolution. For State and Foreign Operations, the House allocation is $53.9 billion and the Senate allocation is $54.0 billion.

On July 29, 2010, the President signed into law (P.L. 111-212) the FY2010 supplemental, which provides about $6.1 billion to the Department of State and Foreign Operations funding, largely for State Department operations and foreign aid to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Haiti.

House Legislation

On June 30, the House State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee marked up and approved, by voice vote, a draft FY2011 funding bill. The measure would have provide $52.81 billion, $4 billion less than the Obama Administration request and $2.3 billion less than the enacted FY2010 funding level. While funding tables from the draft were made available, the text was not. Funding levels by account can be found in Appendix C and Appendix D. A press release³ from the subcommittee following the bill's passage highlighted, among others, that the bill—

• Did not allocate the $3.9 billion requested by the Administration for Afghanistan, in keeping with Chairwoman Lowey's June 28 statement that the subcommittee would not appropriate funds to Afghanistan until recent reports of aid being diverted out of the country by corrupt officials have been adequately investigated.⁴ The subcommittee requested that GAO audit all U.S. assistance to Afghanistan for FY2008-FY2010, and included funds in the bill for a Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction to establish a task force on corruption.
• For Pakistan, recommended $2.51 billion in assistance.
• For Iraq, included $351 million to support the transition of security forces training from military to civilian management.
• Fully funded commitments to Israel, Egypt, and Jordan.
• Recommended $735 million, or $20 million more than requested, for family planning services, but did not change any provisions of law restricting funds to organizations that provide abortions or advocate for abortion rights.
• Provided $825 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which was $125 million above the Administration request.
• Included $1 billion for food security and agricultural development, or 38% less than the Administration request.
• Recommended $1.34 billion for bilateral and multilateral activities to protect the environment and address global climate change.
• Recommended $925 million for basic education programs, with an emphasis on providing alternatives to madrassas, which is almost 10% more than requested.
• Matched the Administrations request of $446.2 million for the Peace Corps, which is a 12% increase over the FY2010 funding.

Senate Legislation

On July 27, the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up and approved a FY2011 State-Foreign Operations funding bill, S. 3676.⁵ The legislation would have appropriated $54.22 billion, which was $1.40 billion less than the House subcommittee draft and $2.61 billion below the Administration's request. Of the total provided for State operations, 18.7% was for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Of the total provided for foreign operations, 15.3% was for those three countries. Funding levels by account can be found in Appendix C and Appendix D. The bill⁶—

• For Afghanistan, provided $2.6 billion in assistance, more than $1.2 billion below the requested amount, and $660 million for State Department operations.
• For Pakistan, provided $2.48 billion in assistance, which is $546 million below the Administration's request, as well as $92.6 million for State Department operations.
• For Iraq, provided $1.6 billion for State Department operations and $529 million for assistance, or $183 million less than requested.
• Provided the amounts requested for Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon.
• For Colombia, provided $447 million, or $17.9 million less than requested.
• Noted lack of authorization for State to retained consular fees, and increased appropriations above the request, while also suggesting the use of unobligated funds, to meet funding requests for Diplomatic & Consular Programs, Embassy Construction & Maintenance, and Worldwide Security Protection accounts that the Administration had proposed to meet through fee retention.
• For State's Civilian Stabilization Initiative (CSI), recommended $50.0 million, which is more than a 50%, or $70 million, reduction from FY2010 levels. It called for a reduced number of Active and Standby personnel and questioned State's ability to deploy the proposed number of personnel. It provided no CSI funds for USAID.
• Proposed to maintain current funding levels for the Asia Foundation and $100,000 more than FY2010 level for the East-West Center.
• Proposed to increase National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funding from $118.0 million to $125.0 million, which is $20 million above the Administration request. Some funds are to be provided for NED programs in Egypt, North Korea, Cuba, Pakistan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo by transferring democracy funds from the Economic Support Fund account to NED.
• Provided $110 million for the Democracy Fund, which was not included in the Administration's budget. Many democracy assistance programs were requested by the Administration under the Economic Support Fund account, however, for which the committee recommended $655 million less than was requested.
• Provided $14.4 million within the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account to establish up to 10 new American Centers to improve public diplomacy efforts.
• Recommended continuing the FY2010 level ($1.105 billion) for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which is $147.7 million below the President's request of $1.280 billion.
• Provided $800 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which is $100 million above the Administration request.
• For bilateral and multilateral climate change programs funded through USAID, State and Treasury, provided $1.45 billion, which was $130 million above the FY2010 level but slightly below the request.
• Provided $1.3 billion, or $344 million less than requested, for food security and agriculture development programs under the Feed the Future initiative.
• Recommended $700 million for family planning programs. The bill also contained language that would reverse the Mexico City policy that bans U.S. foreign assistance to any country or organization that performs or promotes abortion. The language allowed aid for countries or organizations unless the President certifies those recipients would use U.S. aid for promoting or performing abortions.

