Foreign Operations (House)/State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (Senate): FY2006 Appropriations
CRS Report for Congress
Foreign Operations (House)/State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs (Senate):
Updated January 27, 2006
Specialist 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?P RDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=73 ].
Foreign Operations (House)/State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs (Senate) Appropriations
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.
Funding for Foreign Operations and State Department/Broadcasting programs
have been rising for five consecutive years, while 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.
The President sought $22.8 billion for Foreign Operations and $9.8 billion for
State Department and Related Agencies appropriations. These amounts were 15.7%
and 12.2%, respectively, higher than FY2005 amounts enacted in “regular,” non-
supplemental appropriations. The combined State/Foreign Operations request of
$32.67 billion was 14.6% larger than regular FY2005 funding. Including the $4.55
billion FY2005 supplemental (H.R. 1268; enacted on May 11), the FY2006
combined request was slightly smaller (-1.1%) than the total appropriation of $33.05
billion for FY2005.
A major challenge for Congress in considering the President’s Foreign
Operations and State Department spending proposals has been the tightening budget
environment. The FY2006 Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 95) set international
affairs spending 7% below the President’s request. The House Appropriations
Committee’s spending allocation among all spending bills provided $20.27 billion
for Foreign Operations, 11.2% less than the proposal. The Senate Committee
allocation of $31.67 billion for the combined State Department/Foreign Operations
measure was $1 billion, or 3% below the request. Other key issues for congressional
review were foreign aid in support of the war on terror, the Millennium Challenge
Account, HIV/AIDS funding, allocations among “core” development programs,
public diplomacy, educational exchange programs, rising demands for U.N.
peacekeeping contributions, and democracy promotion activities.
On November 14, President Bush signed a $20.94 billion Foreign Operations
appropriation for FY2006 (P.L. 109-102; H.R. 3057). The bill is nearly $1.9 billion,
or 8% below the Administration’s request. The total falls closer to the House-passed
$20.27 billion level than to the Senate’s $22.16 amount. State Department funds
included in the Senate version of H.R. 3057 became part of the conference on H.R.
This report will be updated to reflect congressional action on the legislation.
Key Policy Staff
Subj ect Na me Telepho ne E- M a il
General: Foreign Operations Policy Issues/BudgetLarry Nowels7firstname.lastname@example.org
General: Foreign Operations Policy IssuesCurt Tarnoff7email@example.com
General: State Dept Policy Issues/BudgetSusan Epstein7firstname.lastname@example.org
Africa AidRaymond Copson7email@example.com
Agency for International Development (USAID)Larry Nowels7firstname.lastname@example.org
Asia Aid ProgramsThomas Lum7email@example.com
Broadcasting, InternationalSusan Epstein7firstname.lastname@example.org
Central AsiaJim Nichol7email@example.com
Debt ReliefJonathan Sanford7firstname.lastname@example.org
Development Assistance (bilateral)Larry Nowels7email@example.com
Disaster/Humanitarian AidRhoda Margesson7firstname.lastname@example.org
Drug/Counternarcotics ProgramsRaphael Perl7email@example.com
Drug/Counternarcotics, Andean RegionConnie Veillette7firstname.lastname@example.org
Export-Import BankJames Jackson7email@example.com
Family Planning ProgramsLarry Nowels7firstname.lastname@example.org
Health ProgramsTiaji Salaam7email@example.com
International Affairs BudgetLarry Nowels7firstname.lastname@example.org
International Monetary Fund (IMF)Marty Weiss7email@example.com
Iraq ReconstructionCurt Tarnoff7firstname.lastname@example.org
Latin America AssistanceConnie Veillette7email@example.com
Middle East AssistanceJeremy Sharp7firstname.lastname@example.org
Military Aid/Arms SalesRichard Grimmett7email@example.com
Millennium Challenge AccountLarry Nowels7firstname.lastname@example.org
Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs)Jonathan Sanford7email@example.com
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)James Jackson7firstname.lastname@example.org
Peace CorpsCurt Tarnoff7email@example.com
Nina Serafino firstname.lastname@example.org
Public DiplomacySusan Epstein7email@example.com
Refugee AidRhoda Margesson7firstname.lastname@example.org
Russia/East Europe AidCurt Tarnoff7email@example.com
Trafficking in PersonsFrancis Miko7firstname.lastname@example.org
U.N. Assessed and Voluntary ContributionsVita Bite7email@example.com
U.S. Institute of PeaceSusan Epstein7firstname.lastname@example.org
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
In troduction ......................................................2
Foreign Operations Overview....................................3
State Department/Broadcasting Overview...........................4
Related Foreign Policy Authorization Measures......................4
Foreign Operations and State Department Policy Trends and Goals...........7
Foreign Aid Policy Shifts........................................7
Impact of the September 11 Terrorist Attacks........................8
Foreign Operations and State Department Funding Trends..................9
Foreign Operations Appropriations Trends..........................9
Growing Importance of Supplementals........................11
State Department/Broadcasting Appropriation Trends................12
Foreign Operations/State Department, the FY2005 Budget Resolution, and
Section 302(b) Allocations.....................................15
Foreign Operations/State Department Appropriations Request for FY2006....17
Foreign Operations Request Overview and Congressional Action...........17
Congressional Action — Summary...............................19
Fighting the War on Terrorism..................................25
The Millennium Challenge Account..............................28
President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)..............29
Development and Humanitarian Assistance: Funding Priorities,
Account Restructuring, and Policy Differences..................32
USAID Appropriation Account Realignment Proposals...........37
Family Planning and UNFPA Policy Controversies..............39
Conflict Response Fund........................................43
Other Key Elements of the FY2006 Request and Congressional Action..43
Leading Foreign Aid Recipients Proposed for FY2006................47
Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP)...................50
Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance (ESCM)........51
Educational and Cultural Exchanges..........................52
The Capital Investment Fund (CIF)...........................52
International Organizations and Conferences.......................53
Contributions to International Organizations (CIO)..............53
Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA).....53
Related State Department Appropriations..........................54
The Asia Foundation......................................54
The International Center for Middle Eastern-Western Dialogue
National Endowment for Democracy (NED)....................55
Broadcasting Board of Governors................................56
Visa Issuance and Homeland Security.............................57
FY2005 Emergency Supplemental...................................57
For Additional Reading............................................64
List of Figures
Figure 1. Foreign Operations Funding Trends..........................10
Figure 2. Supplemental Funding for Foreign Operations..................12
Figure 3. State Department/Broadcasting Funding Trends.................14
Figure 4. Budget Function 150......................................15
List of Tables
Table 1. House Status of Foreign Operations, FY2006 (H.R. 3057)..........6
Table 2. Senate Status of State, Foreign Operations, FY2006 (H.R. 3057).....6
Table 3. Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY1996 to FY2006...........11
Table 4. State Department/Broadcasting Appropriations, FY1996 to FY2006..14
Table 5. Foreign Operations Significant Increases FY2006................18
Table 6. Global Counter-Terrorism Program Funding....................26
Table 7. U.S. International HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Programs..31
Table 8. Development Assistance Funding.............................33
Table 9. Economic Aid Allocations, by Program Sector..................34
Table 10. Selected Development Aid Funding Targets — Congressional
Table 11. Summary of Foreign Operations Appropriations................47
Table 13. Summary of State Department/Broadcasting Appropriations.......51
Table 14. Foreign Policy Funds in FY2005 Supplemental.................61
Table 15. Foreign Operations: Detailed Account Funding Levels...........70
Table 16. State Department/Broadcasting: Detailed Account Funding
Foreign Operations (House)/State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs (Senate)
Appropriations for FY2006
Most Recent Developments
On December 30, 2005, President Bush signed the Department of Defense
Appropriation for FY2006 (P.L. 109-148), legislation that affects Foreign Operations
spending in three ways. The Defense appropriation includes $3.8 billion for
addressing the avian influenza virus, of which $131.5 million is available to USAID
for international surveillance, planning, preparedness, and response. P.L. 109-148
further rescinds $25 million from the Export-Import Bank as part of a large package
to offset the costs of relief for victims of Hurricane Katrina. Finally, the Defense
appropriation enacts a 1% across-the-board reduction for most non-emergency
discretionary appropriations, resulting in a reduction in Foreign Operations spending
of approximately $209 million from the amount approved earlier for FY2006.
Previously, on November 14, 2005, President Bush signed into law a $20.94
billion Foreign Operations appropriation for FY2006 (P.L. 109-102; H.R. 3057).
(The net total for Foreign Operations, after adjusting for supplemental funds and
rescissions enacted in P.L. 109-148, is $20.83 billion.) The House passed the
conference report (H.Rept. 109-265) on November 4 (358-39), while the Senate
approved it on November 10 (91-0). Conferees decided to separate the State
Department and related agencies portion of the Senate-passed measure, and address
those funding and policy issues as part of the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce
appropriation (H.R. 2862).
The enacted Foreign Operations appropriations, adjusted for supplementals and
rescissions in P.L. 109-148, falls $2.1 billion, or 9.3% below the President’s request,
and represents by far the largest cut in regular (non-supplemental) Foreign Operations
spending relative to the Administration’s proposal during the Bush Administration.
The total, however, remains about $1.4 billion higher than the regular FY2005
foreign aid spending measure (excluding emergency and supplemental
appropriations), and falls between the House-passed $20.27 billion level and the
Senate-passed $22.16 billion amount.
Conferees made the largest reduction to the President’s proposed $3 billion
Millennium Challenge Account, paring the appropriation down to $1.77 billion. For
nearly every other account, the enacted bill also sets spending at or somewhat below
requested levels. P.L. 109-102 further reduces the President’s $459 million request
for Iraq to $61 million.
In a few selected areas, however, the enacted measure adds funds.
Appropriations for the three “core” bilateral development aid accounts of Child
Survival/Health, Development Assistance, and the Global AIDS Initiative are $5.2
billion, or 10.5% higher than the request, and aid to the former Soviet states is set at
$514 million, 6.6% more than proposed. The conference agreement further adds to
spending for the African and Inter-American Foundations, voluntary contributions
to international organizations, and establishes a new Democracy Fund of $95 million
as proposed by the Senate. The total amount for HIV/AIDS, malaria, and
tuberculosis programs, across all Foreign Operations accounts, is $2.82 billion, up
from the President’s $2.56 billion request. This includes $450 million for the Global
Fund, higher than the $200 million request. For family planning, P.L. 109-102
provides $466 million — $432 million in bilateral funding and $34 million as a
contribution to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA). This compares to a $425
million total request.
On key policy issues, the conference agreement deletes Senate-passed
provisions that would have reversed the Mexico City family planning policy and
altered the Kemp-Kasten restrictions that apply to U.S. contributions to the U.N.
Population Fund (UNFPA). The enacted measure also stipulates that a portion of
U.S. assistance to Egypt must support democracy, human rights, and governance
Amounts appropriated for Foreign Operations programs and for the Department
of State and related agencies comprise about 97% of the total International Affairs
budget and represent roughly 7% 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
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. Subsequently, in late October, House and Senate
Appropriations Committees agreed that for FY2006, appropriation bill jurisdictions
would follow the House structure. Consequently, State Department funds were
removed from the Senate-passed legislation (H.R. 3507) and are incorporated in H.R.
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. To read about State Department/Broadcasting
issues within the context of the House SSJC appropriation measure and the final
conference report, see CRS Report RL32885, Science, State, Justice, Commerce and
Related Agencies (House)/Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies
(Senate): FY2006 Appropriations, coordinated by Ian F. Fergusson and Susan B.
Foreign Operations Overview
Foreign Operations, the larger of the two components with a request of $22.8
billion for FY2006, 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.1
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
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 support. 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 Israel and Egypt is also part
of the Foreign Operations spending measure, as are other security aid programs
administered largely by the State Department, in conjunction with USAID and the
Pentagon. Foreign Operations appropriations also fund reconstruction programs in
Afghanistan and Iraq, and for countries affected by the December 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami. 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 also funded in
the Foreign Operations bill. Finally, the legislation includes appropriations for three
1 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
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 $9.8 billion in FY2006, 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 U.S. Institute of Peace, Asia Foundation,
National Endowment for Democracy, and several other small educational and
exchange organizations. This title also appropriates resources for international
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 prior to foreign
aid and the State Department’s expenditure of its appropriations. When Congress
does not pass these authorization measures, as was the case during the 108th
Congress, the appropriation bills must waive the authorization requirement for
foreign policy agencies and programs to continue to function.2 In some cases, this
results in the attachment of foreign affairs 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 without3
regular authorizations originating from the legislative oversight committees. 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
2 For details on foreign relations authorization legislation from the 108th and 109th
Congresses, see CRS Report RL31986, Foreign Relations Authorization, FY2004 and
FY2005: State Department and Foreign Assistance; and CRS Report RL33000, Foreign
Relations Authorization, FY2006 and FY2007: An Overview, both by Susan B. Epstein.
3 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, assistance for the
former Soviet states (Freedom Support Act) and Eastern Europe (SEED Act),
microenterprise programs, and the Peace Corps.
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 global war on terrorism since the attacks of September 11, 2001,
and launched Afghan and Iraqi reconstruction operations.
These appropriation measures have also been a key instrument used by Congress
to apply restrictions and conditions on Administration 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 FY2006
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 FY2006
budget request posed several key matters that the 109th Congress closely examined
and debated. For Foreign Operations programs, major issues included:
!The overall size of the request — a 15.7% increase over regular
FY2005 Foreign Operations funds — and whether competing budget
proposals for domestic programs and efforts to reduce the deficit
would permit full funding of the $22.83 billion recommendation.
!Foreign aid in support of the global war on terror and whether the
FY2006 request fully addressed this high national security priority,
including resources for reconstruction efforts in Iraq and
!The Millennium Challenge Account and whether progress thus far
on this new, innovative foreign aid program justified a doubling of
its budget in FY2006.
!HIV/AIDS funding and whether the 12.5% funding increase for
FY2006 and the implementation and allocation of resources,
including those for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis,
and Malaria, were fully meeting the vision of the President’s $15
!“Core” development and humanitarian aid programs and whether
proposed funding reductions for some activities and account
restructuring to enhance flexibility were justified.
On State Department operations, key policy and funding issues included:
!The U.S. embassy in Iraq and funding for ongoing operations,
security, and construction.
!Public Diplomacy: educational and cultural exchange funds would
increase in FY2006 by 21% and broadcasting operations by 10%.
!International Peacekeeping contributions would rise by 114% over
FY2005 regular appropriation levels for new operations in Sudan
!Democracy promotion activities, emphasized by President Bush and
Secretary of State Rice, was highlighted by a 35% increase in funds
for the National Endowment for Democracy.
Table 1. House Status of Foreign Operations,
FY2006 (H.R. 3057)
Markup House House Senat e Senat e Conf . Approval Public
Re por t P assage Re por t P assage Re por t Law
H ouse Senat e H ouse Senat e
6/24 6/28 a. a. 11/2 11/04 11/10 11/14
109-152 109-265 109-102
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.
Table 2. Senate Status of State, Foreign Operations, FY2006 (H.R. 3057)
Markup House House Senat e Senat e Conf . Approval Public
Re por t P assage Re por t P assage Re por t Law
H ouse Senat e H ouse Senat e
b. 6/29 b. b. 6/30S.Rept. 7/20 c. c. c. c.
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.
a. In the Senate, Foreign Operations programs are included as part of the Senate State, Foreign Operations
appropriations bill that was marked-up in subcommittee on June 29, reported by the full Senate Appropriations
Committee on June 30, and passed the Senate on July 20 (98-1).
b. In the House, the State Department component of the Senate State, Foreign Operations appropriation measure is
included in the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce spending bill (H.R. 2862). H.R. 2862 was marked-up at
the subcommittee level on May 24, by the full House Appropriations Committee on June 7, and passed by the
House on June 16.
c. House and Senate Appropriations Committees agreed to follow the House bill structure for FY2006. Consequently,
State Department programs are included in the conference version of H.R. 2862, the SSJC measure.
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 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
of illegal drugs, expanding peace efforts in the Middle East, seeking solutions to
conflicts around the globe, protecting human rights, 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, the influence of which U.S. assistance previously tried to combat.
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
efforts to overhaul the largely Cold War-based foreign aid legislation also did not
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 the U.S. Agency for International
Development (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.4
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 has been cast frequently in terms of contributing to the global 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”
of U.S. national security, along with defense and diplomacy. 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.5 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
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
4 U.S. Agency for International Development. U.S. Foreign Aid: Meeting the Challenges
of the Twenty-First Century. January 2004.
5 According to the State Department, these “front-line” states include 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.
HIV/AIDS pandemic. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is a new aid
delivery concept, authorized by Congress and established in early 2004 in 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, $5 billion
will be available by FY2006 to support these “best development performers” in order
to accelerate economic growth and lower the number of people living in absolute
Addressing global health problems has further 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
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, and Liberia; facilitating democratization and free market
economies in Central Europe and the former Soviet Union; suppressing international
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.
Foreign Operations and State Department
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
6 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.
For example, the large increase in FY1981 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 29 years.
Foreign Operations appropriations began a period of decline to a low-point of $14.6
billion in FY1997, with only a brief period of higher amounts in the early 1990s due
to special supplementals for Panama and Nicaragua (1990), countries affected by the
Gulf War (1991), and the former Soviet states (1993).
Arguing that declining international affairs resources seriously undermined U.S.
foreign policy interests and limited the ability of American officials to influence
overseas events, Clinton Administration officials and outside groups vigorously
campaigned to reverse the decade-long decline in the foreign policy budget. Foreign
aid spending increased slightly in FY1998, but beginning the following year and
continuing to the present, Foreign Operations appropriations have trended upward
due in large part to the approval of resources for special, and in some cases
unanticipated, foreign policy contingencies and new initiatives.
While funding for regular, continuing foreign aid programs also rose modestly
during this period, 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), was chiefly responsible
for the growth in foreign aid appropriations.
Figure 1. Foreign Operations Funding Trends
Although Foreign Operations appropriations had been rising for five consecutive
years, amounts approved in FY2003 and FY2004 reached unprecedented levels
compared with funding over the past 40 years. Substantial supplementals of $7.5
billion and $21.2 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 FY2006 dollars)
— was the highest level, in real terms, since the early 1960s.
The enacted level for FY2005 of $22.75 billion (in constant terms and including
supplemental appropriations,) while less than the previous two years, is the largest
Foreign Operations appropriation, in real terms, in all other years in over a decade.
