Posted By Josh Rogin Share

The House will mark up a funding bill for the State Department and foreign operations Wednesday that would cut the international affairs budget by billions and restrict U.S. involvement in a host of international organizations.

The House Appropriations State and Foreign Ops subcommittee, led by Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX), unveiled its fiscal 2012 appropriations bill today in advance of tomorrow's markup. The bill would provide State and USAID with $39.6 billion in discretionary funding next year, which is 18 percent, or $8.6 billion, below the fiscal 2011 level. The fiscal 2011 level, which was reached as part of a deal to avoid a government shutdown in April, was already $8 billion less than originally requested by the Obama administration. The State Department did move about $3.5 billion from its regular budget to a new "Overseas Contingency Operations" account for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so the apples-to-apples reduction is closer to $5 billion.

Democrats on the committee and NGO leaders reacted with frustration at the bill's cuts to dozens of State Department and foreign assistance programs, as well as its proposal to slash USAID operating expenses by more than a third.

"I am disappointed that the 2012 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act funds priorities that are critical to our national security and global leadership at inadequate levels, and includes divisive and partisan policy riders that are counter-productive to effective diplomacy and development," said subcommittee ranking Democrat Nita Lowey (D-NY) in a statement today. "At a time when the demands we place on our diplomatic and development workforce are increasing, it is short-sighted to downsize the Department of State and USAID."

House Appropriations Committee ranking Democrat Norm Dicks (D-WA) blamed the Republican leadership for not giving Granger enough total funds picture to properly support the development programs.

"Once again the Republican leadership has presented us with a completely inadequate subcommittee allocation that will reduce our influence overseas and damage the security of our nation," he said. "Core program funding in this bill... would mean layoffs at both the State Department and USAID."

The State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill usually enjoys wide bipartisan support, but this year will be an exception. House Democratic aides said that the bill was crafted in a way to satisfy GOP political priorities and without much consideration for comity or consensus across the aisle.

"The decision was apparently made that this would be a Republican bill," one House Democratic aide said.

For employees at State and USAID, the cuts could be particularly biting. The bill cuts the $1.35 billion USAID operations budget to around $900 million and would eliminate what's known as "localization pay" for diplomats abroad, which would immediately bring down their salaries.

"We're starting to see the kinds of cuts that will affect the ability of agencies to implement important tools of our foreign assistance and our foreign policy," said Mark Green, a former U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania and currently senior director at the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition. "We understand that every part of the government is on the table, but what we're looking at here is a very small part of the budget taking significant cuts."

The administration had requested $51.2 billion for State and USAID for fiscal 2012, but nobody is even discussing that number anymore, because the current debt crisis negotiations promise to change the amounts of funding available for all discretionary accounts.

The fluid fiscal situation also spells uncertainty for Granger's bill, which could probably pass on the House floor but would face resistance in the Democrat-controlled Senate. But due to the debt crisis, the Senate isn't planning to start work on appropriations bills until at least September, which doesn't leave a lot of time to work with the House to come up with a compromise before the fiscal year begins on Oct. 1.

The policy riders in the bill include a reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy, which would ban federal funding for organizations that promote abortion. This was also added to the House Foreign Affairs Committee's fiscal 2012 authorization bill, though that piece of legislation isn't expected to become law either.

The bill would defund U.S. contributions to the U.N. Human Rights Council, cap U.S contributions to U.N. peacekeeping at 25 percent of the overall peacekeeping budget (which would put the United States in arrears), blocks U.S. contributions to the U.N. Population Fund, cut funding for programs meant to address climate change, restrict 30 percent of U.S. future contributions to the United Nations until it publishes all of its internal financial audits online (which isn't likely), and rescinds already appropriated funds for the International Monetary Fund.

In a letter sent on Monday to Granger and Lowey, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged the committee not to cut funding for multilateral financial institutions or democracy-promotion programs abroad, both of which face cuts in the bill.

"The International Affairs budget and these agencies play a vital enabling role for U.S. companies to tap foreign markets and create jobs and prosperity at home," the Chamber wrote. "Although it represents less than 1.5% of the total federal budget, the International Affairs budget is critical to creating jobs, saving lives, protecting U.S. diplomats and embassies abroad, and fighting terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction."

The committee recommended funding the Overseas Contingency Operations account at $7.6 billion, which is technically $1.1 billion less than requested, but that is because about $1 billion of Pakistan counterinsurgency funding was transferred back to the Pentagon's jurisdiction.

"This bill reforms and refocuses the way we spend our foreign aid. We have established tough oversight and accountability measures that will make sure my constituents' tax dollars are not wasted overseas while making sure we support our national security priorities and key allies," Granger said in a statement. "In this difficult geopolitical and economic climate, the American people deserve policies that are based on our principles."