State-Foreign Operations Overview

The State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill funds most programs and activities within the international affairs budget account, known as Function 150, including foreign economic and military assistance, contributions to international organizations and multilateral financial institutions, State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) operations, public diplomacy, and international broadcasting programs. However, the bill does not align perfectly with the international affairs budget. Food aid, which is appropriated through the Agriculture appropriations bill, and the International Trade Commission and Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, both funded through the Commerce-Science-Justice appropriation, are international affairs (Function 150) programs not funded through the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill. Furthermore, a number of international commissions that are not part of the Function 150, such as the International Boundary and Water Commission, are funded through the State-Foreign Operations bill. A chart illustrating the organizational structure of the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill is provided in Appendix A.

This report focuses only on accounts funded through the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill, but provides appropriations figures for the entire international affairs (Function 150) budget in Appendix E.

Table 2 and Figure 1 show State-Foreign Operations appropriations for the past decade in both current and constant dollars.

Figure 1. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2001-FY2011

Source: Summary and Highlights, International Affairs Function 150, FY2011, and CRS calculations.

Background and Trends

U.S. national security, commercial, and humanitarian interests are the rationale for most international affairs activities. During the Cold War, foreign aid and diplomatic programs had a primarily anti-communist focus, while concurrently pursuing other U.S. policy interests, such as promoting economic development, advancing U.S. trade, expanding access to basic education and health care, promoting human rights, and protecting the environment. In the 1990s, with the Cold War ended, distinct policy objectives—including stopping nuclear weapons proliferation, curbing the production and trafficking of illegal drugs, expanding peace efforts in the Middle East, achieving regional stability, protecting religious freedom, and countering trafficking in persons—replaced the Cold War-shaped foreign policy objectives.

A defining change in focus came following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States. Since then, U.S. foreign aid and diplomatic programs have emphasized national security objectives, frequently cast in terms of contributing to efforts to counter terrorism. In 2002, President Bush released a National Security Strategy that for the first time established global development as the third pillar of U.S. national security, along with defense and diplomacy. Development was again underscored in the Administration's re-statement of the National Security Strategy released on March 16, 2006.

Also in 2002, foreign assistance budget justifications began to highlight the war on terrorism as the top foreign aid priority, emphasizing U.S. assistance to 28 "front-line" states—countries that cooperated with the United States in the war on terrorism or faced terrorist threats themselves.⁷ Large reconstruction programs in Afghanistan and Iraq exemplified the emphasis on using foreign aid to combat terrorism. State Department efforts focused extensively on diplomatic security and finding more effective ways of presenting American views and culture through public diplomacy, particularly in Muslim communities.

The Obama Administration has carried forward many Bush foreign aid initiatives, including USAID's Development Leadership Initiative (DLI), the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and robust assistance to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The Obama Administration has also largely sustained Bush Administration investments in global health and HIV/AIDS treatment, though its Global Health Initiative shifts the emphasis away from a focus on discrete diseases and toward comprehensive health systems. In the FY2011 request, the Administration further defines its international priorities, with an emphasis on building State Department and USAID capacity, supporting multilateral food security and global climate change initiatives, and shifting responsibility for assistance programs in Iraq and elsewhere from military to civilian authorities.

Use of Supplemental and Forward Funding

Year-to-year comparison of funding levels has become increasingly complicated due to the use of supplemental appropriations. Supplemental resources for State and Foreign Operations programs, once used primarily to respond to unanticipated emergencies or natural disasters, became a significant and continuous source of funds for ongoing international activities during the Bush Administration, especially for programs related to reconstruction efforts and corresponding to ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some criticized this practice, which kept significant funds separate from the annual budget cycle and made future-year planning difficult. The Obama Administration requested $6.16 billion in supplemental funds for FY2010 to meet needs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Haiti. Congress approved $6.18 billion in FY2010 supplemental funds for these and other priorities on July 27.⁸