Table 3. Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY1996 to FY2006
(discretionary budget authority in billions of current and constant dollars)
nominal 12.46 12.27 13.15 15.44 16.41 16.31 16.54 23.67 39.05 22.27 20.83
constant 15.15 14.64 15.54 18.00 18.67 18.14 18.11 25.41 41.01 22.75 20.83
Note: FY1999 excludes $17.861 billion for the IMF. FY2003 includes $2.475 billion and FY2004 includes
$19.42 billion in supplemental appropriations for Iraq reconstruction. FY2005 includes the regular
appropriation, plus $100 million for Caribbean hurricane relief provided in P.L. 108-324 and $2.77 billion
provided in P.L. 109-13, the FY2005 emergency supplemental for Iraq, Afghanistan, and tsunami relief.
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.
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. 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 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 six 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.
Figure 2. Supplemental Funding for Foreign Operations
'98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '0 3 '04 '05
Supplem ental Regular
Until FY2003, these additional resources accounted for between 7% and 11%
of total Foreign Operations spending. The $7.5 billion Iraq War 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 — $2.52 billion — largely for additional Afghan
reconstruction, tsunami disaster relief, and additional aid for Sudan — representing
about 11% of total appropriations for that year.7
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 FY2006 budget request is more than double what it
was in the 1978-1984 time period.
7 The FY2005 supplemental included $3.52 billion in “new” Foreign Operations funds, but
a $1 billion rescission of FY2003 economic aid to Turkey lowered the “net” supplemental
to $2.52 billion.
Many of the spikes in funding over the years were related to overseas security
issues. Since the Vietnam War, American embassies have increasingly 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 of
the embassy annex in Beirut in 1984. In 1985, a report by the Advisory Panel on
Overseas Security, headed by Admiral Bobby Inman, set 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 the State
Department funding levels to all-time highs by FY2004.
The Clinton Administration generally believed in a multilateral approach to
handling international problems, and sought an expansion of U.N. involvement in
international peacekeeping. In 1994, the Administration requested supplemental
funding for U.N. peacekeeping to provide more help with Cyprus and African
regional efforts, as well as Angola, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Haiti, and
Mozambique. Congress appropriated $670 million for the peacekeeping
supplemental in 1994, more than doubling the international peacekeeping account
During this same period, both Congress and the Administration struggled to
reduce the Federal deficit. Some Members contended that, with the end of the Cold
War, a peace dividend could be derived, and believed that foreign policy agency
funding could be trimmed to help meet growing budget pressures. Reorganization
of the international broadcasting entities beginning in 1994, and later the
consolidation of the foreign policy agencies into the Department of State in 1999,
reflected the mood in Congress to streamline these foreign policy agencies, thereby
realizing budgetary savings.
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 nearly $6.8 billion in the FY2006
request, an increase, in real terms, of 70%.
Figure 3. State Department/Broadcasting Funding Trends
Table 4. State Department/Broadcasting Appropriations,
FY1996 to FY2006
(discretionary budget authority in billions of current and constant dollars)
nominal 4.77 4.87 5.06 6.91 6.16 6.91 7.71 8.05 9.29 10.67 9.49
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 are scheduled to receive $42.5 million and $132.6 million,
respectively, for FY2005.
In addition, funding levels and trends discussed in this report exclude U.S.
contributions to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which are enacted
periodically (about every five years) in Foreign Operations bills. Congress
approved $17.9 billion for the IMF in FY1999, the first appropriation 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 FY2005
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 AppropriationsFigure 4. Budget Function 150
panels under what is referred to asTotal = $31.57 billion
the Section 302(a) allocationForeign Operations $20.83
process. Section 302(a) is the
pertinent authority in the66.0%
Congressional Budget Act.
Following this, House and Senate
separately decide how to allot theFood Aid - $1.25
total amount available among their30.1%
subcommittees, staying within the
functional guidelines set in the
budget resolution. This second stepState Dept - $9.49
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
How much International Affairs money to allocate among each of the
subcommittees with jurisdiction, 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 implications for the budget limitations within which the House and Senate
subcommittees will operate when they meet to mark up their annual appropriation
On March 17, 2005, both houses approved budget resolutions for FY2006
(H.Con.Res. 95 and S.Con.Res.18) that reduce the amount of discretionary budget
authority for International Affairs funding compared with the Presidents’s request.
The House measure cut Function 150 by about $1.6 billion, or 4.7%, while the Senate
resolution set discretionary spending roughly $350 million, or 1%, below the
The final agreement on H.Con.Res. 95, which cleared both Houses on April 28,
cut deeper into the International Affairs budget function than either of the earlier
resolutions. As approved, Function 150 was set at $31.37 billion for FY2006, about
$2.4 billion, or 7%, less than the President’s request.
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 the budget resolution
created a challenging budget picture for appropriation subcommittees with
jurisdiction over Foreign Operations and State Department/Broadcasting programs.
The House Appropriations Committee announced its subcommittee allocations
on May 5, providing $20.27 billion to the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, a level
$2.55 billion, or 11%, below the Administration’s recommendation. During each of
the past two years, the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee was able to absorb
more modest reductions to the President’s request largely by paring back large
increases proposed by the President for the Millennium Challenge Account. Once
again the executive branch sought a substantial increase for the MCA — doubling
its budget to $3 billion. As discussed elsewhere in this report, even though the House
Subcommittee decided on June 16 again to recommend a sizable cut to the MCA
proposal ($1.75 billion), it also had to make reductions across a number of other
programs and accounts in order to meet its allocation target.
For State Department and related programs, the implications of the House Sec.
302(b) allocations were less clear because these funds are merged with a range of
domestic agencies. However, the $57.5 billion House SSJC Subcommittee allocation
was 5.2% less than the Administration’s request. State Department programs
absorbed a relatively small portion of this reduction — $272 million, or 3.7% less
than the request — when the House Appropriations Committee ordered reported the
SSJC measure on June 7.
The situation in the Senate was much different, where the State, Foreign
Operations Subcommittee had significantly more funds than its House counterparts
to support international under its jurisdiction. The Senate 302(b) allocations, issued
on June 9, provide $31.67 billion to the Subcommittee, $1 billion, or 3.1% less than
the combined State Department/Foreign Operations request. The comparable totals
for the House Foreign Operations and State Department/Broadcasting components
of the SSJC appropriation were $29.837 billion or about 6% less than the Senate
allocation. Under the Senate plan, the decision to reduce the MCA request along the
lines of the past two years was able to absorb the entire gap between the President’s
request for FY2006 and the Subcommittee allocation. As noted elsewhere, the
Senate passed on July 20 a bill providing $1.8 billion for the MCA, $1.2 billion less
than the request.
Prior to finalizing the Foreign Operations conference agreement, the
Committees once again revised the 302(b) allocations, setting the budget authority
cap for Foreign Operations at $20.94 billion. This level was about $670 million
higher than the original House amount, but over $1.2 billion below the Senate initial
mark. State Department/Broadcasting funds included in the Senate bill were moved
to the SSJC appropriation and were not a factor in the Foreign Operations final
Foreign Operations/State Department
Appropriations Request for FY2006
On February 7, 2005, the President submitted his FY2006 budget request,
including $22.8 billion for Foreign Operations and $9.8 billion for State Department
and Related Agencies appropriations. These amounts were 15.7% and 12.2%,
respectively, higher than FY2005 amounts enacted in regular, non-supplemental
appropriations. The combined Foreign Operations/State Department request of
$32.67 billion was 14.6% larger than regular FY2005 funding. With passage of the
FY2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations (H.R. 1268), total Foreign
Operations for FY2005 increased to $22.27 billion, while State
Department/Broadcasting funds rose to $10.78 billion. Comparing the FY2006
request with the total amount enacted for FY2005 — regular and supplemental —
found Foreign Operations increasing for FY2006 by about $550 million, or 2.5%, and
State Department and related programs decreasing by $943 million, or 8.7%.
Foreign Operations Request Overview and
The 15.7% increase over regular FY2005 appropriations proposed for Foreign
Operations was one of the largest additions in the President’s request for
discretionary spending in FY2006. By comparison, the Administration sought
increases for two other high priority budget areas — defense and homeland security
— of about 5% and 3%, respectively.
Despite the large overall increase for Foreign Operations, much of the added
funding was concentrated in a few areas. The FY2006 budget continued to highlight
foreign aid in support of the war on terrorism as the highest priority, with a 9%
increase in aid to the front-line states in the war on terrorism and 12% more funds for
global counter-terror programs. Resources would continue to grow for the
President’s two newest foreign aid initiatives — the Millennium Challenge Account
(MCA) and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The MCA
request doubled to $3 billion in FY2006 while Foreign Operations funds for
PEPFAR would rise from $2.28 billion in FY2005 to $2.56 billion in the FY2006
request. (Additional PEPFAR funds were proposed in the Labor/HHS appropriation
measure, bringing the total FY2005 PEPFAR request to $3.16 billion.)
After failing to win congressional approval the past three years for a contingency
fund that could be used in response to unanticipated foreign policy emergencies, the
White House again proposed $100 million for a Crisis Response Fund. The State
Department’s International Narcotics and Law Enforcement program would also
receive a significant funding boost of over 60%, almost entirely to support a nearly
three-fold increase in programs to stem opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. The
Administration was also seeking the transfer of about $300 million in food
assistance, traditionally funded in the Agriculture appropriation measure, to Foreign
Operations and USAID’s disaster assistance account in order to enhance the
flexibility and lower costs for providing timely emergency food relief overseas.
Table 5. Foreign Operations Significant Increases FY2006
($ in billions)
Re gul a r * Request F Y 2005
Foreign Operations Total$19.737$22.82615.7%
Significant increases for FY2006:
“Front-Line States” aid$5.300$5.8009.4%
Millennium Challenge Account$1.488$3.000 101.6%
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief$2.279$2.564 12.5%
Conflict Response Fund — $0.100 —
USAID disaster assistance$0.485$0.65635.3%
Significant increases for FY2006, Total$9.931$12.543 26.3%
Remaining Foreign Operations Programs$9.806$10.2834.9%
a. Original request, not counting the avian influenza virus supplemental request of Nov. 1, 2005.
b. Because all assistance for Afghanistan is included in the figures for the front-line states above,
counter-narcotics programs for Afghanistan are not included here in order to avoid double-
counting. If Afghan counter-drug aid was included, FY2005 would total $326 million,
compared with $524 million requested for FY2006, a 60% increase.
* FY2005 excludes emergency supplemental funding.
Combined, funding for these major elements of the Foreign Operations request
totaled $12.5 billion, or 26% higher than for FY2005. By contrast, the $10.3 billion
proposed for all other Foreign Operations activities was just 4.8% higher than
FY2005 regular appropriations amounts.
Congressional Action — Summary
House Consideration. As passed by the House on June 28, foreign aid
programs would receive $20.27 billion, an amount $2.55 billion, or 11%, less than
the President’s request. Compared with FY2005 levels, the FY2006 recommendation
(H.R. 3057) was $730 million, or 3.7%, higher than regular appropriations for this
year, but $2 billion, or 9%, less than the total amount enacted for FY2005, including
supplemental funding provided in P.L. 109-13.
The largest reductions proposed by the House measure focused on the
Millennium Challenge Account ($1.75 billion vs. $3 billion requested), aid to Iraq
(elimination of the $459 million request), the Conflict Response Fund (elimination
of the $100 million request), a contribution to the Global Environment Facility
(elimination of the $107 million request), and refugee aid ($791 million vs. $893
million requested). The House recommendation, however, increased to $2.696
billion funding for HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis ($131 million above the
request), including $400 million for a U.S. contribution to the Global Fund to Fight
AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis, double the requested amount.8 H.R. 3057, as
passed the House, proposed $466 million for family planning programs and the U.N.
Population Fund ($425 million requested), but retained current restrictions on the
assistance. In total, the bill included $367 million for Sudan, as requested, of which
$69 million would be available for the Darfur region.
During full House Committee markup on June 21, Members adopted an
amendment earmarking $50 million of Egypt’s $495 million economic aid package
for democracy and governance activities carried out by U.S. and Egyptian non-
governmental organizations and $50 million to support basic education programs.
This would roughly double the amounts planned by USAID for these activities in
Egypt for FY2006. Most of U.S. economic assistance to Egypt was provided as a
cash transfer ($200 million) and as a commodity import program ($200 million) in
support of job creation and trade enhancement objectives.
The Committee defeated two amendments that would have shifted $40 million
of Egypt’s military aid to economic programs and required the State Department to
report to Congress on Israel’s West Bank settlements policy. As ordered reported,
the legislation provided full funding, as requested, for both Israel ($2.52 billion) and
Egypt ($1.8 billion).
8 In related legislation, the House did not provide an additional $100 million for the Global
Fund, as requested, in the Labor/HHS/Ed appropriation (H.R. 3010). The combined Foreign
Ops-Labor/HHS/Ed appropriation total in the House was $400 million for the Global Fund,
compared with $300 million proposed.
During House floor debate on June 28, Members approved several amendments
!Baring Export-Import Bank loans to support Westinghouse and other
investors seeking to win a contract to build nuclear power plants in
China (Sanders; 313-114);
!Prohibiting $25,000 in military training funds for Saudi Arabia
!Banning aid to countries that refuse to extradite to the United States
individuals accused of certain crimes. The Beauprez amendment
(approved 327-98) blocked aid to those that did not extradite
individuals accused of killing American law enforcement officers.
The Deal amendment (approved 294-132) banned assistance (except
counternarcotics aid) to nations that did not extradite those charged
with crimes that would result with a life imprisonment without
parole sentence or less. Both amendments were related to several
pending cases, including those involving Mexico and Nicaragua.
The Deal amendment was similar to a Chamblis proposal adopted by
!Adding $9 million, for a total of $36 million, to the State
Department’s Human Rights and Disarmament Fund (Schiff);
!Prohibiting aid through the SEED account to Romania (Bradley).
The House further defeated several amendments, including those:
!Transferring $750 million in military aid to Egypt to the Child
Survival and Health account in order to support additional malaria
and other infectious disease programs (Pitts; 87-326). The
amendment was strongly opposed by the Administration.
!Reducing by $100 million funds for the Andean Counternarcotics
Initiative (McGovern; 189-234).
Senate Consideration. On July 20, the Senate passed H.R. 3057,
recommending a $31.67 billion combined measure for State Department and Foreign
Operations activities. For Foreign Operations programs, the bill proposed $22.16
billion, or $664 million (-2.9%) less than the President’s request. For State
Department activities, the measure recommended about $9.5 billion, or 3.4% less
than the request.
Major changes recommended by the Senate to the President’s request on
Foreign Operations issues included:
!Reducing to $1.8 billion funding for the Millennium Challenge
Account, slightly higher than the House, but $1.2 billion below the
!Increasing by $400 million (for a total of $2.97 billion across all
accounts) for HIV/AIDS programs. This included $500 million for
the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, 150%
higher than the request;
!Full funding for counter-terrorism and counter-narcotics accounts;
!Full funding for aid to key states of strategic interest, including Iraq,
Afghanistan, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, and Pakistan;
!$24 million for the President’s Conflict Response Fund, less than the
$100 million proposal; the House denied this request;
!Increasing slightly the refugee aid request to $900 million;
!Adding about $700 million for development and child survival
programs beyond the President’s request;
!Raising amounts for international family planning programs to $485
million ($450 million for bilateral activities and $35 million for
UNFPA), modifying the “Kemp-Kasten” restrictions on UNFPA
eligibility, and adding text that would essentially overturn the
President’s “Mexico City policy” regarding abortion.
!Increasing aid for states of the former Soviet Union to $565 million,
$83 million higher than the request.
!Adding a new account — the Democracy Fund — that provided
$175 million, including $80 million for the National Endowment for
Democracy. In total, the Senate measure included $1.45 billion for
democracy and human rights activities across all economic aid
!Providing full funding for the Global Environment Facility ($117
million); the House measure denied funds for the GEF.
For State Department activities, the Senate bill:
!Fully funded the President’s requests for Diplomatic and Consular
programs and for International Broadcasting;
!Added $10 million ($440 million total) for Educational and Cultural
!Increased spending for the National Endowment for Democracy to
$89 million, $9 million more than requested;9
!Reduced by $22 million funding for embassy security — $1.5 billion
total — an amount equal to FY2005 regular appropriations and the
amount included in House-passed legislation.
During floor debate between July 18 and July 20, the Senate took action on 46
amendments. Major amendments approved by the Senate included:
!Adding $100 million (for a $500 million total) to the U.S.
contribution to the Global ATM Fund. To accommodate the
increase, the bill reduced by $100 million appropriations for the
Economic Support Fund (Santorum);
!Barring aid for State Department programs (except counter-
narcotics) for countries that refuse to extradite individuals accused
of committing crimes in the U.S. that would result in punishment of
life in prison without parole or less. This was similar to the Deal
amendment in the House. (Chamblis; 86-12);
!Setting aside $50 million of Egypt’s economic aid for education
programs (Brownback). This added to a Senate Committee earmark
of $35 million for democracy activities. The House measure
provided $100 million for democracy and education;
!Transferring $50 million from the Conflict Response Fund to the
Foreign Military Financing account for additional aid to the African
Union’s mission in Sudan (Corzine);
!Making $105 million available for malaria programs, including
“considerable support” for the purchase of commodities and
!Limiting U.S. funds for UNFPA to six activities: 1) safe child birth
and emergency obstetric care; 2) obstetric fistula treatment and care;
3) contraceptive supplies for preventing pregnancies and sexually
transmitted diseases, including AIDS; 4) restoration of maternal
health care in locations hit by natural disasters; 5) eliminate female
genital mutilation; and 6) access by unaccompanied women and
other vulnerable individuals to vital services (Leahy and Clinton).
The Senate also defeated several proposals, including a ban on Eximbank loans
for nuclear projects in China (Coburn; 37-62). The House adopted a similar
amendment (Sanders). Also rejected by the Senate was an amendment by Senator
9 Of this total, $80 million for NED is provided in the Foreign Operations portion of the bill
within a new account: Democracy Fund.
Dorgan that would eliminate $21.1 million in funds for television broadcasting to
Cuba and add the same amount of funds for the Peace Corps (33-66).
Conference Agreement. As approved on November 1 by House-Senate
negotiators, and agreed to by the full House on November 4, Foreign Operations is
set at $20.94 billion for FY2006. Conferees decided to separate the State Department
and related agencies portion of the Senate-passed measure, and address those funding
and policy issues as part of the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce appropriation
Subsequently, Congress approved the Defense Department Appropriation,
FY2006 (P.L. 109-148) that provided an additional $131.5 million for USAID
programs assisting in global efforts to address the avian influenza virus, rescinded
$25 million from the Export-Import Bank as an offset to pay for costs associated with
Hurricane Katrina, and reduced by 1% most discretionary budget authority accounts.