Getty Images

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

WEMEANTWELL

12:18 AM ET

July 27, 2011

What wins can State point to?

Bottom Line: As long as the civilian development agencies are unable to execute needed programs, and convinced that partner nations will be happy with any well-intentioned program whether or not it meets their expressed needs, the military will be the tool of choice.

Our execution of outreach programs reminds of a line from a Steppenwolf song–”He only had a dollar to live on ’til next Monday, but he spent it all on comfort for his mind.” If State is to get and effectively use a greater share of the budget, they need to spend the money on some goal beyond making themselves feel good about themselves.

What win can State point to to claw back Congressional confidence? What accomplishments, for example, will be cited as the Department works (read: fails) to convince Congress to pour more money into the Iraq mission and thus demilitarize that hunk o’ foreign policy love? The $63 billion it helped spend on “reconstruction” and democracy building in Iraq? The world’s largest Embassy, in Baghdad, that cost $1 billion and includes a driving range, a bar and outdoor water misters? Good spelling and grammar on Wikileaks? State needs to rack up some wins.

There is not a lot to work with at present, even for the most dedicated PR people and Congressional liaisons. The results described above are almost inevitable.

Peter wemeantwell.com

 

RICK SMITHERS

3:37 PM ET

July 27, 2011

What wins can the military point to?

Everyone knows the statistics - the U.S. military spends more than the rest of the 19 world's biggest spending nations combined. The healthcare budget of the U.S. military dwarfs the entire State Department budget. The amount of money we're talking about cutting from State's budget is small beans relative to the overall budget especially DOD's budget. When the State Department is involved in the crucial work of protecting America's interests through all non-military means, how can we justify cutting its budget even further? Moreover, with all the money being spent on the military, what wins can they point to?

 

CORNELIAA

5:32 AM ET

July 27, 2011

State's Incometence in Development

The basic problem is the State Department is not capable of doing any business other than diplomacy. It is not real work, it is all talk.

Unfortunately USAID which was supposed to be an indepent agency has been sucked into the State Department, emasculated and no longer able to fulfill its development Mission. State uses USAID as a petty cash fund, changing priorites as quickly as an ambassador comes or a cable is received at post or some silly request comes from a foreign government, many of these requests have little to do with development.

Where ius the great Raj Shah, USAID's emasculated Administrator who can only serve tea to State Department officials that manage USAID's budget? Why is he not representing an independent agency in Congress as was done in the past.?

Congress needs to understand that development is not a short term enterprise but one that needs solid objectives to spend tax payer dollars wisely and for the intended purpose of providing long term improvements in health, education, agriculture and broad based economic objectives. Not squandering funds by diplomats who do not know nor care about these goals.

 

KHALIRAINA

8:39 PM ET

July 27, 2011

utah pool builders

i like this xite by looking nad by stuff and i also love to read it. please join it byswimming pool builders
utah pool builders and get more information...

 

CARON REAU

10:10 AM ET

August 17, 2011

House bill would impose huge cuts on State and USAID

In the letter, obtained from a congressional aide by The Washington Post, Clinton criticized the legislation’s “onerous restrictions” on department operations and foreign aid, and the “severe curtailing” of dues owed to international organizations — including the bill’s provision to not pay U.S. dues for the Organization of American States, the hemisphere’s main inter-governmental organization.Clinton wrote that the bill’s ban on aid to countries that don’t meet certain anti-corruption standards “has the potential to affect a staggering number of needy aid recipients.” She also protested the “crippling restrictions on security assistance” to Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen and the Palestinian Authority.The bill had blocked aid to those four governments unless Clinton certified that no members of terrorist organizations, or their sympathizers, were serving in their administrations. That language was aimed at Islamist groups such as the Palestinian organization Hamas and sara jay ’s Hezbollah — which have large followings but are on a U.S. list of terrorist organizations — and the Muslim Brotherhood, which is expected to do well in Egypt’s upcoming elections. It is not considered a terrorist group.Brad Goehner, a spokesman for Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), the committee chairwoman, said in reaction to the letter: "It's disappointing, particularly given the current debt crisis, that the Obama administration is fighting to keep sending taxpayer money to foreign organizations and governments that undermine U.S. interests."

 

AXELBROOK

10:15 AM ET

August 19, 2011

Poor Joe is going to get his

Poor Joe is going to get his butt kicked in the VP Debates he can't hold a light to Sarah Palin when it comes to public speaking and on top of that he is an idiot. I look for Biden to become ill and Obama will have to pickup Hillary to play catch up to the Republicans. RIO .

 

Josh Rogin reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.

Read More

Enter your email address to get The Cable delivered to your inbox each night:

Delivered by FeedBurner