Year-to-year comparison has also been complicated by recent use of forward funding mechanisms, whereby appropriations legislation may provide funding for multiple fiscal years. One FY2008 supplemental,⁹ for example, included $3.68 billion within a section titled "Bridge Fund Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2009," essentially providing a FY2009 supplement before the FY2009 base appropriation was enacted. These funds were clearly designated as FY2009 funds, to be obligated between October 2008 and September 2009. Less clear, however, is the appropriate designation for $1.8 billion¹⁰ included in an FY2009 supplemental appropriations measure¹¹ that House and Senate appropriators considered forward funding of priorities identified in the FY2010 request, but which were not clearly designated as FY2010 funds in the enacting legislation and accompanying report.¹² In the FY2011 Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ), the Administration included these funds in FY2010 account totals in many instances, while the Congressional Budget Office is treating them as FY2009 appropriations, as does this report.

The inclusion of supplemental funds and the accounting used for forward funds can significantly affect year-to-year comparisons of appropriations levels. For example, the FY2011 request was slightly less than the FY2010 total if the FY2010 supplemental and forward funding are included in the FY2010 column, but represented a 16% increase if the supplemental funds are excluded and the forward funding is counted in FY2009 rather than FY2010. Figure 2 compares the FY2011 State-Foreign Operations budget request with various representations of FY2010 and FY2009 appropriations.

Figure 2. FY2011 State-Foreign Operations Request Compared to Various Representations of FY2010 and FY2009 Appropriations (in billions of current dollars)

Source: State Department data; CRS calculations. Note: FF = forward funding. These figures reflect the composition of the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill, not the 150 budget account. FY2009 supplemental funding legislation includes P.L. 110-252, P.L. 111-5, and P.L. 111-32.

FY2011 Budget Request

On February 1, 2010, the Obama Administration sent its FY2011 international affairs (Function 150 account) budget request to Congress, corresponding to a total of $56.81 billion requested for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs. This represented a 3% increase from enacted FY2010 funding,¹³ and 4.5% of the total discretionary budget authority requested by the Administration for FY2011. Figure 3 provides a breakout of the request by assistance type.

Figure 3. Composition of the State-Foreign Operations Budget Request, FY2011

Source: Fiscal Year 2011 Budget of the United States Government and CRS calculations.

Figure 4 shows the major accounts in the bill in proportion to the whole request, and indicates for each account whether the requested funding level represented an increase or decrease over the FY2010-enacted appropriation level. Just five accounts—Diplomatic and Consular Programs, Economic Support Fund, Global Health and Child Survival, Foreign Military Financing, and Development Assistance—make up more than 60% of the total funding requested. While the request for several of these accounts is less than the enacted FY2010 level, such apparent decreases are the result of significant FY2010 supplemental appropriations being enacted after the FY2011 request was submitted, and do not necessarily reflect an intention to reduce spending in those accounts. For example, the Economic Support Fund request was 23% above the enacted FY2010 level at the time it was submitted, but is 12% below the current enacted level, after Congress approved $2.5 billion in supplemental funds for that account. For a full listing of funds requested for State, Foreign Operations and Related Agency accounts, see Appendix C and Appendix D.

Figure 4. Graphic Representation of the FY2011 Request for State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, by Major Accounts

Source: FY2011 State-Foreign Operations Congressional Budget Justification; CRS calculations. Notes: Accounts for which the amount requested was less than 0.5% of the total request are represented in aggregate as "other." WB = World Bank; AEECA = Assistance to Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia. * No funds have been enacted for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund or the Global Food Security Fund in FY2010, making a comparison to FY2010 not applicable. If FY2009 supplemental funds for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund are considered forward funding for FY2010, the increase from FY2010-enacted to FY2011-requested would be 58%.

FY2011 Budget Request: State Department and Related Programs¹⁴

The Administration's FY2011 budget request for the Department of State, international broadcasting, and related programs was $17.41 billion, a 1.2% decrease from the FY2010-enacted level of $17.62 billion, including the mandatory Foreign Service Retirement Fund¹⁵ and $1.52 billion in supplemental funds. Related programs funded in the State portion of the bill include the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), contributions to International Organizations (CIO), including the United Nations (U.N.), U.N. Peacekeeping (CIPA), and funding for several International Commissions and the U.S. Institute for Peace. Also included are funding for The Asia Foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy, and several other independent non-profit educational and exchange organizations which help advance U.S. interests. (For a description of all the accounts within the State Department segment of the bill, see CRS Report R40482, State, Foreign Operations Appropriations: A Guide to Component Accounts, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].)