Foreign Operations accounts are reduced by an approximate $209 million due to the
1% across-the-board cut. Consequently, the net Foreign Operations total, after
adjusting for supplementals, rescissions, and the 1% reduction, is $20.83 billion.
The net Foreign Operations total falls $2.1 billion, or 9.3% below the
President’s request, and represents by far the largest cut in regular (non-
supplemental) Foreign Operations spending relative to the Administration’s proposal
during the Bush Administration. The total, however, remains about $1.4 billion
higher than the regular FY2005 foreign aid spending measure (excluding emergency
and supplemental appropriations), and falls between the House-passed $20.27 billion
level and the Senate-passed $22.16 billion amount.
Conferees made the largest reduction to the President’s proposed $3 billion
Millennium Challenge Account, paring the appropriation down to $1.77 billion.
Also reduced significantly is security-related economic aid through the Economic
Support Fund, falling $400 million, or 13% below the request. Nearly all of this
reduction comes from the decision to provide only $61 million in ESF aid for Iraq
instead of the $360 million request. Conferees also deny another $99 million in
assistance to Iraq drawn from other aid accounts, arguing that $3.5 billion remains
unobligated from the FY2004 $18.4 billion supplemental for Iraq. Levels for other
major ESF recipients, however, are set at the requested amount: Israel — $240
million; Egypt — $495 million; Pakistan — $300 million; Jordan — $250 million;
and Palestinians - $150 million. Despite full-funding for Egypt, conferees stipulate
that $50 million must be allocated for democracy and political reform programs,
while an additional $50 million must be spent on educational initiatives.
For nearly every other account, the conference agreement also sets spending at
or somewhat below requested levels. Some key reductions include:
!USAID operating expenses reduced to $630 million, $50 million
less than the request;
!Conflict Response Fund ($100 million) eliminated;
!refugee aid cut to $791 million, $100 million below the request;
!debt reduction reduced to $65 million, two-thirds of the amount
proposed. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act programs receive
$20 million of this total, as requested; and
!Global Environment Facility pared to $80 million, less than the
$107.5 million proposal.
In a few selected areas, however, conferees added funds. The three “core”
bilateral development aid accounts of Child Survival/Health, Development
Assistance, and the Global AIDS Initiative each receive a boost, reflecting continuing
congressional priorities in these areas. The combined total of $5.2 billion, including
the avian influenza supplemental, is 10.3% higher than the request. The total amount
for HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis programs across all accounts is $2.82
billion, up from the President’s $2.56 billion request. This includes $450 million for
the Global Fund, higher than the $200 million request. For family planning, the
conference agreement provides a total of $466 million — $432 million in bilateral
funding and $34 million as a contribution to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA).
This compares to a $425 million total request.
Conferees also expressed concern over the FY2006 proposed reductions for
several countries in Africa, and noted their expectation that with the added funds
provided in the Child Survival and Development Assistance accounts, the executive
would restore funds to FY2005 levels. The conference agreement, however, does not
include the Senate provision (Corzine amendment) transferring $50 million for
military aid to support the African Union’s mission in Sudan. Conferees stated that
the Administration should “expeditiously” request any necessary funding.
Conferees also increased the request for aid to the former Soviet states, setting
appropriations at $514 million, or 6.6% more than proposed. The agreement further
adds to spending for the African and Inter-American Foundations, and to voluntary
contributions to international organizations. For these latter organizations, conferees
boost funding in particular for the U.N. Development Program ($110 million),
UNICEF ($127 million), and the U.N. Development Fund for Women and its Trust
Fund ($4.75 million). The conference measure also establishes a new Democracy
Fund account of $95 million, similar to although less than a Senate proposal. In total,
conferees include $1.448 billion for democracy-promotion activities throughout all
economic aid accounts, a boost from the estimated current USAID funding level of
about $1.2 billion.
On key policy issues, the conference agreement deletes Senate-passed
provisions that would have reversed the so-called Mexico City family planning
policy and altered the Kemp-Kasten restrictions that apply to U.S. contributions to
the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), and stipulated that a portion of U.S. assistance
to Egypt must support democracy, human rights, and governance programs.
Conferees, however, include modified text of provisions added earlier regarding
restrictions on aid to countries that refuse or fail to extradite certain individuals to the
United States (Beauprez and Deal/Chamblis amendments). In both cases, the
conference agreement includes an executive national interest waiver. The final
version of H.R. 3057 further adopts the ban on aid to Saudi Arabia (Weiner
amendment), but adds language allowing such assistance if the President certifies that
the Saudis are cooperating with efforts to combat terrorism. The conference measure
also requires the Secretary of State to make certain determinations in order to provide
Indonesia with Foreign Military Financing and arms sales. This provision, however,
can be waived through a national interest certification, and does not block the
provision of military training funds to Indonesia.
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
counter-terrorism efforts. In total, Congress has appropriated approximately $46.2
billion in FY2002-FY2005 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
countries. (“Front-line” states are those nations cooperating with the United States
in the global war on terrorism or are facing terrorist threats themselves.) Nearly half
of all Foreign Operations appropriations the past four years have gone for terrorism
or Iraq war-related purposes.
Although there is disagreement regarding the extent to which foreign aid can
directly contribute to reducing 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
The FY2006 budget continued the priority of fighting terrorism with $5.8
billion, or 25%, of Foreign Operations resources assisting the front-line states. The
largest front-line state recipients for FY2006 include Afghanistan ($920 million),
Pakistan ($698 million), Jordan ($462 million), and Iraq ($458.5 million, including
refugee funds). While the FY2006 request changed little in the size and composition
of bilateral assistance for these countries that play key roles in the war on terror,
questions were raised over the proposals for Afghanistan and Iraq.
The $920 million aid package for Afghanistan, while similar in size to amounts
appropriated in the FY2005 regular Foreign Operations measure, did not include
military assistance to train and equip the Afghan army, an activity that received
around $400 million in Foreign Operations funding for FY2004 and FY2005.
Instead, the Administration proposed placing military aid programs under the
direction of the Defense Department and sought $1.3 billion for such purposes in the
FY2005 Emergency Supplemental (H.R. 1268). 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 operations. 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 must
concur with DOD decisions over how to program these funds.
The FY2006 request for front-line states also differed from previous proposals
in that for the first time, Iraq reconstruction funds were sought in a regular, rather
than an emergency spending measure. Since Congress approved $18.44 billion for
Iraq in the FY2004 emergency supplemental P.L. 108-106), no additional Foreign
Operations funds have been requested until FY2006.10 The Administration’s $414
million would largely focus on democracy and governance activities ($130 million)
and economic reconstruction ($230 million). At the time of the budget’s submission,
some critics argued that since large portions of the $18.44 billion remained
unobligated and even larger amounts were unspent, there were sufficient funds
available to meet current and future reconstruction needs in Iraq. More recently, the
pace of reconstruction spending increased. As of October 26, 2005, $14.77 billion,
or 81% of amounts appropriated in P.L. 108-106 had been obligated and about 49%
of the $18.44 billion total had been spent.11
Anti-terrorism training and technical assistance programs also would rise by
Table 6. Global Counter-Terrorism Program Funding
($s in millions)
FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY06 FY06 FY06
Program Ena c t e d Ena c t e d Ena c t e d Request House Sena t e Ena c t e d
Anti-Terrorism Aid65.6141.4117.8133.5122.5 133.5 123.5
Terrorist Interdiction5.05.05.07.5 7.5 7.5 5.5
Engagement w/Allies — — 2.02.0 1.0 2.0 1.0
Terrorist Financing 5.0 — 7.27.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
— State Department
Terrorist Financing 5.05.010.08.5 8.5 8.5 8.5
Total Counter-80.6151.4142.0159.0 147.0 159.0 146.0
Congressional Action. Although the House-passed bill (H.R. 3057) did not
set a specific total amount for assistance to the front-line states in the war on terror,
proposed assistance to several countries was reduced. The House measure allocated
none of the $458.5 million requested for Iraq, with the House Appropriations
Committee noting that about $5 billion remains unobligated from the $18.44 billion
appropriated in P.L. 108-106. Pakistan was set to receive $80 million less than the
10 The FY2005 Emergency Supplemental includes $5.7 billion, as requested, for Iraq
security forces training programs, an amount that comes out of the Defense Department’s
budget, not Foreign Operations.
11 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.
Administration’s request, largely because of Committee concerns that the
Administration is incrementally funding military procurement by Pakistan rather than
annually fully funding weapons acquisitions. H.R. 3057 also reduced amounts for
Turkey and barred military assistance for Uzbekistan while recommending that U.S.
military training programs for the Uzbekistan’s military be reviewed. Funds for
Jordan were recommended by the House at the requested level ($462 million).
For Afghanistan, the House recommendation earmarked $954 million in total
aid, roughly the level requested, but added some conditions to the assistance. The
House Appropriations Committee expressed concern over the lack of cooperation of
the Afghan government at the local level and the lack of support at the national level
for U.S.-funded opium poppy eradication efforts. Consequently, the House reduced
from $184 million to $135 million the budget request for Afghan counter-narcotics
aid and required a report prior to the obligation of any funds for such purposes
regarding the overall U.S. strategy for assisting Afghanistan to counter poppy
cultivation, fight heroin trafficking, and implement alternative development
programs. While fully funding the $430 million ESF request for Afghanistan, the
House barred the expenditure of $205 million of the funds until the Secretary of State
certified that the local and national government of Afghanistan was fully cooperating
with the United States on narcotics eradication and interdiction efforts.
Like the House, the Senate measure did not establish a precise funding level for
war on terror programs. Unlike the House, however, the Senate bill fully funded
country aid levels, as requested, for key partners in the global war on terrorism.
Amounts for Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iraq and others were provided at amounts
sought by the executive branch. Funds for Afghanistan were set at $920 million. A
Senate floor amendment that cut by $100 million ESF appropriations, however, could
have placed some constraints on assistance in the war on terror since the ESF account
is a primary source of funds for this purpose.
The conference agreement on H.R. 3057 follows many of the House-passed
provisions regarding programs supporting the war on terror. The ESF account falls
about $400 million below the request and $300 million less than the Senate amount.
Much of the reduction comes from a cut to ESF funding for Iraq, which is set at $61
million rather than the $360 million proposal. For Afghanistan, H.R. 3057 provides
$931.4 million in total assistance, a level between the House- and Senate-passed
measures. Conferees also require the withholding of $225 million in ESF funding
until the Secretary of State certifies that national and local governments are fully
cooperating with U.S. counter-narcotics and interdiction efforts in Afghanistan.
As shown in Table 6, H.R. 3057, as passed the House, proposed $147 million
for several specific counter-terrorism programs, slightly higher than for FY2005, but
$12 million less than the President’s request. The Senate companion measure fully
funds the executive’s proposal. Conferees, operating under additional funding
constraints, set levels at $146 million, below both House and Senate amounts, and
$13 million below the request.
The Millennium Challenge Account12
The largest funding increase in the FY2006 Foreign Operations budget is for the
Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), a foreign aid program announced in early
2002 and created in February 2004. The MCA is designed to radically 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
a new Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), which provides assistance through
a competitive selection process to developing nations 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
!Fostering enterprise and entrepreneurship — promoting open
markets and sustainable budgets.
If fully implemented and funded at its $5 billion per year target level, the initiative
would represent one of the largest increases in foreign aid spending in half a century,
outpaced only by the Marshall Plan following World War II and the Latin America-
focused Alliance for Progress in the early 1960s.
The MCA concept is based on the premise that economic development succeeds
best where it is linked to the principles and policies of 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 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 FY2006 was $3 billion, twice the amount appropriated for
FY2005, but less than the $5 billion FY2006 target that the President pledged when
he announced the initiative in March 2002. The MCC’s Board of Directors selected
12 For a complete discussion of the Millennium Challenge Account, its current status, and
future challenges, see CRS Report RL32427, The Millennium Challenge Account:
Implementation of a New U.S. Foreign Aid Initiative, by Larry Nowels.
13 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.
signed its first five agreements, or Compacts, with Madagascar, Honduras, Cape
Verde, Nicaragua, and Georgia between April and September 2005.
Some Members of Congress, however, believe the initiative has started more
slowly than they had anticipated, spending only small amounts of the roughly $2.5
billion appropriated in total for FY2004 and FY2005. Doubling the budget of an
untested foreign aid program while other traditional development assistance
programs are scheduled for reductions in FY2006, they assert, may not be the best
allocation of Foreign Operations resources. The MCC argues, however, that the
signing of additional Compacts will accelerate in the coming months, that existing
resources are likely to be fully committed by the end of calendar 2005, and that an
additional $3 billion is necessary to finance new countries selected for FY2006
Congressional Action. The House-passed bill recommended (H.R. 3057)
$1.75 billion for the MCA in FY2006, $262 million higher than FY2005 but $1.25
billion below the President’s request. The House Appropriations Committee noted,
however, that the reduction stems solely from the constrained budget environment
and the need to allocate resources to other presidential and congressional priorities.
In order to operate in FY2006 with reduced resources, the Committee recommended
that the Corporation not use funds for amending and increasing existing Compacts,
but to maximize resources for new compacts with available appropriations.
The Senate measure (also H.R. 3057) provided a slightly higher MCA
appropriation of $1.8 billion. The Senate Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 109-96),
also said that the constrained budget allocation was one reason for the reduced
appropriation. The Senate panel, however, further noted that the MCC had obligated
less than $34 million of the nearly $2.5 billion in existing funds, and that the average
value to the two signed Compacts was about one-half of what the Corporation stated
in its budget justification. The Committee further expressed concern about
coordination and consistency with other U.S. aid programs in MCA countries, and
directed the Secretary of State to report on these issues, including an assessment of
whether MCA programs were duplicative of USAID or other aid activities in
The conference agreement provides $1.77 billion for the MCA.
President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)
In his January 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush pledged to
increase substantially U.S. financial assistance for preventing and treating
HIV/AIDS, especially in the most heavily affected countries in Africa and the
Caribbean. The President promised $15 billion over five years, $10 billion of which
would be money above and beyond current funding. Most, but not all PEPFAR
funds are included in the Foreign Operations bill; the balance is provided in the
Labor/HHS appropriation measure.
The program aims to prevent 7 million new infections, provide anti-retroviral
drugs for 2 million infected people, and provide care for 10 million infected people,
including orphans, in the 15 “focus” countries where much of the additional
resources are concentrated. These 15 nations — 12 in sub-Saharan Africa,14 plus
Haiti, Guyana, and Vietnam — are among the world’s most severely affected and
where about half of the current 39 million HIV-positive people live. The new funds
are channeled through the State Department’s Global HIV/AIDS Initiative (GHAI),
an office headed by the United States Global AIDS Coordinator, Randall Tobias.
The AIDS Coordinator oversees not only the GHAI programs in the focus countries,
but also the HIV/AIDS programs of USAID and other agencies in both focus and
For FY2006, the President requested a total of $3.16 billion for the international
HIV/AIDS initiative — $2.56 billion in Foreign Operations — up from the $2.9
billion enacted for FY2005 ($2.28 billion in Foreign Operations). As shown in
Table 7, however, the increased budget request concentrated new resources in the
State Department’s GHAI program where funding for the 15 focus countries
increases by over one-third. Bilateral HIV/AIDS assistance for non-focus countries
remained at roughly the same level in the FY2006 request, while USAID bilateral
malaria and tuberculosis appropriations would decline by 35%.
A contentious executive-legislative issue in the past has been how much to
allocate out of the PEPFAR budget for a U.S. contribution to the Global Fund to
Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The Fund is an international organization
established in 2001 to receive contributions from countries that will finance
HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and broad public health programs in nations facing
acute health crisis. Some believe the President’s plan is too strongly unilateral and
argue for the United States to act in closer cooperation with other countries and
donors, particularly the Global Fund. Since FY2003, Congress has boosted the
President’s annual $200 million request for the Global Fund to between $350 million
and $550 million. The President proposed $300 million for the Global Fund for
FY2006, still well below congressional appropriations the past three years.
Congressional Action. In total, the House-passed measure (H.R. 3057)
provided $2.695 billion for PEPFAR programs under the Foreign Operations
jurisdiction, over $500 million more than in FY2005 and $131 million more than
requested for FY2006. Of this total, H.R. 3057 included $2.32 billion specifically
for HIV/AIDS activities. The remaining funds were available for malaria and
tuberculosis programs under the PEPFAR initiative. For the Global Fund, the House
recommended $400 million, double the President’s request.15 In a further change to
the Administration’s request, the House increased from $320 million to $350 million
USAID bilateral HIV/AIDS programs for non-focus countries and stipulates that $50
million of appropriations provided to the State Department’s Coordinator for the
Global AIDS Initiative be available only for non-focus nations. This, and other
14 These 12 countries are Botswana, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia,
Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia.
15 In related legislation, the House does not provide an additional $100 million for the
Global Fund, as requested, in the Labor/HHS/Ed appropriation (H.R. 3010). The combined
Foreign Ops-Labor/HHS/Ed appropriation total in the House is $400 million for the Global
Fund, compared with $300 million proposed.
changes, reduced by about $150 million the amount of funds available for the 15
“focus” countries, a shift that the Administration opposed.
Table 7. U.S. International HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis,
and Malaria Programs
(millions of current dollars)
FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006
Program Actua l Actua l Actua l Est i ma t e Request House Sena t e Co nf.
USAID Child Survival/Health account $395.0 $587.6 $513.4 $347.2$330.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0
for HIV/AIDS - regular
USAID Child Survival/Health account$50.0$248.4$397.6$248.0$100.0 $200.0 $350.0 $250.0
for the Global Fund
USAID Global Fund Carry-over — — ($87.8)a$87.8 — — — —
USAID Child Survival/Health account$165.0$129.0$155.0$168.6$109.0 $170.0 $205.0 $180.0
for TB & Malaria
USAID other economic assistance$40.0 $38.2 $51.7 $51.1$53.0 $55.0 $44.0 $43.0
State Dept. Global AIDS Initiative — — $488.1 $1,373.9$1,870.0$1,720.0 $1,870.0 $1,795.0
GHAI for the Global Fund — — — — $100.0$200.0 $150.0 $200.0
Foreign Military Financing — $2.0 $1.5 $2.0$2.0 — $2.0 $2.0
Subtotal, Foreign Operations$650.0$1,005.2$1,519.5$2,278.6$2,564.0$2,695.0$2,971.0$2,820.0
CDC Global AIDS Program$143.8 $182.6 $273.9 $123.8$123.9 $123.9 $123.9 $123.9
CDC International Applied Prevention$11.0 $11.0 $11.0 $11.0$11.0 $11.0 $11.0 $11.0
CDC International TB & Malaria$15.0$15.8 $17.9 $15.9$11.0 $11.0 $11.0 $11.0
NIH International Research$218.2 $278.6 $317.2 $332.3$350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0
Global Fund contribution, NIH/HHS$125.0 $99.3 $149.1 $99.2$100.0 $0.0 $100.0 $100.0
Labor Dept AIDS in the Workplace$8.5 $9.9 $9.9 $2.0$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
DOD HIV/AIDS prevention education$14.0 $7.0 $4.2 $7.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.3
with African militaries
USDA Section 416(b) Food Aid$25.0 $24.8 $24.8 $24.8 $0.0 $25.0 — $25.0
Total, all appropriations$1,210.5 $1,634.2$2,327.5 $2,895.1$3,159.9$3,215.9$3,566.9$3,446.2
Total, Global Fund$175.0$347.7$546.7$435.0$300.0 $400.0 $600.0 $550.0
Sources: House and Senate Appropriations Committees, Departments of State and HHS, USAID, and CDC.
