$50B US funding bill a welcome surprise, but will it see light of day?

The $50 billion compromise appropriations bill introduced this week and approved by the House of Representatives came as a welcome surprise, setting a new — albeit lower — baseline for U.S. foreign assistance spending and opening up a fresh set of questions about if and how funding will actually be implemented, development experts and advocates tell Devex. “We are very pleased to see the bill introduced, and are very pleased to see the levels of spending where they are,” said David Cronin, government relations manager at Catholic Relief Services. “The most important thing from this bill is not even the text itself. It’s the fact that it exists, that it’s been introduced, and that it’s bicameral, bipartisan.” It also helps answer some of the biggest questions that have loomed over foreign aid during the past year: Is there a path forward, and can there be bipartisan agreement on that path? The answer to both appears to be yes, Cronin said, even if things are done differently. Many U.S. foreign assistance programs will continue, he added. Liz Schrayer, president and CEO of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, applauded lawmakers for reaching an agreement. “While no compromise is perfect and there are certainly additional needs to be addressed to advance American interests abroad, this deal minimizes cuts, protects funding for critical programs, and reaffirms Congress’s spending authority. It also rejects other harsher proposals that would have undercut America’s global footprint at a time when our rivals like China, Russia, and Iran are eager to step into the void,” she said. That outcome was far from guaranteed, sources said. As recently as a month ago — or even six months ago — many in the development community would have doubted that an agreement would materialize at all, let alone one totaling $50 billion. But the funding bill has now cleared the first hurdle, passing the House of Representatives on Wednesday after relatively smooth consideration of two amendments — including one that would have stripped democracy funding from the bill — both of which were rejected. With the Senate out during the week of Jan. 19, a vote is not expected until the final week of the month. This bill includes significant cuts — about 16% from the previous year — but still preserves substantial funding for global health and humanitarian assistance. It also maintains support for food security, women and girls, education, water and sanitation. Taken together, the bill sends a clear message from Congress that it wants this work to continue, alongside global health and humanitarian programs, Cronin said. Across the development community, the mood is a mix of relief, cautious gratitude, and lingering uncertainty — appreciation that the outcome was not worse, paired with questions about what comes next if the bill becomes law. Competing visions If the bill is approved by lawmakers and signed by the president, questions remain. The foreign assistance vision presented by Congress in this bill differs sharply from the approach the administration has pursued to date. In fact, many programs that were cut and contracts that were canceled over the past year — as the U.S. Agency for International Development was dismantled and foreign assistance broadly reviewed — are funded again in this bill. The legislation also includes money for initiatives, such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, that the administration previously said it wouldn’t support. Last year, the administration ignored some congressional spending plans and requested a series of rescissions to cancel foreign assistance funding that had already been appropriated. There is a question about whether the administration will “honor the direction Congress has clearly laid out here” and respect Congress’ traditional role and power of the purse, said Erin Collinson, director of policy outreach at the Center for Global Development. It remains unclear how much backing this proposal has within the administration, Collinson said, adding that some officials may view the bill as a ceiling rather than a floor for spending. ”There are no assurances that it will actually materialize.” Still, having a negotiated compromise bill, rather than a continuing resolution, as was the case last year, could prove consequential, said Justin Fugle, Plan International’s head of policy. Continuing resolutions, he noted, can be dismissed as “last administration stuff” that officials feel little obligation to carry out. “But now you have this agreement that it looks like they are a part of, so this is the current Congress and current White House saying this is what we want to do around foreign aid,” he said. “That’s maybe a little optimistic, but there probably will be some benefits that this compromise has been forged, and everybody’s got things that they want in it.” An implementation challenge Another looming question is whether, after the cuts at the State Department and the dismantling of the USAID last year, the administration has the staff, systems, and expertise needed to implement the programs Congress has included in the bill. Several sources warned that turning the legislation into functioning programs will be difficult without rebuilding capacity. Questions remain about where certain programs will live within the State Department, how they will be staffed, and what structures will be put in place to ensure they can be implemented. “If we have this bill but keep the capacity they have now, there’s no way it can be implemented effectively,” Fugle said, adding that additional staffing is critical. There needs to be a bureau for development assistance, or a similar mechanism, within the State Department, he added, because Congress is still clearly interested in programs “that the State Department has never done before.” Collinson also raised concerns about the State Department’s ability to program funds and get money out the door — functions historically carried out by USAID — and about which partners would be used to provide assistance. While the administration has voiced a preference for faith-based and local organizations, there have been few new funding opportunities, leaving open questions about who at State will make the awards and who will be eligible to compete. “They can want to do it in a different way and reform it, but fundamentally they need to have the capacity to make awards,” she said, pointing to language in the bill requiring evaluation and impact assessments. That language, she said, reflects Congress’ desire for greater transparency — not just plans on paper, but evidence that programs are effective and delivering results. That is particularly true for humanitarian funding, which dropped significantly last year, and where lawmakers have asked for a clear strategy, including a recommended pilot program. “There’s some basic functions then there’s all the other things that were intended to make this work effective and accountable and with many many fewer people that’s going to be a tall order,” Collinson said. The State Department, she added, will likely need to spend significant time mapping out new systems and determining staffing needs. But with much of the foreign assistance money available over multiple years, there is time to assess what resources, staffing, and expertise are needed, Cronin said. “This bill says that we’re going to do foreign aid now from inside the State Department,” Fugle said. “So, State Department, if this is your show now, you need to be able to do all these things, and they absolutely can do it.”