Table 3 and Figure 5 show appropriations for the State Department and related programs over the past decade in both current and constant dollars.

Figure 5. State Department and Related Programs Appropriations, FY2001-FY2011

Source: The Department of State Congressional Budget Justifications, FY2001-FY2011, and CRS calculations.

Key State Department Issues

Within the FY2011 State Department budget request, the following issues stood out as being Administration priorities or representing significant changes from existing policy or funding levels.

Support Missions in Iraq and Other Front-Line States

The FY2011 request included significant funding to support U.S. missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, where additional logistics support, security, and information technology are needed to keep up with increasing staff levels and program responsibilities. The Administration requested $1.79 billion to support the U.S. mission in Iraq, for the abovementioned purposes as well as support for Provincial Reconstruction Teams transitioning from military to State management,¹⁶ exchange programs, and the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. The Administration also requested $754 million to support 1,500 civilian staff from various agencies in Afghanistan, and $102 million for operational support of public diplomacy activities in Pakistan.

Growth in Foreign Service Capacity

The Administration requested $9.55 billion for Diplomatic & Consular Programs (D&CP) in FY2011, which would have maintained the high funding level reached in FY2010 through a $1.33 billion supplemental appropriation for the account.¹⁷ D&CP funds most State Department salaries and expenses, and growth in FY2010 and the FY2011 request reflected the Administration's strategic plan to increase Foreign Service capacity by 25% over FY2008 levels by FY2014. Secretary of State Clinton described the strategy as a means to reduce the State Department's reliance on contractors, which she believed would improve accountability and save money in the long term. The FY2011 request would have funded 599 new positions, including 410 foreign service officers and 189 civil service personnel, and expanded and improved training in critical languages.

Retention of Consular Fees

The State Department sought authority in the FY2011 request to retain all passport and consular fees, some of which are currently retained by the Treasury. The Administration viewed this as a mechanism to cover the full cost of consular services more efficiently. Congress, however, expressed concern about this new funding mechanism, which would operate outside of the regular appropriations process and could no longer be used to off-set expenditures in the budgeting process. If the request had been granted, State anticipated an additional $2.59 billion in available fees, a 45% increase over the FY2010 estimate.

Proposed Reductions in Funding

The Administration proposed reductions in funding for voluntary contributions to international organizations and foundations, among others. The request for international organizations was $1.6 billion, a 5% decrease from FY2010, reflecting reduced or eliminated contributions to several U.N. organizations, including the U.N. High Commission on Refugees, U.N. Development Fund for Women, U.N. Development Program, U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF), and the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA). Contributions to several foundations supported by the bill would have been reduced from FY2010 levels as well. The Asia Foundation request was 17% lower than the FY2010 level, at $15.7 million; the East-West Center faced a 50% reduction, to $11.4 million; and the National Endowment for Democracy would have seen an 11% cut, to $105 million.

FY2011 Budget Request: Foreign Operations

The Foreign Operations budget comprises the majority of U.S. foreign assistance programs, both bilateral and multilateral. (See Appendix D for Foreign Operations accounts and funding levels.) The annual State-Foreign Operations Appropriations bill funds most U.S. bilateral development assistance programs, with the main exception being food assistance appropriated through the Agriculture Appropriations bill (for which $1.89 billion was appropriated in FY2010 and the same amount requested for FY2011). These funds are managed primarily by USAID and the State Department, together with several smaller independent foreign assistance agencies such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Peace Corps, and the Inter-American and African Development Foundations. The legislation also supports U.S. contributions to major multilateral financial institutions, such as the World Bank and U.N. entities, and includes funds for the Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation, whose activities are regarded more as trade promotion than foreign aid. On occasion, the bill replenishes U.S. financial commitments to international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.¹⁸

The foreign operations budget request for FY2011 totaled $39.40 billion, representing a 5% increase from the enacted FY2010 level of $37.49 billion, excluding forward funding from the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009.¹⁹ Table 4 and Figure 6 provide funding levels for foreign operations over the past decade, including enacted supplemental appropriations, in both current and constant dollars. If the FY2011 request is had been enacted, foreign operations funding would have increased by 142% in current dollars, and by 91% in constant dollars, from FY2001 to FY2011.

Figure 6. Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2001-FY2011

Source: The Foreign Operations Congressional Budget Justification, FY2001-FY2011, and CRS calculations.