Note: FY2004 and FY2005 estimates are adjusted for required across-the-board rescissions of 0.59% and 0.8%, respectively.
FY2006 totals are not adjusted for a 1% reduction.
a. Reflects the amount that could not be transferred to the Global Fund in FY2004, but that was carried over into FY2005.
In the Senate, the bill provided $2.97 billion across all accounts for PEPFAR,
$400 million more than the request and nearly $600 million higher than for FY2005.
The total included $500 million for the Global Fund, $100 million higher than the
House and 150% more than the request. A Senate floor amendment by Senator
Santorum added $100 million to the Committee-reported measure, taking the funds
from the ESF account.
The conference agreement on H.R. 3057 provides a total of $2.82 billion for
PEPFAR, roughly midway between House- and Senate-passed levels, and about $260
million above the request. Conferees settled on $450 million for the Global Fund,
compared to the $200 million request. Of the $2.82 billion total, $2.43 billion
supports HIV/AIDS programs, $151 million targets tuberculosis, and $242.5 million
supports malaria activities. When Foreign Operations totals are combined with
amounts in the Labor/HHS and Defense Department appropriation measures,
PEPFAR funding level for FY2006 total $3.45 billion, keeping pace on progress
towards meeting the President’s $15 billion, five-year plan.
Development and Humanitarian Assistance: Funding
Priorities, Account Restructuring, and Policy Differences
A continuing source of disagreement between the executive branch and
Congress is how to allocate the roughly $3 billion “core” budget for USAID
development assistance and global health programs. Among the top congressional
development aid funding priorities in recent years have been programs supporting
child survival, basic education, and, as noted above, efforts to combat HIV/AIDS and
other infectious diseases. The Administration has also backed these programs, but
officials object to congressional efforts to increase funding for children and health
activities when it comes at the expense of other development sectors.
In years when Congress has increased appropriations for its priorities, but not
included a corresponding boost in the overall development aid budget, resources for
other aid sectors, such as economic growth and the environment, have been
substantially reduced. This was more problematic during the mid-to-late 1990s when
world-wide development aid funding fell significantly. In more recent years, and
especially since FY2003, Congress increased overall development assistance so that
both congressional and executive program priorities could be funded without
significant reductions for non-earmarked activities. Nevertheless, Administration
officials continue to argue that such practices undermine their flexibility to adjust
resource allocations to changing global circumstances.
Most recently, USAID Administrator Natsios told the House Foreign Operations
Subcommittee that part of the problem lay with development contractors, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), trade associations, universities, and other
groups that have become major implementors of USAID development assistance
programs. These organizations and individuals, he asserts, lobby Congress to
earmark higher funds for programs the groups manage, mainly in the social sectors,
but ignore other development programs, such as those supporting agriculture,
infrastructure, institutional capacity building, and governance. The result, according
to Administrator Natsios, is that the areas of USAID’s budget that are not earmarked
get “squeezed” by resource requirements mandated in Foreign Operations
appropriation bills, leaving serious funding gaps in conducting a broad,
comprehensive, and well-integrated development assistance strategy.16
Table 8. Development Assistance Funding
($ in millions)
FY2004FY2005FY2006FY06 +/- FY05
Actua l Estima te Request $%
USAID “Core Development” Accounts:
Development Asst. Fund$1,376.8$1,448.3$1,103.2($345.1)-23.8%
Transition Initiatives (TI)$54.7$48.6$325.0$276.4568.7%
Subtotal, Development & TI$1,431.5$1,496.9$1,428.2($68.7)-4.6%
Subtotal, “Core Development”$3,255.7$3,049.4$2,679.7($369.7)-12.1%
Global AIDS Initiative$488.1 $1,373.9$1,970.0$596.143.4%
Millennium Challenge Account $994.0$1,488.0$3,000.0$1,512.0101.6%
Total, Development Aid$4,737.8$5,911.3$7,649.7$1,738.429.4%
a. USAID’s strategic pillars for Economic Growth and Democracy correspond to the Development
Assistance account in title II of annual Foreign Operations appropriations bills.
b. USAID’s strategic pillar for Global Health corresponds to the Child Survival and Health Program
Fund account in title II of annual Foreign Operations appropriations bills.
Funding Disagreements. All sides agree that the Bush Administration has
increased significantly overall funding for U.S. development and humanitarian aid
activities, underpinned by the launch of the PEPFAR and MCA initiatives. This
trend would continue in FY2006 under the President’s request in which total
development assistance would grow by over $1.7 billion, or 29% (see Table 8). A
concern expressed frequently by development aid proponents and some Members of
Congress, however, is that the two new initiatives were intended to be an additional
source of international development funding, not a substitute for traditional
programs. While the State Department’s Global AIDS Initiative account (the major
element of the PEPFAR program) and the MCA program have grown to represent a
combined $5 billion in the President’s FY2006 request, over $2.1 billion higher than
for FY2005, the budget recommendations for the long-standing, traditional USAID
16 Testimony of USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios before the House Foreign Operations
Appropriations Subcommittee, April 20, 2005. Figures shown in Table 9 illustrate some of
these points made by Administrator Natsios. Comparing amounts requested in FY2005 for
specific programs with those enacted by Congress show a substantial reduction in the
enacted level for the categories of Agriculture/Environment and Economic Growth.
Conversely, there are significant increases between requested and enacted for the areas of
Child Survival, Vulnerable Children, Other Infectious Diseases, and Family Planning.
accounts of Development Assistance and Child Survival and Health Programs are
about $370 million, or 12% less than approved for FY2005.
Looking Below the Account Level at Sector Allocations. Perhaps a
more informative analysis of the FY2006 proposal is to look not at the totals but to
compare funding levels recommended for individual components of development
assistance. This broadens the scope of Foreign Operations account to include both
the “core” development aid accounts and other funding channels, such as the
Economic Support Fund, assistance to Eastern Europe and states of the former Soviet
Union, and alternative development programs funded under the Andean Counterdrug
Using this broader scope of comparison, as illustrated in Table 9, a mixed
picture emerges regarding the FY2006 budget proposal. The Administration seeks
a substantial increase in Economic Growth (+19%), Higher Education (+30%), and
Conflict Management (+20%) activities, with smaller increases proposed for
Agriculture (+2%), Child Survival (+5%), and Democracy/Governance (+7%).
Conversely, large cuts are proposed in most health categories — Vulnerable Children
(-63%), Other Infectious Diseases (-28%), Family Planning (-3%), and contributions
to the Global AIDS Fund, as well as reductions for Human Rights (-21%) and Basic
Education programs (-6%).
Table 9. Economic Aid Allocations, by Program Sector
($ in millions)
FY2005 FY2005 FY2006 +/-
Economic Growth/Agriculture/Trade$3,608.9$3,669.9$3,942.5 7.4%
Agriculture $416.5 $434.7 $443.0 1 .9%
Environment $435.3 $439.3 $431.6 -1.8%
Basic Education for Children$338.0$390.2$368.2-5.6%
Higher Education/Adult Literacy$130.4$150.4$196.130.4%
Child Survival/Maternal Health$404.3$426.8$449.55.3%
HIV/AIDS (USAID non-focus countries)b$422.6$374.2$352.9-5.7%
Global Fund for AIDS, TB, & Malaria$100.0$248.0$100.0-59.7%
Other Infectious Diseases$155.8$214.7$154.0-28.3%
Democracy, Conflict, & Humanitarian$1,570.0$1,698.3$1,991.617.3%
Democracy & Local Governance$963.3$958.0$1,028.57.4%
Note: This table shows the distribution of economic aid funding, by sector, across most Foreign
Operations accounts: Development Assistance, Child Survival/Health, International Disaster & Famine
Aid, Economic Support Fund, East European aid, former Soviet aid, Andean Counterdrug Initiative,
and Transition Initiatives. It does not include allocations for HIV/AIDS “focus countries” that are now
allocated exclusively out of the State Department’s Global AIDS Initiative account. See footnote “b”
a. Special Concerns category include economic aid programs for Israel and South Pacific Fisheries.
b. Excludes Global AIDS Initiative allocations of $605.8 million in FY2005 estimate and FY2006
request. The FY2005 request did not utilize this methodology and cannot be compared with the
other columns. In the FY2005 Foreign Operations conference report, Congress directed the
Administration to allocate all focus-country assistance out of the Global AIDS account and not
from the Child Survival/Health account. As a result, there was a sharp reduction in the amount
of HIV/AIDS funding allocated from the Child Survival/Health account from the requested
level, but a corresponding increase in the Global AIDS account that is not shown in this table.
Congressional Action. As passed by the House, H.R. 3057 restored much
of the funding reductions proposed by the Administration for various development
and health accounts. For the Child Survival and Health account, H.R. 3057 provided
nearly $1.5 billion, $250 million higher than the President’s request. House
recommendations increased levels for all areas of the account, including vulnerable
children ($25 million), infectious diseases other than HIV/AIDS ($200 million),
reproductive health ($375 million), and child survival and maternal health ($347
million). Including children and health funding in other accounts (ESF and FSU), the
total in the bill equals $1.74 billion, $245 million, or 16%, higher than the $1.5
billion request shown in Table 9. The House proposal further increased funding for
the Development Assistance account by a net total of $82 million, after taking into
account the readjustment of funds between this account and the Transition Initiative
program (see directly below for discussion of this issue).
The Senate companion bill pushed these House-passed amounts higher.
Funding for the Child Survival and Health account was set at $500 million, or 40%
higher than the request. The Development Assistance account (after adjusting for the
Transition Initiative proposed change) grew by $300 million over the request. Like
the House measure, the Senate bill restored most of the reductions in spending
recommended by the executive branch.
Conferees followed the guidance set out in House- and Senate-passed bills by
increasing both the Child Survival and Development Assistance accounts well above
the proposed levels, although in both cases, the marks fall closer to the lower House
amounts. Child Survival programs receive $1.585 billion, 26% higher than the
request, while Development Assistance activities are funded at $1.524 billion, 11%
higher than proposed. (This latter comparison includes Development Assistance
funds that the Administration proposed under the Transition Initiative account.)
Key development and health funding additions and earmarks specifically
proposed in House, Senate, and conference versions H.R. 3057 are set out in Table
Table 10. Selected Development Aid Funding Targets —
($ in millions)
FY2005 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006
Co nf. Request House Sena t e Co nf.
Trade Capacity Building$507.0 — $522.0 — $522.0
Microenterprise$200.0 — $200.0$200.0 $200.0
Intl Fertilizer Develop. Center: “Core” $2.3a — — $2.3a $2.3a
Women’s Leadership in Development $15.0 — $15.5 — $15.0
Basic Education for Children$400.0$368.2$465.0 — b $465.0
American Schools & Hospitals Abroad$20.0$16.0$20.0$25.0 $20.0
Collaborative Research Support Program$28.0 — $28.0$28.0$28.0
Biodiversity $165.0c — $110.0c — $165.5c
Water Conservation/Clean Water$100.0 — — $200.0 $200.0
Energy Conservation/Clean Energy$180.0 — — $180.0 $180.0
Child Survival/Maternal Health$345.0 d$326.0 d$347.0 d $375.0 d $360.0 d
Vaccine Fund$65.0 — $65.0$70.0 $70.0
Iodine Deficiency Disorders$3.0 — $3.0$3.0 $3.0
Micronutrients$30.0 — $30.0$30.0 $30.0
Polio Eradication$32.0 — $32.0$32.0 $32.0
Vulnerable Children$30.0 d$13.5 d$25.0 d — $30.0 d
Blind Children$1.7 — $1.8$1.8 $1.8
HIV/AIDS (bilateral)$1,771.0$2,255.0$2,125.0$2,266.0 $2,190.0
Microbicides$30.0 — $36.0$42.0 $40.0
International AIDS Vaccine Initiative$27.0 — e — $29.0
UNAIDS$27.0$27.0 e$35.0 $30.0
Global Fund for AIDS, TB, & Malaria$337.8$200.0$400.0$500.0 $450.0
Neglected Diseases — — — $30.0$15.0
Family Planning/Reproductive Health$441.0$400.0$432.0$450.0 $432.0
Democracy, Conflict, & Humanitarian
Torture Treatment Centers$10.0 — $12.0$15.0f $10.0
Sources: House and Senate Appropriation Committees; USAID.
a. In addition, there is $1.7 million for R&D activities.
b. Senate bill earmarked $350 million for basic education from the development assistance account only. This
compares with a request of $229 million.
c. Amount applies only to resources drawn from the Development Assistance Fund account.
d. Amount applies only to resources drawn from the Child Survival and Health account.
e. House bill provides not less than FY2005 funding levels.
f. Senate bill includes all Victim of Torture activities, including Treatment Centers.
* Unless otherwise noted, amounts are for activity funding levels across all Foreign Operations accounts.
Amounts reflect program funding targets specified in House and Senate Foreign Operations bills and Committee
reports. Targets are not set for all programs in each bill or in the Administration’s request, but are selectively
identified, often to establish minimum amounts for development aid activities of special congressional
imp o r tance.
USAID Appropriation Account Realignment Proposals. For FY2006,
the Administration proposed to realign four appropriation accounts, one of which is
in the Agriculture appropriation bill, that would require action by the Foreign
Operations subcommittees. The rationale in each case, according to Executive
branch officials, was to provide USAID with greater flexibility and the means to
respond more effectively and appropriately to rapidly changing development needs.
Broadening the Transition Initiatives Account. A growing concern
among U.S. national security and development officials is the threat posed to U.S.
interests and the complexities of addressing the needs of fragile, failing, and post-
conflict states. Last year, the State Department created an Office of the Coordinator
for Reconstruction and Stabilization (O/CRS) in order to strengthen the U.S. capacity
to deal with such countries which can be the source of regional instability and
terrorists/criminal operations. The Senate has under consideration legislation that
would authorize an expansion of the O/CRS (see S. 600) while funding for the
Coordinator’s Office is included in the State Department appropriations budget
Related to this effort is a proposal by USAID to transfer economic growth and
democracy program resources, currently funded in the Development Assistance
account, for four “fragile” states and place them in the Agency’s Transition Initiatives
(TI) account. The FY2006 USAID request recommended that $275 million in
development aid for Ethiopia, Sudan, Haiti, and Afghanistan be shifted to the TI
account, and combined with the traditional Transition Initiatives budget for a total
TI appropriation request of $325 million. (See Table 8, above.) The TI account,
which was established about 10 years ago, supports countries that face crisis or are
in transition from conflict to stable development. It is a form of assistance that can
bridge the gap between a strictly humanitarian intervention and the establishment of
a permanent, long-term development strategy. In the past, Congress has approved a
core appropriation to the TI Office at USAID from which funds are allocated as
needs emerge. Annual appropriations have ranged between $40 and $55 million.
The FY2006 request marked the first time that USAID would manage a full
country development assistance program out of the TI account. From the Agency’s
perspective, this offers greater flexibility — TI funds are available “notwithstanding”
restrictions and conditions that might otherwise apply to development aid resources
— and would permit USAID officials to design programs aimed at achieving results
in a shorter time frame than the current five-year development program time horizon.
At present, the TI account does not include congressional country or programmatic
earmarks and permits a shorter congressional review period for new activities.
Agency officials argue that this shift would avoid the more common six- twelve-
month period for a regular development aid program to make its way through the
contracting and congressional notification processes.17
Besides making it more difficult to compare USAID program funding priorities
for FY2006 with FY2005, an issue noted above, some Members have questioned
why this account realignment was necessary. Some wondered whether the change
would erode congressional oversight of aid programming in these highly volatile
environments. It was also unclear how these fragile state USAID programs would
fit into the broader U.S. strategy addressing failing and fragile countries overseen by
the O/CRS. For FY2006, USAID said that its field missions would manage the TI
programs in the same way that they currently operate regular development assistance
Shifting Conditions for Food Aid Programing. The Administration also
sought to transfer $300 million from the so-called PL480 Title II food assistance18
program, funded in the annual Agriculture appropriation bill, to the International
Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA) account in Foreign Operations. This would
not result in a net gain or loss of resources available for international food aid, but
change considerably how the $300 million could be programmed. Currently, PL480
assistance must be used to purchase U.S. commodities and transported, for the most
part, on ships owned by American firms. IDFA resources have no such conditions
attached. “Buy America” and cargo preference required by PL480 help U.S.
agricultural and maritime interests, but add costs to the shipment of commodities
The Administration argued that the proposal substantially improves the
developmental impact of food aid by allowing the $300 million to purchase
commodities in developing nations, thereby providing additional markets and income
sources to local farmers. In some cases the commodities may come from an area
close to an emergency situation, helping deliver the food more quickly and at a far
lower cost. Transportation expenses of PL480 commodities often can equal the value
of the food itself. Some in Congress, however, opposed this re-alignment of the
PL480 and IDFA accounts. To them, it represented a further erosion of support for
American farmers. They also raised questions regarding the quality of foreign-
purchased commodities and whether proper standards and inspections are in place
to ensure that the emergency food supplies are suitable. These critics contended that
food could be pre-positioned near famine-prone regions so that commodities could
be made able immediately.
Congressional Action. House, Senate, and conference measures each deny
both of the account realignment initiatives proposed by the Administration. In the
17 See comments by USAID Administrator Natsios before the Council on Foreign Relations,
April 20, 2005.
18 Title II of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, P.L. 83-480.
Title II authorizes grant food aid for both emergency and non-emergency purposes.
case of the Transition Initiative proposal, the House Appropriations Committee noted
that the flexibility provided for TI programs was intended for targeted situations and
not meant for total USAID aid in a specific country. Due to funding constraints, the
Committee did not recommend moving $300 million from the P.L. 480 program to
USAID’s disaster and famine assistance account. The Senate measure, however,
increased the level for regular disaster and famine assistance by $44.5 million.
