A surprising US Senate foreign affairs budget bill

U.S. Senate Democrats on the Appropriations Committee released their foreign affairs funding bill Thursday with one big surprise: $5 billion in emergency spending for global COVID-19 response, cash that will help prevent, prepare for, and respond to the pandemic.

The emergency money is in addition to a top-line number of $64.56 billion for foreign affairs for fiscal year 2023, about 15% more than this fiscal year.

A congressional deal to include $5 billion in emergency funding for global COVID-19 response in the 2022 budget fell apart at the last minute earlier this year, and it was stripped from the final bill due to disagreements over how it would be bankrolled. Subsequent efforts to pass the funding through alternative avenues also floundered, leaving most to believe it would never materialize.

So, it was a surprise to see the $5 billion in the latest Senate bill, several development experts told Devex.

There was a second emergency funding request attached to the bill too: $950 million for global health security, including support for a new global health security financial intermediary fund to help low- and middle-income countries prepare for future pandemics.

Global health experts highlighted other wins. The bill supports the Global Health Worker Initiative and directs the U.S. Agency for International Development administrator to increase funding to expand the health workforce worldwide. It also includes a requirement that health units implementing programs across multiple areas must spend at least 10% to strengthen health systems.

Some programs spend much more currently — notably, the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and programs for maternal and child health at USAID, said Elisha Dunn-Georgiou, the president and CEO at Global Health Council. The inclusion of the 10% funding requirement may alleviate ongoing challenges around dedicating funding to strengthen health systems, she told Devex, adding that new reporting requirements will also build evidence that U.S. programs support that work.

“We’re hopeful about seeing these great additions in the Senate bill, but we know it’s not over,” Dunn-Georgiou said. “There are no done deals anymore.”

While House and Senate bills that are very close on funding figures — as these are — usually mean the final bill will resemble the original legislation, that hasn’t been the case lately and certainly not last year. For fiscal year 2022, the House and Senate bills proposed double-digit increases to the foreign affairs budget, but the final bill had a paltry 1% increase.

That bill only passed in March, long after the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1. Budget delays are common practice now as political gridlock leads to prolonged negotiations. This history has many expecting another bumpy budget process. What seems likely is a continuing resolution to start the fiscal year, and then negotiations would continue some time after the midterm elections in November to finalize spending.

The bills from both chambers are similar in terms of funding allocation. But one difference between the Senate bill and the budget proposed by the White House is that the Senate appears to have a preference for bilateral spending, as its bill includes less funding for international organizations and United Nations peacekeeping.

Below is a rundown of some of the key numbers and policies in the bill.

By the numbers

• Health. $10.5 billion for global health, including $745 million for global health security, $4.4 billion for PEPFAR, $2 billion for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, $650 million for family planning, $100 million for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, and $290 million for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.

• Climate. $1.6 billion for the Green Climate Fund, $550 million for the Clean Technology Fund, and $1.9 billion for State Department and USAID environment programs, including sustainable landscape initiatives, climate adaptation, clean energy, and biodiversity conservation.

• Humanitarian assistance. $8.1 billion for humanitarian assistance, and $1 billion for food security and agriculture development programs.

• USAID. $1.74 billion for operating expenses, $4.75 billion for development assistance, and $4.48 billion for international disaster assistance.

• International institutions. The World Bank’s International Development Association will get over $1.4 billion, and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development will get $206.5 million. About $1.6 billion will go to international organizations, primarily the U.N., with an additional $1.96 billion to international peacekeeping. The International Monetary Fund’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust or Resilience and Sustainability Trust will get $20 million.

• Indo-Pacific and countering China. $1.8 billion to implement the Indo-Pacific strategy, with $300 million for the Countering PRC Influence Fund and $205 million for Pacific island countries.

• Countering Russia. $295 million for the Countering Russian Influence Fund.

• U.S. International Development Finance Corporation. $1 billion for DFC, including $220 million for administrative expenses and $780 million for programs

• Millennium Challenge Corporation. $930 million for MCC.

• Peace Corps. $430.5 million for the Peace Corps.

• Debt. $52 million for the costs of modifying loans and loan guarantees to countries facing debt restructuring under the so-called Common Framework for Debt Treatments beyond the DSSI, an agreement under the Group of 20 leading industrial and advanced economies nations.

Policy proposals

• Support for increasing U.S. candidates at the U.N., including doubling funding. The State Department is also provided funding to make Americans more competitive for jobs at international organizations. This issue has been raised at recent hearings and is seen as important to U.S. leadership and influence in these institutions.

• A directive for the administration to create a new Global Food Security Partnership Fund working with other donors, the private sector, and multilateral organizations to improve coordination in the response to food insecurity and resilience efforts.

• Support for a new Global Health Worker Initiative and increased funding to protect front-line health workers, expand the global health workforce, increase leadership opportunities for women, and increase investments in digital technologies for health.

• New requirements directing the Treasury Department to use its voice in international financial institutions to oppose instances of project financing “that do not prioritize the use of local labor or value-for-money standards rather than the lowest bid, as State-owned companies and other entities controlled by the PRC have unfairly benefited from exploiting such lack of prioritization,”, particularly in Pacific island countries.

• A directive to prioritize democracy assistance funding for countries in Africa.