Top 10 U.S. Foreign Aid Recipient Countries

Prior to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Israel and Egypt typically received the largest amounts of U.S. foreign aid every year since the Camp David Peace Accords in 1978.²⁰ The reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan moved those countries into the top five, though assistance to Iraq has declined significantly in the past couple of years, with the completion of many reconstruction activities. Meanwhile, a combination of security assistance and economic aid designed to limit the appeal of Islamic extremist organizations has moved Pakistan up the list in recent years.

In the FY2011 request, Afghanistan topped the list at nearly $4 billion, followed by Pakistan at $3 billion. Israel and Egypt would have continued to receive significant funds, primarily for Foreign Military Financing, at $3 billion and $1.56 billion, respectively. Jordan would also have ranked high on the list, with $682.7 million requested. Iraq would have been the fifth-largest recipient of aid in FY2011, under the Administration request. Assistance to the other top recipients—Kenya, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and South Africa—was targeted primarily at HIV/AIDS and other health programs. Haiti, which was a top recipient in FY2010 as a result of supplemental funds for post-earthquake relief and reconstruction, would not have been a lead recipient in FY2011 under the Administration's proposal.

Regional Distribution

As shown in Figure 7, under the FY2011 proposal, Africa and South Central Asia would have received the most U.S. foreign assistance, with about $7.6 billion requested for each. The aid to Africa primarily supports HIV/AIDS and other health-related programs while nearly $7 billion of the $7.6 billion in aid to South Central Asia was requested for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Almost as high was aid to the Near East region, which continued to be dominated by assistance to Israel, Iraq, Egypt, and Jordan. The sharp increase in Western Hemisphere totals in FY2010 could largely be attributed to nearly $1.4 billion in supplemental funds for Haiti. Assistance to Europe and Eurasia, and to East Asia and Pacific, remained relatively low and consistent, reflecting the economic gains in these regions as well as strategic priorities.

Figure 7. Regional Distribution of Foreign Aid, FY2009-FY2011 Request

Source: Foreign Operations Congressional Budget Justification, FY2011, P.L. 111-212. Note: FY2010 figures represent the Administrations request. EAP = East Asia and Pacific; EE = Europe and Eurasia; NE = Near East; SCA = South and Central Asia; WH = Western Hemisphere.

Sector Distribution

Over the years, Congress has expressed interest in various discrete aid sectors, such as education, trade, maternal and child health, and biodiversity, that are funded across multiple accounts and/or agencies. Administrations have begun presenting their respective budget requests with a section showing what portion of the request would address some of these "key interest areas." Unlike the account funding tables in the budget request, however, the key interest area breakout does not show prior year allocations, limiting year-to-year comparison to requested funds rather than actual funding. This provides an indication of the Administration's interests and priorities, but not necessarily those of congressional appropriators.

Table 6 compares the FY2010 and FY2011 budget requests for key interest areas identified by the Administration. In keeping with the Administration's major initiatives, the FY2011 request for several non-HIV/AIDS health activities increased significantly over the FY2010 request, as did the request for global climate change, food security, and microfinance programs. The Administration also emphasized two new focus areas, adding neglected tropical diseases and nutrition to the key interests list. Meanwhile, pandemic flu appears to have been a lower Administration priority than in the prior year, along with basic education, biodiversity, and Trans-Saharan Counter Terrorism (an initiative from the Obama Administration's first budget request).

Key Foreign Operations Issues

Within the FY2011 Foreign Operations budget request, the following issues stood out as being Administration priorities or representing significant changes from existing policy or funding levels.

USAID Capacity Building

USAID continues to expand its Foreign Service staff through the Development Leadership Initiative (DLI), established in 2008 to double the number of Foreign Service officers at USAID in order to more effectively implement assistance programs that have expanded significantly in recent years. As with personnel increases at State, the Administration views this plan as an investment that will lead to reduced reliance on contractors and greater accountability and cost savings over time. The Administration requested $1.48 billion for USAID Operating Expenses for FY2011, a 6% increase over the enacted FY2010 level. Of that amount, $354.8 million was designated for recruiting and hiring 200 new Foreign Service Officers at USAID, as well as supporting the annualized recurring costs of DLI positions filled since FY2008.