In related House action, H.R. 2744, the FY2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill,
provides $1.107 billion for title II of P.L. 480, $222 million more than requested.
However, the combined House action on H.R. 2744 and the Foreign Operations bill
would result in a cut to the Administration food aid request of $78 million. The
Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee has recommended a somewhat
higher P.L. 480 funding level — $1.15 billion (also H.R. 2744).
Family Planning and UNFPA Policy Controversies.19 U.S. population
assistance and family planning programs overseas have sparked continuous
controversy during Foreign Operations debates for nearly two decades. For FY2006,
the Administration requests $425 million for international reproductive health and
family planning programs, an amount that includes $25 million for the U.N.
Population Fund (UNFPA) in the event the organization is declared eligible for U.S.
assistance. This represents a cut of 8% from the combined $462 million available
in FY2005 for total family planning programs.
Although funding considerations have at times been heatedly debated by
Congress, the most contentious family planning issues addressed in nearly every
annual congressional consideration of Foreign Operations bills have focused on two
matters: whether the United States should contribute to the U.N. Population Fund
(UNFPA) if the organization maintains a program in China where allegations of
coercive family planning have been widespread for many years, and whether
abortion-related restrictions should be applied to bilateral USAID population aid
grants (commonly known as the “Mexico City” policy).
UNFPA Funding. During the Reagan and George H.W. Bush
Administrations, the United States did not contribute to UNFPA because of concerns
over practices of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization in China where
UNFPA maintains programs. In 1985, Congress passed the so-called Kemp-Kasten
amendment which has been made part of every Foreign Operations appropriation
since, barring U.S. funds to any organization that supports or participates “in the
management” of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. In 1993,
President Clinton determined that UNFPA, despite its presence in China, was not
involved in the management of a coercive program. From 1993 through the end of
the decade, in most years Congress appropriated about $25 million for UNFPA, but
added a directive that required that the amount be reduced by however much UNFPA
19 For more extensive discussion of the these controversies surrounding U.S. family planning
programs and UNFPA contributions, see CRS Issue Brief IB96026, Population Assistance
and Family Planning Programs: Issues for Congress; CRS Report RL30830, International
Family Planning: The “Mexico City” Policy; and CRS Report RL32703, The U.N.
Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate, all by Larry Nowels.
spent in China. Consequently, the U.S. contribution has fluctuated between $21.5
million and $25 million.
For FY2002, President George W. Bush requested $25 million for UNFPA.
Congress provided in the FY2002 Foreign Operations bill “not more than” $34
million for UNFPA. But after the White House placed a hold on UNFPA funds in
January 2002 and sent a State Department team to investigate, in July 2002 Secretary
of State Powell announced that UNFPA was in violation of the Kemp-Kasten
provision and that funds would be withheld. Although Congress has continued to
earmark funds for UNFPA in subsequent Foreign Operations bills, the
Administration has continued to find UNFPA ineligible under the Kemp-Kasten
restrictions and has re-directed the earmarked funds for other women’s programs.
The State Department announced the most recent determination on September 17,
2005, once again finding UNFPA in violation of the Kemp-Kasten provision. Under
the terms of the FY2005 Foreign Operations appropriation, the $34 million UNFPA
earmark will be used by USAID for bilateral family planning, maternal and
reproductive health programs.
Mexico City Policy. The debate over international family planning policy
and abortion began over three decades ago, in 1973, when Congress added a
provision to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 prohibiting the use of U.S.
appropriated funds for abortion-related activities and coercive family planning
programs. During the mid-1980s, in what has become known as the Mexico City
policy (because it was first announced at the 1984 Mexico City Population
Conference), the Reagan Administration, and later the George H. W. Bush
Administration, restricted funds for foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
that were involved in performing or promoting abortions in countries where they
worked, even if such activities were undertaken with non-U.S. funds. President
Clinton in 1993 reversed the position of his two predecessors, allowing the United
States to resume funding for all family planning organizations so long as no U.S.
money was used by those involved in abortion-related work.
Subsequently, on January 22, 2001, two days after taking office, President
George W. Bush issued a Memorandum to the USAID Administrator to rescind the
1993 memorandum of President Clinton and to direct the Administrator to “reinstate
in full all of the requirements of the Mexico City Policy in effect on January 19,
1993.” The President further said that it was his “conviction that taxpayer funds
should not be used to pay for abortions or to advocate or actively promote abortion,
either here or abroad.” A separate statement from the President’s press secretary
stated that President Bush was “committed to maintaining the $425 million funding
level” for population assistance “because he knows that one of the best ways to
prevent abortion is by providing quality voluntary family planning services.” The
press secretary further emphasized that it was the intent that any restrictions “do not
limit organizations from treating injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal
abortions, for example, post abortion care.” On February 15, 2001, the day on which
FY2001 population aid funds became available for obligation, USAID issued specific
policy language and contract clauses to implement the President’s directive. The
guidelines are nearly identical to those used in the 1980s and early 1990s when the
Mexico City policy applied.
Critics of the certification requirement oppose it on several grounds. They
believe that family planning organizations may cut back on services because they are
unsure of the full implications of the restrictions and do not want to risk losing
eligibility for USAID funding. This, they contend, will lead to higher numbers of
unwanted pregnancies and possibly more abortions. Opponents also believe the new
conditions undermine relations between the U.S. Government and foreign NGOs and
multilateral groups, creating a situation in which the United States challenges their
decisions on how to spend their own money. They further argue that U.S. policy, in
effect, imposes a “gag” order on the ability of foreign NGOs and multilateral groups
to promote changes to abortion laws and regulations in developing nations. This
would be unconstitutional if applied to American groups working in the United
States, critics note.
Supporters of the certification requirement argue that even though permanent
law bans USAID funds from being used to perform or promote abortions, money is
fungible; organizations receiving American-taxpayer funding can simply use USAID
resources for permitted activities while diverting money raised from other sources to
perform abortions or lobby to change abortion laws and regulations. The certification
process, they contend, closes the fungibility loophole.
Since reinstatement of the Mexico City policy in early 2001, several bills have
been introduced to reverse the policy, but except for language included in the Senate
FY2004 Foreign Operations appropriations bill (S. 1426), none has passed either the
House or Senate, and no measure has been enacted into law. On April 5, 2005, the
Senate approved 52-46 an amendment by Senator Boxer to S. 600 that would
effectively overturn the Mexico City policy. S. 600, an omnibus foreign policy and
aid authorization bill, remains under consideration in the Senate and has not received
a final vote.
Congressional Action. As passed by the House, H.R. 3057 earmarked
bilateral family planning aid at $432 million for FY2006, with an additional $34
million contribution to UNFPA. The combined total of $466 million compared with
the Administration’s request of $425 million. The House recommendation, however,
continued all existing restrictions on such funds, including the Kemp-Kasten
provisions that has resulted in no funds for UNFPA in recent years. In the event that
UNFPA is found to be ineligible for U.S. support, the House measure required that20
the funds be used by USAID for bilateral family planning programs.
In the Senate, the companion bill provided somewhat higher funding levels than
the House, as well as altered key conditions under which the money is available. The
Senate bill included $450 million for USAID bilateral programs and a $35 million
UNFPA contribution. The UNFPA funds must be kept in a separate account by the
U.N. organization, cannot be spent in China, and cannot be used to fund abortions.
If the Administration finds UNFPA ineligible for U.S. support, the Senate measure
20 In debate on UNFPA in a related appropriation, the House, on June 16, defeated (192-233)
an amendment by Representative Maloney that would have prohibited the use of funds in
the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriation (H.R. 2862) to prohibit or restrict
funding for UNFPA.
directs that funds drawn from the International Organizations and Programs account
($20 million) shall be transferred to USAID for additional bilateral family planning
activities. Under the terms of an amendment offered by Senators Leahy, Clinton, and
others, and approved by the full Senate, UNFPA contributions would be available
only for six purposes:
!safe child birth and emergency obstetric care;
!obstetric fistula treatment and care;
!contraceptive supplies for preventing pregnancies and sexually
transmitted diseases, including AIDS;
!restoration of maternal health care in locations hit by natural
!elimination of female genital mutilation; and
!access by unaccompanied women and other vulnerable individuals
to vital services.
H.R. 3057, as passed the Senate, further included modified Kemp-Kasten
language that appears to narrow the terms under which UNFPA can be declared
ineligible for U.S. funding. The Senate language stated that an organization cannot
receive funds if it “directly” supports coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
The term “directly” is not currently part of the Kemp-Kasten restriction. The Senate
measure further stated that an organization cannot be found in violation of this
condition only because the government of a country in which the organization
operates conducts coercive practices. This would represent a new exception to past
applications of the Kemp-Kasten language.
The Senate bill further included language that would effectively reject the
President’s Mexico City policy. This provision is similar to the text of an
amendment offered by Senator Boxer to S. 600 and adopted (52-46) by the Senate
on April 5. The Senate appropriation bill language stated that foreign NGOs shall
not be ineligible for U.S. funds solely on the basis of health or medical services they
provide (including counseling and referral services) with non-U.S. government funds.
This exemption would apply so long as the services did not violate the laws of the
country in which they are performed and that they would not violate U.S. laws if
provided in the United States. The provision further provided that non-U.S.
government funds used by foreign NGOs for advocacy and lobbying activities shall
be subject to conditions that also apply to U.S. NGOs. Since it is largely held that
American NGOs would not be subject to these restrictions under the Constitutional
protection of free speech, it is possible that this latter exemption would lift current
prohibitions that apply to overseas NGOs.
The White House opposed both the Kemp-Kasten and Mexico City policy
changes, and said the President would veto H.R. 3057 if they were included in the
Conferees agreed to drop Senate-passed language modifying the Mexico City
and Kemp-Kasten restrictions, leaving current policy in place. On funding questions,
the conference agreement provides $432 million for bilateral family planning
programs, plus an additional $34 million for UNFPA if the organization is eligible
under the terms of Kemp-Kasten. If found ineligible, the conference agreement states
that UNFPA funds would become available for bilateral family planning activities.
Conferees did not include the Leahy/Clinton amendment setting out specific
activities for which UNFPA contributions could support.
Conflict Response Fund
The Administration proposed to establish within the State Department a $100
million contingency fund to allow the United States to respond quickly to unforseen
foreign crises with resources targeting immediate stability and reconstruction needs.
This would include funding the capacity to mobilize and deploy an emergency
civilian presence in the field. 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. The Conflict Response Fund,
however, differs from these previous requests in that it is linked with a broad State
Department strategy to more effectively respond to weak, fragile, and post-conflict
states that can pose serious security risks for the United States.
In mid-2004, with considerable encouragement by Senator Lugar and other
Members of Congress, the Department created the Office of the Coordinator for
Reconstruction and Stabilization to manage the U.S. government civilian response
to crisis and unstable situations and is seeking funds to form and train a civilian ready
response corps. Presumably, the Conflict Response Fund could be utilized by the
Coordinator as an operational tool in the immediate aftermath of an international
crisis where American interests were threatened. Previous requests for contingency
funds had placed control of the money in the White House and did not link the
resources with a specific U.S. policy initiative.
Congressional Action. Although denying the $100 million for the Conflict
Response Funds, the House bill granted authority to the Administration to reprogram
funds from other accounts, subject to congressional notification, for the same
purposes as proposed for the Fund. In the Senate, the companion measure provided
$24 million for the Fund. The reported bill had provided $74 million, but an
amendment by Senator Corzine transferred $50 million to the FMF account for
additional support for the African Union’s mission in Sudan. The conference
agreement, like the House, denies funding for the Conflict Response Fund.
Conferees, however, ask the Administration to submit, prior to the FY2007 budget
request, a more specific strategy for how the Office of the Coordinator for
Reconstruction and Stabilization will coordinate United States government-wide
efforts to respond to international post-conflict contingencies.
Other Key Elements of the FY2006 Request and
Beyond these specific and prominent issues, the Foreign Operations proposal
for FY2006 seeks to increase aid activities in a few areas while cutting resources for
several programs. Significant appropriation increases and key congressional actions
include the following.
!Export-Import Bank resources increased in the request from $99
million to $226 million, allowing the Bank to guarantee about
$13.76 billion in loans, the same as estimated for FY2005. H.R.
3057, as passed the House, reduced the request to $158 million but
permitted the Administration to use the roughly $260 million that
remains in the Ex-Im Bank “war chest” for tied aid purposes to
support new loans. A House floor amendment by Representative
Sanders blocked Eximbank loans in support of a project to build
nuclear power plants in China. The Senate measure provided
slightly more than the House, at $164.2 million. Conferees set
Eximbank funding at $139 million, below the requested, House, and
Senate-passed levels. Subsequently, Congress rescinded $25 million
of Eximbank appropriations in P.L. 109-148 as one of several offsets
to pay the costs associated with Hurricane Katrina relief.
!USAID administrative costs would have grown substantially under
the request, with operating expenses climbing by 11% and capital
investment costs rising by one-third. The House measure provided
$630 million, $17 million higher than the regular FY2005 level
(excluding supplementals), but over $50 million less than the
request. The Senate bill set appropriations lower, at $620 million.
The conference agreement provides $630 million.
!Peace Corps spending would have increased by 9%, but fall far
below the level necessary to sustain the President’s initiative
announced three years ago to double the number of Peace Corps
volunteers by FY2007. H.R. 3057, as passed in the House, proposed
$325 million for the Peace Corps, about $7 million more than
FY2005 but $20 million less than the request. The Senate
recommendation provided $320 million. Conferees approved $322
!Refugee assistance resources would have risen by 17% in the
request over FY2005 regular appropriations (excluding
supplementals), with one-third of the additional resources for
overseas programs and two-thirds available for refugee admissions
into the United States. H.R. 3057, as passed the House, provided
$791 million, $27 million above FY2005 regular spending but more
than $100 million less than the FY2006 request. The denial of any
refugee funds for Iraq ($43 million) would partially off-set the gap
between the request and the House recommendation. In the Senate,
the bill provided $900 million, slightly higher than the request, and
about $109 million more than the House. The conference agreement
adopts the House-passed level of $791 million.
!Peacekeeping funds would have grown by 10%, including the
expansion of Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI — $114
million) that trains and equips foreign troops to strengthen their
capacity to support global peace support operations. The program
incorporates previous efforts focused exclusively in Africa, but with
a substantial increase in resources. The House bill included $178
million for peacekeeping, $74 million more than FY2005 regular
funding but $18 million less than the request. Although the House
Appropriations Committee said in its report that it supported the
GPOI proposal, it believed that the scope of the program beyond
Africa cannot be implemented fully in FY2006 and therefore reduces
the GPOI request by $18 million. The other major components of
this account — the Africa Contingency Operations Training and
Assistance ($78.8 million) and the Multinational Force Observers
($19 million) — were fully funded. The Senate bill recommended
$196 million for the PKO account, slightly more than the request.
The total included $114 million for GPOI, as requested. Conferees
provide $175 million, a level below the request, House, and Senate
!Contributions to the World Bank’s International Development
Association (IDA) and to the African Development Fund. The
United States recently joined new replenishment agreements for both
institutions. The FY2006 request included $107 million and $31
million more, respectively, for IDA and the African Fund. The
House-passed measure included the full amount requested for both
institutions ($950 million for IDA and $135.7 million for the African
Development Fund). The Senate bill reduced the IDA level to $900
million, and recommended full funding for the African Fund. The
conference agreement includes $950 million for IDA and $135.7
million for the African Development Fund, as requested.
!Contributions to the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The
President proposed $107.5 million for GEF, slightly higher than
FY2005 and in line with scheduled U.S. payments. In the House,
however, H.R. 3057 deleted all GEF funds, noting that GEF is the
only concessional international lending institution that has not
implemented a performance-based allocation system. The Senate
bill fully funded the GEF. Conferees set GEF funding at $80
For several other Foreign Operations accounts, the FY2006 submission
represented a reduction below regular amounts approved in FY2005. The proposal
cut funding in three main areas:
!Assistance to former Soviet states and Eastern Europe,
collectively, would have declined by $85 million, or 10% from
FY2005 levels. The House recommendation reduced these accounts
further, setting combined funds $114 million below regular FY2005
levels. In the Senate, the bill set funding at $960 million, $84
million higher than the request for former Soviet states, and $13
million more for Eastern Europe. Major additions include those for
Russia (+$37 million), Armenia (+$20 million), Georgia (+$8
million), Ukraine (+$7 million), Kosovo (+$8 million), and Serbia
(+$15 million). The Senate measure also reduced economic
assistance for Uzbekistan by $1.5 million. The conference
agreement provides $361 million for Eastern Europe and $514
million for former Soviet States.
!Worldwide totals for Foreign Military Financing (FMF), the main
U.S. military aid account, would have declined by over $150
million, or 3%, under the request. This reduction, however, was
entirely the result of military aid for Afghanistan — $400 million in
FY2005 — shifting to DOD appropriations. Adjusting for this
transfer, the FMF request was 5% higher than FY2005 regular
levels. The House provided $4.44 billion in FMF funding, $146
million below the request. The recommendation reduced requested
amounts for Pakistan (-$80 million) and Turkey (-$29.6 million),
and denies funds for Uzbekistan (-$4 million). The Senate
companion bill, however, provided $90 million more than requested
for FMF, with the addition of a Security in Asia provision that
increased military aid levels for the Philippines and seven other
regional states and $50 million additional support to the African
Union’s mission in Sudan. Regarding Uzbekistan, the Senate
measure conditioned (but did not deny) FMF on a determination by
the Secretary of State that the government of Uzbekistan is, among
other things, making continuing substantial progress on human
rights and is investigating the events of May 31, 2005. The
conference agreement sets FMF funding at $4.5 billion, between the
House and Senate levels.
!Voluntary contributions to international organizations would have
decreased 13% under the request, with reductions proposed for
UNICEF (-$10 million) and the U.N. Development Program (-$13
million). H.R. 3057, as passed in the House, restored the proposed
cuts, raising amounts to $329 million, $3 million more than FY2005
and $47 million more than the request. The House bill provided
$110 million for UNDP, $20 million more than requested, and $127
million for UNICEF, $3 million more than FY2005 and $13 million
higher than the Administration. The House also included $25
million of the $34 million UNFPA earmark in this account. The
Senate measure provided $330 million for the account, including
$128 million for UNICEF, $110 million for UNDP, and $20 million
“reserved” for UNFPA. The conference agreement includes $329.5
million, with $110 million for UNDP, $127 million for UNICEF,
and $22.5 million for UNFPA.
Table 11. Summary of Foreign Operations Appropriations
(Discretionary funds — in millions of current dollars)
Bill Title & ProgramEnactedRegularSuppTotalReqHouseSenateEnacted
Title I - Export Assistance(123)(62) — (62)973138(12)
Title II - Bilateral Economic Aid32,62613,2412,04215,28316,37214,03915,76414,664
Development/Child Survival/3,7444,408 — 4,4084,7254,9275,5045,219
Iraq Relief & Reconstruction18,439 — — — 459045961
Millennium Challenge Acct9941,488 — 1,4883,0001,7251,8001,770
Title III — Military Assistance4,8685,0124905,5024,8714,7074,9614,772
Israel/Egypt4,3783,439 — 3,439 3,5203,5203,5203,520
Title IV — Multilateral Aid1,6781,545 — 1,5451,617 1,5571,5991,620
Rescission — — — — — (64)(100)(209)
Total Foreign Operations39,04919,7362,53222,26822,95720,27022,26220,835
Total, without Iraq Recon.20,61019,7362,53222,26822,49820,27021,80320,774
House Appropriations Committee and CRS calculations. FY2006 enacted includes regular Foreign Operations
ppropriations, plus supplementals, rescissions, and a 1% across-the-board reduction included in P.L. 109-148.
Leading Foreign Aid Recipients Proposed for FY2006
While Iraq is the largest current 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 FY2006
continues the patterns of aid distributions of the past three years, with the added
feature of several PEPFAR countries joining the list of top recipients. Table 12 lists
those nations that have received an average of more than $100 million from the
United States in FY2005 and requested for FY2006. 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. 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 lifting aid sanctions in October
Indonesia, and the Philippines also are among the top aid recipients as part of the
network of “front-line” states in the war on terrorism.
Table 12. Leading Recipients of U.S. Foreign Aid
(Appropriation Allocations; in millions of current dollars)
F Y 2003 F Y 2004 F Y 2005 F Y 2005 F Y 2005 F Y 2006
Tot a l Tot a l Regular Supp Tot a l Request
Israel3,6822,6242,559 — 2,5592,520
Egypt2,2041,8651,821 — 1,8211,796
Afghanistan 543 1,799 956 1,724 2,680 920
Paki stan 495 387 536 150 686 698
Colombia602574568 — 568559
J ordan 1,556 560 458 200 658 462
Iraq2,48518,439 — — — 414
Sudan* 27 171 201 33 234 112
Kenya5985159 — 159213
Uganda70113149 — 149220
South Africa7399139 — 139190
Haiti*35102126 20 146164
Nigeria7380130 — 130176
Indonesia*132123136 — 136159
Peru177157153 — 153135
Zambia5782113 — 113159
Ethiopia*5674114 — 114145
Ukraine 153 113 94 60 154 117
Bolivia139133132 — 132123
Philippines153111129 — 12996
Source: U.S. Department of State.
Note: Countries are listed in order of the combined FY2005 and FY2006 estimate.
* 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 totals 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, however, that for these selected countries, U.S. assistance is
considerably higher in some years than the figures noted here.
Another major cluster of top recipients are those in the Andean region —
Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia — where the Administration maintains a large
counternarcotics initiative that combines assistance to interdict and disrupt drug
production, together with alternative development programs for areas whose
economies rely on the narcotics trade.
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/FY2005 and proposed for FY2006. Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Zambia,
South Africa, and Nigeria, all PEPFAR focus countries, are now among the leading
recipients of U.S. assistance. This list will further change once the Administration
announces aid packages for Millennium Challenge Account qualifying countries,
perhaps adding several additional countries that receive more than $100 million in
Missing, from the list of top recipients, are several countries in the Balkans and
the former Soviet Union — Serbia and Montenegro, Kosovo, Russia, Armenia, and
Georgia — which have seen levels decline in recent years. Since Armenia and
George are MCA-eligible countries, aid levels may return to $100 million-plus
annual levels if they are awarded grants. Turkey, a leading recipient in most years
over the past 25 years, also falls off the list.
State Department Appropriations and Related
Agencies Overview and Congressional Action
For the first time in many years, the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees did not have identical jurisdictions for each of their respective spending
measures. Budgets for the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of
Governors (BBG), as well as U.S. contributions to United Nations (U.N.)
International Organizations, and U.N. Peacekeeping, under the House Appropriations
Committee structure, fell within the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related
Agency (SSJC) appropriations.21 Under the new divisions of the Senate
Appropriations Committee organization, the State Department and BBG programs
were combined with Foreign Operations programs as part of the State, Foreign
Operations and Related Programs appropriations. Prior to conference on either the
SSJC or Foreign Operations bills, however, the Committees agreed to include State
Department and BBG spending for FY2006 in the SSJC Appropriation.
Intertwined with the annual appropriations process is the biannual Foreign
Relations Authorization that, by law, Congress must pass prior to the State
Department’s expenditure of its appropriations. Senator Lugar introduced a State
Department authorization bill for FY2006 and FY2007 (S. 600) on March 10, 2005.
Representative Chris Smith introduced a House version of the State Department
authorization bill (H.R. 2601) for FY2006 and FY2007 on May 24, 2005.22
On February 7, 2005, the Administration requested a funding level for the
Department of State of $9.15 billion, representing a 13.6% increase over the FY2005
21 See CRS Report RL32885, Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agency (SSJC)
Appropriations, by Ian Fergusson and Susan B. Epstein (coordinators), for a full discussion
of that bill.
22 For details on the history and past foreign relations authorization legislation, H.R. 1950/S.
State Department and Foreign Assistance, by Susan B. Epstein.
regular appropriations. For international broadcasting, the request of $652 million
represents a 10.2% increase over the FY2005 enacted amount.
Table 13 summarizes regular and supplemental State Department and related
agencies’ appropriations for FY2004 through FY2006, while Table 16, found at the
end of this report, provides details for each spending account.
The State Department’s mission is to advance and protect the worldwide
interests of the United States and its citizens through the staffing of overseas
missions, the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, the issuance of passports and visas, and
other responsibilities. Currently, the State Department coordinates with the activities
of 50 U.S. government agencies and organizations in operating more than 260 posts
in over 180 countries around the world. The Department’s staff size has increased,
largely because of the integration in 1999 of the Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency (ACDA) and the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) into State. Currently, the
State Department employs approximately 30,000 people, about 60% of whom work
overseas. Highlights of the FY2006 appropriations proposals follow.
Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP). The D&CP account funds
overseas operations (e.g., motor vehicles, local guards, telecommunications,
medical), activities associated with conducting foreign policy, passport and visa
applications, regional bureaus, under secretaries, and post assignment travel.
Beginning in FY2000, the State Department’s Diplomatic and Consular Program
account included State’s salaries and expenses, as well as the technology and
information functions of the former USIA and the functions of the former ACDA.
For the FY2006 budget, the Administration requested $4.47 billion for D&CP,
a 7.2% increase over the FY2005 level. Included in the FY2006 request was $334
million for public diplomacy expenses and $690 million for worldwide security
Congressional Action. The House, in H.R. 2862, recommended $4.44
billion, including $689.5 million for worldwide security upgrades and $340 million
for public diplomacy programs. The Senate recommended (H.R. 3057) $4.44 billion
for D&CP, including $328 million for public diplomacy and $689.5 million for
worldwide security upgrades. The conference report provides $4.37 billion for
D&CP, about $100 million below the President’s request and $70 million less than
either the House or Senate. Included in this funding is $334 million for public
diplomacy and $689.5 million for worldwide security upgrades.
Table 13. Summary of State Department/Broadcasting Appropriations
(Discretionary funds — in millions of current dollars)
Bill Title & ProgramEnactedRegular5 SuppTotalRequest HouseSenateEnacted
State Department/Admin of6,8726,2301,326 7,5566,6446,509 6,6026,548
Diplomatic & Consular Progs.4,8494,172 734 4,9064,4734,437 4,4454,370
Embassy Security/Upgrades1,4411,504 592 2,096 1,5161,513 1,4991,509
Ed and Cultural Exchanges317356 — 356430410 440432
Int’l Organizations/Confs.1,6951,650680 2,3302,3322,180 2,2022,202
Int’l Organizations1,0001,166 — 1,166 1,2971,144 1,1661,166
Int’l Peacekeeping695484680 1,1641,0361,036 1,0361,036
International Commissions5763 — 637063 7067
Related Appropriations7899 — 9910567 52116
subtotal, State Department8,7028,0422,00610,0489,1518,8198,9268,933
International Broadcasting5925927599652631 652652
Rescission in D&CP — — — — — — (100) —
Total State Dept/Broadcasting9,2948,6342,01310,6479,8039,450 9,4789,489
House and Senate Appropriations Committee and CRS calculations. FY2006 enacted includes regular appropriations,
us supplementals and rescissions provided in P.L. 109-148, the Defense Department spending measure.
te: Programs include those under the jurisdiction of the new Senate State/Foreign Operations Subcommittee and correspond
all programs in Title IV of the House SSJC bill.
Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance (ESCM). This
account supports the maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of overseas
facilities to provide appropriate, safe, secure and functional facilities for U.S.
diplomatic missions abroad. Early in 1998, Congress had enacted $640 million for
this account for FY1999. However, following the embassy bombings in Africa in
August 1998, Congress agreed to more than $1 billion (within a supplemental
funding bill) for the Security and Maintenance account by establishing a new
subaccount referred to as Worldwide Security Upgrades.
For FY2006, the President requested $616 million for regular ESCM
expenditures and $910 million for worldwide security upgrades, for a total account
level of $1.52 billion, a 1.5% increase over FY2005. The most significant portion
of funding for this account — amounts needed for the U.S. embassies in Iraq and
Afghanistan — were not included in the President’s FY2006 State Department
budget, but were proposed in the FY2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation
that the President signed on May 11 (P.L. 109-13; H.R. 1268).
Congressional Action. The House-passed measure (H.R. 2862)
recommended $603.5 million for regular ESCM, in addition to $910.2 million for
worldwide security upgrades. The Senate (H.R. 3057) recommended $603.8 million
for regular ESCM, as well, and $900.2 million for embassy worldwide security
upgrades. The conference report provides $598.8 million for regular ESCM
(identical to the Senate, but less than the House) and $910.2 million for worldwide
security upgrades (equal to the House and more than the Senate).
Educational and Cultural Exchanges. This account funds programs
authorized by the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, such as
the Fulbright Academic Exchange Program, as well as leadership programs for
foreign leaders and professionals. Government exchange programs came under close
scrutiny in past years for being excessive in number and duplicative. By a July 1997
executive order,23 the Office of U.S. Government International Exchange and
Training Coordination was created. For the FY2002 budget, Congress passed $237
million, including $125 million for the Fulbright programs. For FY2003 this account
funding was $244 million, including $132 million for the Fulbright programs. The
Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2004, set the funding for Educational and
Cultural Exchanges at $317 million, including $150 million for Fulbright. The
conferees noted that exchanges with Eastern European and former Soviet Union
countries are to be built into the base of the Educational and Cultural Exchanges, but
Congress did not provide the money necessary to fully fund those programs.
The FY2006 request for Educational and Cultural Exchanges totaled $430
million, representing a 21% increase over FY2005. The President’s request included
$180 million targeted for key Muslim populations.
Congressional Action. H.R. 2862, as passed by the House, provided $410.4
million, a level $20 million below the President’s request but $54.5 million above
FY2005. The Senate recommended (H.R. 3057) $440 million for exchanges. The
conference report includes $431.8 million for exchanges, a compromise between the
House and Senate levels and $1.4 million more than the President requested.
The 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. In
FY1998 Congress approved a 250% increase in this fund, from $25 million in
FY1997 to $86 million in FY1998.
For FY2006, the Bush Administration requested $133 million for CIF and no
funds for the Centralized Information Technology Modernization Program. The CIF
request represented a 3.7% increase when compared with the combined technology
accounts funded in FY2005.
Congressional Action. The House-passed SSJC Appropriations
recommended $69.1 million — $64 million below the President’s request. The
23 EO 13055, July 15, 1997, 62 F.R. 39099.
Senate recommended $58.9 million for CIF and $74.1 million for the Centralized
Information Technology Modernization Program. The conference report mirrors the
Senate approach, providing $58.9 million for CIF and $69.4 million (slightly less
than the Senate) for the Centralized Information Technology Modernization Program.
International Organizations and Conferences
In recent years, U.S. contributions to U.N. international organizations and
peacekeeping activities have been complicated by a number of issues, such as the
withholding of funds related to international family planning policies. Recently,
some controversial issues have included 1) the lack of agreement about the U.N.’s
role in the current worldwide dispute on how to deal with Iraq; and 2) the loss of the
U.S. seat on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.
In past years, overdue U.S. arrearage payments had been an issue. Shortly after
the September 11th terrorist attack and at a time when the U.S. government was
seeking U.N. support in its coalition to fight terrorism, however, Congress passed,
and the President signed, legislation (P.L. 107-46) that allowed the United States to
make its second tranche ($475 million) of arrearage payments to the U.N.24
Contributions to International Organizations (CIO). CIO provides
funds for U.S. membership in numerous international organizations and for
multilateral foreign policy activities that transcend bilateral issues, such as human
rights. Maintaining a membership in international organizations, the Administration
argues, benefits the United States by advancing U.S. interests and principles while
sharing the costs with other countries. Payments to the U.N. and its affiliated
agencies, the Inter-American Organizations, as well as other regional and
international organizations are included in this account.
For FY2006 President Bush requested $1.3 billion for international
organizations, 11.2% greater than the FY2005 enacted level. The request represented
full funding of U.S. assessed contributions to the 47 international organizations.
Congressional Action. The House-passed SSJC bill (H.R. 2862) provided
$1.144 billion, slightly below FY2005 levels. This level was $152 million below the
President’s request. The Senate measure (H.R. 3057) included $1.166 billion, the
same as provided in FY2005. The conference report provides the Senate-passed level
of $1.166 billion.
Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities (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
FY2006 request totaled $1.04 billion. This represented a 114.2% increase over the
FY2005 enacted level of $484 million. The FY2005 conferees expressed concern
that the Administration had voted in the U.N. Security Council for five new or
expanded peacekeeping missions (Haiti, Burundi, Liberia, Cyprus, and Ivory Coast)
24 For more detail, see CRS Issue Brief IB86116, United Nations System Funding:
Congressional Issues, by Vita Bite.
without seeking appropriations for them from Congress. That is why the FY2006
request was more than double the previous year’s funding level.25 As discussed
below, the Administration also proposed $780 million for CIPA in its FY2005
emergency supplemental request. (This amount mirrored the total the Administration
said was lacking in the enacted FY2005 budget for U.N. peacekeeping missions that
the Administration voted for in the U.N. security council last year, but did not seek
funding for in the FY2005 budget cycle.)
Congressional Action. For the FY2006 CIPA account, the House, Senate,
and conference bills each recommended $1.035 billion, as requested by the President.
The International Commissions account includes the U.S.-Mexico Boundary and
Water Commission, the International Fisheries Commissions, the International
Boundary Commission, the International Joint Commission, and the Border
Environment Cooperation Commission. The FY2006 request of $70 million was an
Congressional Action. The House measure recommended $63.8 million,
slightly more than the current FY2005 level of $63.3 million, but $7 million less than
the President’s request. The Senate approved a total of $70 million for international
commissions. The conference report includes $67.3 million — more than the House-
passed level, but less than the FY2006 request and the Senate-passed level.
Related State Department Appropriations
The Asia Foundation. The Asia Foundation is a private, nonprofit
organization that supports efforts to strengthen democratic processes and institutions
in Asia, open markets, and improve U.S.-Asian cooperation. The Foundation
receives both government and private sector contributions. Government funds for
the Asia Foundation are appropriated to, and pass through, the State Department. For
FY2005, Congress funded the Foundation at $12.8 million, even though the
President’s request of $8.9 million was well below that level. The Administration
request for FY2006 was $10 million, nearly a 22% decrease over funds enacted in
The International Center for Middle Eastern-Western Dialogue Trust
Fund. The FY2004 conferees added language in the conference agreement for the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2004, to establish a permanent trust fund for the
International Center for Middle Eastern-Western Dialogue. The act provided $6.9
million for perpetual operations of the Center, 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. The Administration requested to spend $0.8
million of interest and earnings from the Trust Fund for program funding in FY2006.
25 For more detail on international peacekeeping, see CRS Issue Brief IB90103, United
Nations Peacekeeping: Issues for Congress, by Marjorie Ann Browne.
National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The National Endowment
for Democracy, a private nonprofit organization established during the Reagan
Administration, supports programs to strengthen democratic institutions in more than
90 countries around the world. NED proponents assert that many of its
accomplishments are possible because it is not a government agency. NED’s critics
claim that it duplicates U.S. government democracy programs and either could be
eliminated or could operate entirely with private funding. NED’s enacted FY2004
budget was $39.6 million. President Bush included a proposal in his State of the
Union address in January 2004 to double NED’s funding in FY2005 to $80 million
for its Greater Middle East Democracy Initiative. However, final congressional
action provided $60 million for NED for FY2005. The conferees strongly
encouraged NED and its four core grantees to focus funding on democracy promotion
activities in the Middle East. The Administration’s FY2006 budget request for NED
amounted to the same as its FY2005 request of $80 million. This represented a
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
Administration’s FY2006 request totaled $13 million (a decrease of 32.3%) for the
Congressional Action. The House-passed SSJC Appropriations provided
$10 million for the Asia Foundation, as requested, but denied funding for the Middle
Eastern-Western Dialogue Trust Fund. NED funding was set at $50 million, $30
million below the President’s request and more than $9 million below the FY2005
funding level. For the East-West Center, H.R. 2862 provided $6 million, less than
half of the $13 million request. In the Senate, H.R. 3057 increased funding for most
of these programs. The measure included $15 million for the Asia Foundation, 50%
higher than the request, $8 million for the Middle Eastern-Western Dialogue Trust
Fund, eight times more than the request, and $20 million for the East-West Center,
nearly 50% above the request. For NED, the Senate recommended $8.8 million for
administrative expenses, plus $80 million in program funds under the Democracy
Fund account added elsewhere in the Foreign Operations portion of the bill.
As enacted in H.R. 2862, Congress sets the funding level for the Asia
Foundation at $14 million, between House and Senate amounts but $4 million higher
than the request. Conferees provide $6 million for the Middle Eastern-Western
Dialogue Trust Fund and $19.2 million for the East-West Center. Both are somewhat
below Senate levels, but well above House and requested amounts. The conference
agreement includes $75 million for NED, $5 million below the request but nearly $16
million more than for FY2005.
Broadcasting Board of Governors
The United States International Broadcasting Act of 199426 reorganized within
USIA all U.S. government international broadcasting, including Voice of America
(VOA), Broadcasting to Cuba, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio
Free Asia (RFA), and the more recently-approved Radio Free Iraq and Radio Free
Iran. The 1994 Act established the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to
oversee all U.S. government broadcasting; abolished the Board for International
Broadcasting (BIB), the administering body of RFE/RL; and recommended that
RFE/RL be privatized by December 31, 1999. This recommendation was repealed
by P.L. 106-113.