Military/Civilian Transition

The Department of Defense (DOD) greatly expanded its foreign aid activities in the wake of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, when high levels of security and economic aid flowed into those countries even while instability and relatively low personnel capacity limited the role of civilian aid agencies. As conditions on the ground have stabilized and both State and USAID have begun building their capacity, both the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense have expressed support for stronger civilian control of these activities. The FY2011 foreign operations request addressed this issue by including the following funding for activities that were previously funded through the Defense Appropriations bill:

• The Complex Crisis Fund, for which $100 million was requested for FY2011, would replace funding for reconstruction, security, and stabilization activities previously provided through DOD's Section 1207 authority.
• The Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, for which $1.2 billion was requested for FY2011, would move ongoing activities to improve the capabilities of Pakistan's security forces from DOD control to the purview of the Secretary of State.
• For Iraq, $314.6 million was included in the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account request for FY2011 (along with $650 million provided for this purpose in FY2010 supplemental funds) to enable State to take control of Iraqi police training programs now funded through the DOD. Secretary of State Clinton has claimed that this shift from military to civilian control would allow the defense budget for Iraq to decrease by $16 billion.²¹

Front-Line States

As demonstrated in Table 5, proposed funding for FY2011 would have largely continued the FY2010 flow of assistance to countries of strategic interest in the fight against terrorism. The request included $12.22 billion, or 34% of the total bilateral aid requested, for "front-line" states.²² For Afghanistan, $3.92 billion was requested for FY2011, primarily to increase U.S. civilian resources to balance the recent troop surge. For Pakistan, $3.05 billion was requested for FY2011, primarily to build the capacity of the government of Pakistan and support infrastructure and economic development projects that provide tangible benefits to communities and reduce the appeal of extremism. For Iraq, $729 million was requested for FY2011, on top of $650 million provided in FY2010 supplemental funds, to support the aforementioned civilian takeover of security training programs.

Global Health

The Administration requested $8.5 billion in the Global Health and Child Survival account for Global Health Initiative (GHI) activities in FY2011. The request represented an 8.8% increase over the FY2010-enacted level, or 8.1% if $50 million the Administration considered forward funding from the FY2009 supplemental was counted toward the FY2010 total. The six-year, $63 billion GHI is intended to be a comprehensive approach to global health problems that builds on the previous Administration's focus on global HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, but prioritizes building strong and sustainable health systems through an emphasis on maternal and pediatric programs, as well as strategic coordination. Some advocates for HIV/AIDS programs have expressed concern about the shift in focus, noting that funding requested for HIV/AIDS programs in FY2011, while slightly above the FY2010 level, was less than amounts authorized by Congress and, some argue, inadequate to sustain U.S. global commitments. However, Ambassador Eric Goosby, the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, has stated that GHI maternal health programs will include significant activities addressing HIV/AIDS, which is the leading cause of death worldwide for women of child bearing age.²³

Food Security

Food security, first addressed as a key issue in the FY2010 budget request, continues to be a priority for the Obama Administration, which requested $1.64 billion for related programs in the FY2011 budget. This amount did not include P.L. 480 food assistance funds, provided through the Agriculture appropriation. The Administration's new Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative is intended to address root causes of food insecurity and proposes to target funding to countries with widespread hunger, an agriculture-based economy, and comprehensive strategies for food security already in place. The request also emphasized the benefits of working multilaterally and in partnership with other stakeholders to leverage resources. The request included $408.4 million for the new multi-donor Global Food Security Trust Fund, managed by the World Bank, which would have supported large-scale transportation and irrigation infrastructure, commercial financing, and research.

Climate Change

The Administration requested $1.39 billion in FY2011 to support activities relating to climate change, with an emphasis on adaptation, deployment of clean energy technologies, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through sustainable landscapes. A significant portion of this climate change funding would have been channeled through international financial institutions. The $400 million requested for contribution to the International Clean Technology Fund represented a 33% increase over the FY2010-enacted level. The request also included $235 million for the International Strategic Climate Fund, a 213.3% increase over the estimated FY2010 contribution. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner explained this emphasis on multilateral funding, both for climate change and food security, as a fiscally responsible approach intended to leverage commitments from other donors and increase the impact of U.S. funds.²⁴

Appendix A. Structure of State-Foreign Operations Appropriations

Source: CRS.

Appendix B. Abbreviations

Appendix C. State Department and Related Programs Appropriations

Appendix D. Foreign Operations Appropriations

Appendix E. International Affairs (150) Budget Account

Key Policy Staff

Acknowledgments

Ken Nakamura, who retired from CRS, co-authored this report.

Footnotes