During the State Department reorganization debate in 1999, the 105th Congress
agreed that credibility of U.S. international broadcasting was crucial to its
effectiveness as a public diplomacy tool. Therefore, Congress agreed not to merge
broadcasting functions into the State Department, but to maintain the Broadcasting
Board of Governors (BBG) as an independent agency as of October 1, 1999.
In 2004, the 9/11 Commission recommended that international broadcasting
receive an increase in funding, and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act of FY2004 (P.L. 108-458) included language supporting programs to strengthen
a free and independent media in countries with Muslim populations. Congress
enacted a total of $592 million for international broadcasting in FY2005 — $30
million more than the President’s FY2005 request. The conferees expressed concern
about the “blurring of distinction” between the broadcasting done by the BBG and
that done by the Department of Defense and required the BBG to report to
congressional committees of any such DoD activities.
For FY2006 international broadcasting activities the President requested $652
million with an emphasis on enhanced programming for the war on terrorism, as well
as a $10 million increase for modernization of techniques and technology for Cuba
Broadcasting. The international broadcasting funding request was 10.2% higher than
the FY2005 enacted level.
Congressional Action. The House spending bill provided $630.9 million
for broadcasting, including $27.9 million for Cuba Broadcasting. The Senate
approved (H.R. 3057) a total of $651.9 million for international broadcasting,
including $37.6 million for Cuba Broadcasting, as requested by the President.
During floor debate, the Senate defeated an amendment (Dorgan; 33-66) that would
have cut $21.1 million for television broadcasting to Cuba. The conference report
provides a total of $652.4 million for international broadcasting — $641.5 million
for broadcasting operations (including $37.7 million for Cuba Broadcasting) and
$10.9 million for capital improvements.
26 Title III of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, P.L.
Visa Issuance and Homeland Security
The State Department traditionally has had sole authority to issue visas
overseas. The Homeland Security Act of 200227 now provides the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with exclusive authority to: 1) issue
regulations regarding administering and enforcing visa issuance, 2) impose upon any
U.S. government employee, with consent of the head of his/her agency, any functions
involved in visa issuance, 3) assign DHS employees to each overseas post where
visas are issued, and 4) use the National Foreign Affairs Training Center to train
DHS employees who will be involved in visa issuance. The act states that these
authorities will be exercised through the Secretary of State. The Homeland Security
Act of 2002 further provides the Secretary of State and consular officers with the
authority to refuse visa applications. The act stipulates that within one year after the
act is signed, the Secretary of DHS and the Secretary of State must report to Congress
on implementation of visa issuance authorities and any proposals that are necessary
to improve the activities surrounding visa issuance. Specifically regarding visa
issuance in Saudi Arabia, the act stipulates that upon enactment of the act, the third
party screening program in Saudi Arabia will terminate, but on-site personnel of the
DHS shall review all visa applications prior to adjudication there.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 did not alter the current authority for the
Department of State to use machine readable visa fees as a part of its expenditures.
State’s total allocation of machine readable visa fees in FY2001 was $395 million;
in FY2002 it was $443 million; in FY2003 it was $623 million; and the FY2004
estimate was $688 million. The FY2005 appropriation included $662 million from
MRV fee collections. The budget for FY2006 included a request for the use of $672
million in MRV fees. The fees are typically used for State Department border
security programs, technology, and personnel.
Now, as part of the war on terrorism, the visa issuance process takes much
longer and the U.S.-led war may have reduced demand for travel to America. Thus,
officials are seeing a gap between the MRV fee total estimates and actuals. The
emergency supplemental appropriation helped to fill that gap in FY2004.
FY2005 Emergency Supplemental28
On February 14, 2005, President Bush submitted an $82 billion supplemental
appropriation request for FY2005 to provide funds for ongoing military operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan, the global war on terror, reconstruction in Afghanistan,
27 H.R. 5005/P.L. 107-296, signed into law on November 25, 2002.
28 For a complete discussion of the supplemental request and congressional action, see CRS
Report RL32783, FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, Tsunami
Relief, and Other Activities, by Amy Belasco and Larry Nowels.
Tsunami relief and rehabilitation, and other activities. The request included $6.3
billion to support a broad range of foreign policy activities:29
!U.S. diplomatic costs in Iraq
!Afghanistan reconstruction and counternarcotics programs
!Darfur humanitarian relief and peace implementation aid in Sudan
!War on Terrorism assistance, including funds for Jordan and
!U.N. peacekeeping contributions
!Broadcasting programs in the Middle East
!Tsunami recovery and reconstruction
As signed by the President on May 11 (P.L. 109-13; H.R. 1268), lawmakers
provided $5.78 billion in new appropriations for State Department, foreign aid,
tsunami relief, and other foreign policy activities. This represents a $512 million, or
and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 1268, offset part of these costs by rescinding $1
billion in FY2003-appropriated funds for aid to Turkey that had not yet been
obligated.30 As a result, the “net” appropriation for foreign policy programs in H.R.
1268 is $4.78 billion, or $1.5 billion below the request. The entire amount is
designated as emergency appropriations.
Beyond congressional decisions to reduce selected supplemental requests, the
conference agreement and the $512 million cut may have significant implications for
Congress’s consideration later this year of regular FY2006 appropriations for Foreign
Operations and the State Department. In some cases, House and Senate
Appropriation Committees had expressed the view that some supplemental requests
did not require immediate funding and could be addressed during the debate on
FY2006 appropriation bills. This is particularly relevant to the funds proposed for
Afghanistan reconstruction and economic aid programs in southern Sudan. As noted
earlier, Congress approved a budget resolution for FY2006 (H.Con.Res. 95) that
assumes a reduction in the President’s foreign policy funding request of about $2.4
billion, or 7%. If House and Senate Appropriation Committees add to the pending
FY2006 request some of the items not approved in the FY2005 supplemental
conference agreement, the challenge of meeting the budget resolution target for
international affairs program will be an even greater challenge.
Major recommendations in P.L. 109-13 include the following.
29 With the exception of $150 million in food aid that is funded out of the Agriculture
appropriation bill, the entire $6.3 billion was sought for Foreign Operations and State
30 Congress appropriated $1 billion in the FY2003 Emergency Supplemental (P.L. 108-11)
that could be used by Turkey to guarantee loans of about $8.5 billion to bolster its ailing
economy. With substantial economic recovery during the past two years, Turkey has not
drawn on the $1 billion loan guarantee funds.
!Afghanistan reconstruction and police training — $1.78 billion,
$262 million less than requested. This level falls between the
House-passed measure ($1.4 billion) and the Senate ($2.05 billion).
The conference agreement fully funded counter-narcotics activities,
but reduces police training by $40 million.
!Darfur humanitarian aid — at least $238 million, roughly the
amount proposed by the President. The conference agreement,
however, added $90 million in food aid world-wide, some of which
might be available for Darfur, and permitted the transfer of $50
million in support of African Union peacekeeping operations in the
region. The House measure had increased the funding level for
Darfur to $342.4 million. The Senate version approved $242
million, as requested, but added an additional $320 million in food
assistance, some of which could be used in Darfur, and $90 million
that could have been transferred to meet humanitarian and
!Sudan peace implementation aid — $37 million, as had been
included in the House measure. Conferees deleted $63 million in
rehabilitation and reconstruction funding. The Senate bill had
included the entire $100 million request.
!Palestinian aid — $200 million, as requested and passed in earlier
House and Senate votes. The conference measure set aside $50
million, similar to the Senate version, for Israel to help facilitate the
movement of Palestinian people and goods in and out of Israel.
None of the funds can be used for direct aid to the Palestinian
!Pakistan military aid — $150 million, as requested.
!Jordan economic and military aid — $200 million, as requested.
!Iraq embassy — $592 million, $66 million below the request. This
is the same level as in the Senate bill, while the House measure
included an amendment barring the use of the funds for construction
of the embassy.
!Peacekeeping — $680 million, $100 million below the request. The
conference amount is higher than both the House ($580 million) and
Senate ($442 million).
!Tsunami relief and prevention — $656 million for relief and $25.4
million for prevention, the same as in the Senate bill. The House-
passed amount was slightly higher. The conference agreement
provided authority (but not the $45 million requested) to defer and
reschedule debt owed by tsunami-affected countries. The House bill
had not granted such authority.
!Partners Fund and Solidarity Fund — No funds were provided for
the Partners Fund ($200 million proposed), while the full $200
million request for the Solidarity Fund was included. In addition,
the conference agreements added $30 million for other Global War
on Terror security assistance, as determined by the President. The
House had denied all funding for these purposes, while the Senate
approved $225.5 million for the two contingency funds.
!Ukraine aid — $60 million, as requested and including in the Senate
measure. The House had approved $33.7 million. In addition,
similar to the Senate, the conference agreement provided $10 million
for other regional aid requirements in Belarus and the North
!Haiti assistance — $20 million, of which $2.5 million for criminal
case management, case tracking, and the reduction of pre-trial
detention in Haiti, similar to the Senate position. The $20 million
had not been requested or included by the House.
!Iraqi families and communities affected by military operations —
$20 million for civilians who have suffered losses due to military
activities, similar to a Senate-added provision. These funds will be
drawn from the $18.44 billion appropriated in P.L. 108-106, the
FY2004 emergency supplemental for Iraq reconstruction.
Table 14 (below) summarizes the spending request and congressional action.
Table 14. Foreign Policy Funds in FY2005 Supplemental
(in millions of dollars)
House- Sena t e -
Ir a q :
U.S. Mission operations (DCP)$690.0$690.0 $280.5a $663.5
New Embassy Compound in Baghdad$658.0$592.0b $592.0$592.0
USAID operating expenses (USAID/OE)$24.4$24.4 $24.4 $24.4
USAID Inspector General (USAID/IG)$2.5$2.5 $2.5 $2.5
U.S. Mission operations (DCP)$60.0$55.5 $60.0a $60.0
Police training (INCLE)$400.0$400.0 $444.5 $360.0
Counternarcotics (INCLE)$260.0$194.0 $215.5 $260.0
Counternarcotics related activities (ESF)$248.5c.c.c.
Reconstruction & Democratic institu-$1,060.8$739.2 c. $1,309.3 c.$1,086.6 c.
tions/Government capacity building (ESF)
Anti-terrorism training and protection$17.1$17.1 $17.1$17.1
Subtotal, Afghanistan$2,046.4$1,405.8$2,046.4 $1,783.7
Suda n/Da rf ur:
Refugee relief for Darfur and Chad (MRA)$48.4$98.4 $48.4 $48.4
Humanitarian relief for Darfur (IDFA)$44.0$94.0 $44.0d$40.0
Emergency food aid for Darfur (PL 480)e$150.0$150.0 $470.0 f $240.0 f
Peacekeeping for Darfur (PKO) — — gg
Peace implementation aid for southern$22.0$22.0 $22.0$22.0
Security sector reform-southern Sudan$10.0$10.0 $10.0 $10.0
Rehabilitation/reconstruction, mainly in$63.0$0.0 $63.0 $0.0
southern Sudan (TI)
Repatriation of Sudanese refugees (MRA)$5.0$5.0 $5.0 $5.0
Subtotal, Sudan/Darfur$342.4$379.4 $662.4 $365.4
Other Global War on Terror Related:
Global War on Terrorism Partners Fund$200.0$0.0 $25.5$0.0
Aid for coalition partners with troops in$200.0 $0.0 $200.0 $200.0
Iraq & Afghanistan-Solidarity Fund (PKO)
Global War on Terror aid (PKO) — — — $30.0
Jordan econ. & military (ESF & FMF)$200.0$200.0 $200.0 $200.0
Pakistan military aid (FMF)$150.0$150.0 $150.0 $150.0
House- Sena t e -
Subtotal, Other Global War on Terror $750.0 $350.0 $575.5 $580.0
Palestinian economic aid (ESF)$200.0$200.0 $150.0$200.0 h
Israel (ESF) — — $50.0h
Ukraine economic assistance (FSA)$60.0$33.7 $60.0$60.0
Belarus/North Caucasus (FSA) — — $10.0 $10.0
Office of the Coordinator for$17.2$3.0 $17.2 $7.7
Reconstruction & Stabilization (DCP)
Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Fund$15.0 $0.0 $15.0 $7.5
Peacekeeping, mainly for operations in$780.0$580.0 $533.0i $680.0i
Haiti and Africa (CIPA)
Refugee admissions backlog (MRA) — — $25.9$26.0
Africa refugees needs (MRA) — — $29.1$41.0
Africa emergencies (IDFA) — — — $50.0
Haiti economic aid (ESF) — — — $20.0
Lebanon democracy programs (ESF) — — $5.0 $5.0
Middle East Broadcasting (BBG)$4.8$4.8$4.8 $4.8
Broadcasting system upgrade (BBG)$2.5 $0.0$2.5 $2.5
Reduction in ESF account — ($3.0) — —
Subtotal, Other$1,079.5 $818.5 $902.5 $1,114.5
Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction:
Replenish USAID for immediate response$120.0$120.0 $120.0 $120.0
Recovery and reconstruction, of which up$581.0 $539.0 $536.0 $536.0
to $45 million for debt reduction
Replenish DOD’s immediate response$226.1 $226.1 $226.1 $226.1
Tsunami warning system (NOAA and US$22.6$22.6 $25.4 $25.4
Subtotal, Tsunami Recovery and$949.7 $907.7 $907.5 $907.5
Reco nst r uct io n
Less, non-Foreign Policy funds($248.7) ($248.7) ($251.5) ($251.5)
Net, Foreign Policy Tsunami Recovery$701.0 $659.0 $656.0 $656.0
Rescission of FY2003 Turkey aid — ($1,000.0)($1,000.0)($1,000.0)
Total, Foreign Policy Funds$6,294.2$3,921.6 $4,742.2 $4,782.0
* Account acronyms: BBG = Broadcasting Board of Governors; CIPA = Contributions for
International Peacekeeping Activities; DCP = Diplomatic and Consular Programs; ESF = Economic
Support Fund; FMF = Foreign Military Financing; FSA = Assistance for the Independent States of the
Former Soviet Union; IDFA = International Disaster and Famine Assistance; INCLE = International
Narcotics & Law Enforcement; MRA = Migration and Refugee Assistance; NADR =
Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs; NOAA = National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; PKO = Peacekeeping Operations; PL 480 = Food for Peace; TI =
Transition Initiative; USAID/OE/IG = US Agency for International Development Operating Expenses
and Inspector General.
a. The Senate-passed bill reduced the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account by $400 million
from the requested level but did not specify whether the reductions would come from Iraq or
Afghanistan mission operations. In this table, the entire amount is taken from the Iraq mission
b. H.R. 1268, as passed by the House, included $592 million for a new U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
However, an amendment adopted during floor debate prohibited the use of any funds in the bill
for embassy security, construction, and maintenance.
c. Counternarcotics ESF funds included in Reconstruction/Democracy totals in House, Senate, and
d. In addition to this amount, the Senate bill earmarked $40.5 million for disaster relief activities in
Darfur that could be transferred from the Contribution to International Peacekeeping account,
listed below. The enacted bill does not include this transfer authority, but provides a direct
disaster relief appropriation of $50 million (see below) for other emergencies in Africa.
e. PL480 food aid is funded in the Agriculture appropriation bill.
f. The Senate bill added $320 million in food aid, some of which would be available for Darfur, but
some (to the maximum extent possible) would be available to restore funds that had previously
been diverted to respond to the tsunami disaster and to the situation in Darfur. The enacted bill
also provides a higher level — $90 million more — for food aid that, like the Senate bill, is
available to replenish accounts from which emergency food relief had been diverted. It is likely
that not all of the $240 million food aid appropriation will be for Darfur relief.
g. The Senate bill and the conference agreement provided that up to $50 million for Africa Union
peacekeeping operations in Darfur could be transferred from the Contribution to International
Peacekeeping account, listed below.
h. The enacted bill provides $200 million for Palestinian aid, of which $50 million should be
available to Israel to improve the movement of people and goods between Palestinian areas and
i. The Senate bill reduced the peacekeeping account by $147 million in order to offset appropriations
for additional border patrol agents. In addition, the Senate measure provided that $90.5 million
could be transferred to support emergency and peacekeeping activities in Darfur. The enacted
bill provides that up to $50 million can be transferred from this account to support Africa Union
peacekeeping operations in Darfur.
For Additional Reading
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 RL32783, FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and
Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and Other Activities, Amy Belasco and Larry
Foreign Operations Programs
CRS Issue Brief IB10050, AIDS in Africa, by Raymond Copson.
CRS Report RL32252, AIDS Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC): Problems,
Responses, and Issues for Congress, by Tiaji Salaam.
CRS Report RS21437, The Asian Development Bank, Martin A. Weiss.
CRS Issue Brief IB88093, Drug Control: International Policy and Approaches, by
CRS Report 98-568, Export-Import Bank: Background and Legislative Issues, by
CRS Report RL31712, The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria:
Background and Current Issues, by Raymond Copson and 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 Raymond Copson.
CRS Report RL32714, International Disasters and Humanitarian Assistance: U.S.
Governmental Response, by Rhoda Margesson.
CRS Report RL30830, International Family Planning: The “Mexico City” Policy,
by Larry Nowels.
CRS Report RS22134, International Financial Institutions: Funding U.S.
Participation, by Jonathan Sanford.
CRS Report RL30932, Microenterprise and U.S. Foreign Assistance, by Curt
CRS Report RL32427, The Millennium Challenge Account: Implementation of a
New U.S. Foreign Aid Initiative, by Larry Nowels.
CRS Report RS22133, Multilateral Development Banks: Current Authorization
Requests, by Jonathan Sanford.
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
CRS Report RL30545, Trafficking in Persons: The U.S. and International Response,
by Francis Miko.
CRS Issue Brief IB96026, Population Assistance and Family Planning Programs:
Issues for Congress, by Larry Nowels.
State Department/Broadcasting Programs
CRS Report RL31370, State Department and Related Agencies: FY2005
Appropriations and FY2006 Request, by Susan Epstein.
CRS Report RS22031, Peacekeeping and Post-Conflict Capabilities: The State
Department’s Office for Reconstruction and Stabilization, by Nina Serafino and
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 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
CRS Report RL32686, Afghanistan: Narcotics and U.S. Policy, by Christopher
CRS Report RL30588, Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S.
Policy, by Kenneth Katzman.
CRS Report RL32489, Africa: Development Issues and Policy Options, by Raymond
CRS Report RL32796, Africa, the G8, and the Blair Initiative, by Raymond Copson.
CRS Issue Brief IB95052, Africa: U.S. Foreign Assistance Issues, by Raymond
CRS Report RL32001, AIDS in the Caribbean and Central America, by Mark
CRS Report RL32337, Andean Counterdrug Initiative (ACI) and Related Funding
Programs: FY2005 Assistance, by Connie Veillette.
CRS Report RS21865, Assistance to Afghan and Iraqi Women: Issues for Congress,
by Febe Armonios and Rhoda Margesson.
CRS Report RS20749, Burma-U.S. Relations, by Larry Niksch.
CRS Report RL32250, Colombia: Issues for Congress, by Connie Veillette.
CRS Report RS21686, Conditions on U.S. Aid to Serbia, by Steven Woehrel.
CRS Issue Brief IB93087. Egypt-United States Relations, by Clyde Mark.
CRS Report RL32294. Haiti: Developments and U.S. Policy Since 1991 and
Current Congressional Concerns, by Maureen Taft-Morales.
CRS Report RL32715, Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami: Humanitarian
Assistance and Relief Operations, by Rhoda Margesson.
CRS Report RS21765, Iraq: Debt Relief, by Martin Weiss.
CRS Report RL31833, Iraq: Recent Developments in Reconstruction Assistance, by
CRS Issue Brief IB85066, Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance, by Clyde Mark.
CRS Issue Brief IB93085, Jordan: U.S. Relations and Bilateral Issues, by Alfred
CRS Report RS21457, The Middle East Partnership Initiative: An Overview, by
Jeremy M. Sharp.
CRS Issue Brief IB94041, Pakistan-U.S. Relations, by K. Alan Kronstadt.
CRS Report RS21594, United States Aid to the Palestinians, by Clyde Mark.
CRS Issue Brief IB98043, Sudan: Humanitarian Crisis, Peace Talks, Terrorism and
U.S. Policy, by Ted Dagne.
CRS Report RS21594, United States Aid to the Palestinians, by Clyde Mark.
CRS Report RL32866, U.S. Assistance to the Former Soviet Union, by Curt Tarnoff.
CRS Report RL32636, U.S. Assistance to Vietnam, by Mark Manyin.
CRS Report RL32260, U.S. Foreign Assistance to the Middle East: Historical
Background, Recent Trends, and the FY2005 Request, by Clyde Mark.
CRS Report RL32487, U.S. Foreign Assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean,
by Connie Veillette.
CRS Report RL31785, Foreign Assistance to North Korea, by Mark Manyin and
CRS Report RS21834, U.S. Assistance to North Korea: Fact Sheet, by Mark Manyin.
CRS Report RL31362, U.S. Foreign Aid to East and South Asia: Selected Recipients,
by Thomas Lum.
CRS Report RL32260, U.S. Foreign Assistance to the Middle East: Historical
Background, Recent Trends, and the FY2005 Request, by Jeremy M. Sharp.
African Development Bank
[ h ttp://www.afdb.org/ ]
African Development Foundation
[ h ttp://www.adf.gov/]
Asian Development Bank
[ h ttp://www.adb.org/ ]
Broadcasting Board of Governors
CRS Current Legislative Issues: Foreign Affairs
[ h ttp://www.crs.gov/products/bro wse/is-foreignaffairs.shtml]
[ http://www.ex im.gov/]
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria
[ h ttp://www.theglobalfund.org/ en/]
Inter-American Development Bank
[ h ttp://www.iadb.org/ ]
International Fund for Agricultural Development
[ h ttp://www.ifad.org]
International Monetary Fund
[ http://www.imf.org/ ]
Millennium Challenge Corporation
[ h ttp://www.mcc.gov]
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
[ h t t p : / / www.peacecorps.gov/ ]
Trade and Development Agency
[ http://www.un.org/ ]
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
[ h ttp://www.unicef.org/ ]
United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
[ http://www.undp.org/ ]
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
[ h ttp://www.unfpa.org/ ]
United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)
[ h ttp://www.unaids.org/ en/default.asp]
U.S. Agency for International Development — Home Page
U.S. Agency for International Development — Congressional Budget Justification
[ http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ budget/]
U.S. Agency for International Development — Emergency Situation Reports
U.S. Agency for International Development — Foreign Aid Data (“Greenbook”)
[ http://qesdb.cdie.org/ gbk/index .html]
U.S. Department of State — Home Page
U.S. Department of State — Foreign Operations Budget Justification, FY2006
U.S. Department of State — International Affairs Budget Request, FY2006
U.S. Department of State — International Topics and Issues
U.S. Department of State — State Department Budget Request, FY2006
U.S. Department of the Treasury — Office of International Affairs
[http://www.ustreas .gov/offices /international-affairs/index .html]
[ h ttp://www.worldbank.org/ ]
World Bank debt website
[ h ttp://web.worldbank.org/ WBSITE/EX T E R N A L/TOPIC S/EXTDEBTDEPT/0,,
m enuP K: 6416 6739~pagePK:64166681~piPK:64166725~theS itePK:469043,00.html]
Table 15. Foreign Operations: Detailed Account Funding Levels
(millions of current dollars — discretionary budget authority)
Program To t a l Reg ula r Supp To t a l Request House Sena t e Ena c t e d
le I - Export and Investment Assistance:
port-Import Bank38.598.9 — 98.9225.7158.2 164.2 139.2
port-Import Bank — supplemental rescission — — — — — — — (25.0)
erseas Private Investment Corp.(211.0)(211.6) — (211.6)(177.5) (177.5) (177.5) (177.5)
d Development Agency49.751.1 — 51.148.9 50.9 50.9 50.9
tal, Title I - Export Aid(122.8)(61.6)0.0(61.6)97.1 31.6 37.6 (12.4)
le II - Bilateral Economic:
g/wild Survival & Health (CS/H)1,824.21,537.6 — 1,537.61,251.51,497.0 1,759.0 1,585.0
s.orild Survival & Health — Avian influenza supplemental — — — — 75.2 — — 75.2
leakIDS Initiative488.1 1,373.9 — 1,373.91,970.01,920.0 2,020.0 1,995.0
://wikivelopment Assistance Fund (DA)1,376.81,448.3 — 1,448.31,103.21,460.0 1,675.0 1,524.0
httpsition Initiatives54.748.6 — 48.6325.0 50.0 50.0 40.0
DS, & DA3,743.84,408.4 0.0 4,408.44,724.9 4,927.0 5,504.0 5,219.2
l Disaster & Famine Aid544.0484.990.0574.9655.5356.0400.0 365.0
Famine Aid — Avian influenza supp. — — — — 56.3 — — 56.3
nami Recovery and Reconstruction Fund — — 656.0656.0 — — — —
velopment Credit Programs8.08.0 — 8.08.08.0 8.0 8.0
ent Aid4,295.84,901.3746.05,647.35,444.7 5,291.0 5,912.0 5,648.5
AID Operating Expenses 640.5613.124.4637.5680.7630.0 620.0 630.0
AID Inspector General34.834.7 2.537.236.0 36.0 36.0 36.0
AID Capital Investment Fund98.358.5 — 58.577.7 77.7 77.7 70.0
ent Aid & USAID5,069.45,607.6772.96,380.56,239.1 6,034.7 6,645.7 6,384.5
Program To t a l Reg ula r Supp To t a l Request House Sena t e Ena c t e d
omic Support Fund (ESF)3,244.9 g2,462.61,433.63,896.23,036.42,558.5 2,931.4f 2,634.0
omic Support Fund rescission — Turkey — — (1,000.0)(1,000.0) — — — —
ernational Fund for Ireland18.418.4 — 18.4h13.5 h 13.5
tern Europe/Baltic States442.4393.4 — 393.4382.0 357.0 395.0 361.0
rmer Soviet Union 584.5555.5 70.0625.5482.0 477.0 565.0 514.0
nflict Response Fund — — — — 100.00.0 24.0i 0.0
elief and Reconstruction Fund18,439.0j — — — — — — —
alition Provisional Authority OE983.0 — — — — — — —
er-American Foundation16.217.9 — 17.917.8 19.5 20.0 19.5
iki/CRS-RL32919can Development Foundation18.618.8 — 18.818.9 20.5 25.0 23.0
g/worps308.2317.4 — 317.4345.0 325.0 320.0 322.0
s.ornium Challenge Corporation994.11,488.0 — 1,488.03,000.0 1,750.0 1,800.0 1,770.0
mocracy Fund — — — — — — 175.0 95.0
://wikil Narcotics/Law Enforcement460.3 g326.2620.0946.2523.9 442.4 523.9k 477.2
http — Andean Initiative726.7725.2 — 725.2734.5 734.5 734.5 734.5
gration & Refugee Assistance780.7763.8 120.4 884.2892.8 790.7 900.0 791.0
ergency Refugee Fund (ERMA)29.829.8 — 29.840.0 30.0 40.0 30.0
n-Proliferation/anti-terrorism/demining396.4398.824.6423.4440.1 400.4 445.1 410.1
ury Dept. Technical Assistance18.918.8 — 18.820.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
bt reduction94.4 99.2 — 99.299.8 65.0 99.8 65.0
tal Title II-Bilateral Economic32,625.913,241.42,041.515,282.916,372.314,038.7 15,664.4 14,664.3
le III - Military Assistance:
y Education & Training91.289.0 — 89.086.786.7 86.7 86.7
reign Mil Financing (FMF)4,632.7 f4,745.2250.04,995.24,588.6 4,442.3 4,653.6i 4,500.0
rity in Asia (additional FMF for the Philippines) — — — — — — 25.010.0
Program To t a l Reg ula r Supp To t a l Request House Sena t e Ena c t e d
FMF loan19.9 — — — — — — —
eeping Operations124.5103.2240.0343.2195.8 177.8 195.8 175.0
eeping Operations - Darfur emergency — 74.4 — 74.4 — — — —
tal, Title III-Military Aid4,868.35,011.8490.05,501.84,871.1 4,706.8 4,961.1 4,771.7
le IV - Multilateral Economic Aid:
d Bank - Intl Development Assn907.8843.2 — 843.2950.0950.0 900.0 950.0
rld Bank Environment Facility138.4106.6 — 106.6107.5 0.0 107.5 80.0
d Bank-Mult Investment Guaranty Agency1.1 — — — 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.3
er-American Development Bank24.910.9 — 10.91.71.7 3.7 1.7
g/wAmerican Investment Corporation — — — — 126.96.36.199.7
s.orian Development Bank143.699.2 — 99.2115.3115.3 100.0 100.0
leakcan Development Fund112.1105.2 — 105.2135.7 135.7 135.7 135.7
://wikican Development Bank5.14.1 — 4.15.6 5.6 3.6 3.6
httpropean Bank for R & D35.235.1 — 35.11.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
l Fund for Agriculture Development14.914.9 — 14.915.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
l Organizations & Programs294.9325.8 — 325.8281.9 329.0 330.0 329.5
tal, Title IV - Multilateral1,678.01,545.00.01,545.01,617.1 1,556.7 1,599.3 1,619.5
n of previously appropriated funds — — — — — (64.0)(100.0)k —
2006 1% across-the-board reduction (estimate) — — — — — — — (209.0)
tal, Foreign Operations 39,049.419,736.62,531.522,268.122,957.6 20,269.8 22,162.4 20,834.1
tal, without Iraq Reconstruction20,610.419,736.62,531.522,268.122,957.6 20,269.8 22,162.4 20,834.1
: House and Senate Appropriations Committee and CRS adjustments.
Y2004 includes “regular”and supplemental appropriations, plus amounts transferred from the FY2002 DOD Emergency Response Fund (ERF) for Afghanistan.
mounts shown in this column are FY2005 “regular” appropriations provided in Division D of P.L. 108-447, the Consolidated Appropriation Act , 2005. Sec. 122, Division J of
P.L. 108-447 required an 0.8% across-the-board rescission for each account. Amounts in this column are adjusted to reflect the required reduction for each account. Also included
in this column is $100 million provided for Caribbean hurricane relief in P.L. 108-324, the FY2005 Military Construction appropriation.
mounts enacted in H.R. 1268, the FY2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation.
he FY2005 total column includes all enacted appropriations, including the Emergency Supplemental.
he FY2006 enacted column includes funds provided in the regular Foreign Operations Appropriations (P.L. 109-102), plus emergency supplementals for international avian
influenza programs and a rescission for the Export-Import Bank included in P.L. 109-148, the Defense Appropriation measure. P.L. 109-148 further requires a 1% across-the-
board reduction for most discretionary budget authority accounts. Individual accounts in this table have not been adjusted for the 1% cut, although a line at the end of the table
deducts the estimated amount for the entire FY2006 Foreign Operations bill.
he Child Survival/Health account in the Senate-passed bill included an additional $100 million (for the Global ATM Fund) transferred from the Economic Support Fund account,
pursuant to a Senate floor amendment. The ESF account was reduced by $100 million.
cludes funds for Afghanistan that were reprogrammed in FY2004 from FY2002 Emergency Response Funds.
he Administration’s FY2006 request included $8.5 million for the International Fund for Ireland as part of the Economic Support Fund. The Senate bill did not earmark funds
for the IFI.
he Conflict Response Fund in the Senate-passed bill excluded $50 million that is transferred to the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) account (for African Union mission in Sudan),
iki/CRS-RL32919pursuant to a Senate floor amendment. The FMF account was increased by $50 million.
g/wcludes $210 million transferred to the International Disaster and Famine Aid account for Liberia ($100 million) and Sudan ($10 million), and to the Economic Support Fund for
s.orJordan ($100 million).
leakhe Senate bill (Sec. 6083) reduced $100 million in unobligated balances from the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account. The same section
reduced $100.3 million in unobligated balances from the Diplomatic and Consular Program account, and listed in Table 15 below. This latter account was included in title I of
://wikithe Senate version of H.R. 3057, and in title IV of the House-passed SSJC appropriation (H.R. 2862).
Table 16. State Department/Broadcasting: Detailed Account Funding Levels
(millions of current dollars — discretionary budget authority)
Program To t a l Reg ula r Supp. To t a l Request House Sena t e Conference
ministration of Foreign Affairs:
omatic and Consular Program4,849.34,172.2734.0 4,906.24,472.64,436.6 4,444.6c 4,369.5
ic Diplomacy][$301.6][$320.0] — [$309.2][$327.9][$340.0] [$328.0] [$334.0]
orldwide Security Upgrades][$639.9][$649.9] — [$649.9][$689.5][$689.5] [$689.5] [$689.5]
omatic and Consular Program — avian flu supp. — — — — 17.0 — — 16.0
cational & Cultural Exchanges316.6355.9 — 355.9430.4410.4 440.2 431.8
ucational & Cultural Exchanges — avian flu supp.
fice of Inspector General31.430.0 — 30.030.030.0 33.0 30.0
iki/CRS-RL32919resentation Allowances8.98.5 — 188.8.131.52 8.3 8.3
g/wection of Foreign Missions & Officials9.99.7 — 184.108.40.206 9.4 9.4
leakbassy Security-Ongoing Ops & Non-Security588.3603.5 592.0 1,195.5615.8603.5 598.8 598.8
nstr uc tio n
://wikibassy Security-Worldwide Security Upgrades852.3900.1 — 900.1910.2 910.2 900.2 910.2
httpergencies in the Diplomatic & Consular Service116.51.0 — 1.013.610.0 13.6 10.0
ergencies in the Diplomatic & Consular Service — — — — — 20.0 — — 15.0
atriation Loans1.21.2 — 220.127.116.11 1.3 1.3
ment to the American Institute in Taiwan18.619.2 — 19.219.819.8 19.8 19.8
pital Investment Fund79.251.5 — 51.5133.069.1 58.9 58.9
ntralized IT Modernization Program — 76.8 — 76.8 — — 74.1 69.4
tal, Administration of Foreign Affairs6,872.26,229.61,326.07,555.66,681.4 6,508.6 6,602.2 6,548.4
Program To t a l Reg ula r Supp. To t a l Request House Sena t e Conference
ions and Conferences:
ntributions to International Organizations1,244.81,166.2 — 1,166.21,296.51,144.3 1,166.2 1,166.2
ntributions to International Peacekeeping450.1 483.5680.0 1,163.51,035.5 1,035.5 1,035.5 1,035.5
tal, International Organizations and Conferences1,694.91,649.7 680.0 2,329.72,332.0 2,179.8 2,201.7 2,201.7
ational Commissions57.263.3 — 63.370.363.8 70.0 67.3
ernational Center for Middle Eastern-Western Dialogue6.97.3 — 18.104.22.168 7.0 6.0
ia Foundation12.912.8 — 12.810.010.0 15.0 14.0
tional Endowment for Democracy39.659.2 — 59.280.0 50.0 8.8d 75.0
iki/CRS-RL32919t-West Center17.719.2 — 19.213.0 6.0 20.0 19.2
g/wenhower Exchange0.5 0.5 — 0.5 0.50.5 0.5 0.5
s.ori Arab Scholarship0.40.4 — 0.40.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
tal, Related Appropriations78.099.40.099.4104.7 66.9 51.7 115.1
httpTAL, STATE DEPARTMENT8,702.38,042.02,006.010,048.09,188.4 8,819.1 8,925.6 8,932.5
pital Improvements11.38.4 2.510.910.910.9 10.9 10.9
ting Operations580.3583.14.8 587.9603.4 620.0 603.4 641.5
ting to Cubaee — e37.6 e 37.7 e
tal, International Broadcasting591.6591.57.3598.8651.9 630.9 652.0 652.4
TAL, STATE DEPT./INT’L BROADCASTING 9,293.98,633.52,013.310,646.89,840.3 9,450.0 9,577.6 9,584.9
duction in unobligated balances from D&CP acct — — — — — — (100.3)b —
2006 1% across-the-board reduction (estimate) — — — — — — — (95.5)
and Total9,293.98,633.52,013.310,646.89,840.39,450.09,477.3 9,489.4
: House and Senate Appropriations Committee and CRS adjustments.
se figures represent those included in title IV of H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice and Commerce Appropriation bill. In the Senate, these amounts were included in title
I of H.R. 3057, the State, Foreign Operations Appropriations measure.
Y2006 enacted figures include supplementals for avian influenza virus and a 1% across-the-board reduction provided in P.L. 109-148, the Defense Department Appropriation.
ec. 6083 of the Senate version of H.R. 3057 reduced unobligated balances of the Diplomatic and Consular Program account by $100.3 million.
addition to this amount for NED, the Senate version of H.R. 3057 provided $80 million for NED in title III of the bill, under the heading of a new account, the Democracy Fund.
This amount is included in Table 15, above.
cluded in Broadcasting Operations.