Multi-Year Agency Totals - Operating Budget - Fy 2017: Fill & Download for Free

Well let's see. NASA’s portion of federal outlays is around $19B in FY2017. That’s approximately the acquisition cost of two new Aircraft Carriers spread over 10 years. (That’s how the funds flow for Large multi year product acquisitions) and the one project most people like to discuss when comparing government programs and cost. Or in other terms, like humanitarian SNAP ( Food stamp) benefits cost $74.1 billion in fiscal year 2015 and supplied roughly 46.5 million Americans with an average of $125.35 for each person per month in food assistance. The rise was from $24B in 2011 with the onslaught of the recent recession and is falling as the job market improves. If the government funded (non-head start) preschool education it would cost on the average . Depending on where you live and the quality of the preschool, costs range from $4,460 to $13,158 per year ($372 to $1,100 monthly), per 7 or 8 million children each according to the National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies (NACCRRA). If the Federal government were to pay for free college tuition at “Public institutions” it would cost a mere $62.6 billion dollars per year ( That’s in 2012$s too) According to new Department of Education data, that's how much tuition public colleges collected from undergraduates in 2012 across the entire United States. And I'm not being facetious with the word mere, either. The New America Foundation says that the federal government spent a whole $69 billion in 2013 on its hodgepodge of financial aid programs, such as Pell Grants for low-income students, tax breaks, work study funding. And that doesn't even include loans. Currently students and grads owe over 1. 3 $Trillion (with a T) in student loans.So there are some of the alternatives for NASA money. So now let's look at NASA’s paltry $19B annual budget.NASA currently employs approximately 17,000 scientists, researchers and technicians, not to mention all the large and small contractors and many workers who actually build and test NASA’s products.The percentage of federal budget that NASA has been allocated has been steadily dropping since the Apollo program and in 2012 it was estimated at 0.48% of the federal budget. In a meeting of the United States Senate Science Committee, budgetary analysts testified that "Right now, NASA’s annual budget is half a penny on your tax dollar. For twice that—a penny on a dollar—we can transform the country from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary of economic struggle, to one where it has reclaimed its 20th century birthright to dream of tomorrow."FY 2017 NASA BUDGET: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2017_nasa_agency_fact_sheet.pdfNASA’s budget advances the Nation’s space exploration plan and ensures our nation remains the world’s leader in space exploration and technology, aeronautics research and discovery in space and Earth science. The budget supports developing the technologies that will make future space missions more cabable and affordable, partnering with the private sector to transport crew and cargo to the International Space Station, continuing the development of the Orion crew vehicle, Space Launch System and Exploration Ground Systems that will one day send astronauts beyond low Earth orbit. The budget also keeps the Webb Telescope on track for a 2018; builds on our scientific discoveries and achievements in space; and supports the Administration’s commitment to serve as a catalyst for the growth of a vibrant American commercial space industry.Science - $5,601 million $2,032 million for Earth Science, including a plan to continue the 43-year Landsat record of global land-imaging measurements. $1,519 million for Planetary Science, keeping on track the Mars 2020 rover and the next selection for the New Frontiers program and including formulation of a mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa. $782 million for Astrophysics, continuing support for the Hubble Space Telescope, the Explorers Program, and the Wide-Field and Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST). $569 million for the James Webb Space Telescope, maintaining its 2018 launch date. $699 million for Heliophysics, supporting the launches of two Explorer missions this decade as well as research to improve space weather modeling. Continues development of 30 missions toward launch and operation of 60 missions producing leading edge science. Funds over 10,000 U.S. scientists in universities, industry, and government labs through over 3,000 openly competed research awards.Human Exploration Operations - $8,413 million Includes $3,337 million for Exploration and $5,076 million for Space Operations. Continues commercial development of US crew transportation systems to be certified to support the ISS by the end of 2017, ending the need to pay Russia for crew transport services. Enables use of ISS as a platform for scientists to identify and quantify risks to human health and performance, develop countermeasures, and develop and test technologies that protect astronauts during extended human exploration missions. Continues development of the Space Launch System rocket and Orion crew vehicle to send astronauts on deep space missions. Furthers Advanced Exploration Systems development of foundational technologies – often through public-private partnerships – for future exploration missions, including deep space habitation. Continues mission-critical space communications and navigation services for customer missions, including human, science, and commercial crew and cargo missions.Space Technology - $827 million Enables the U.S. aerospace community to find technologies at the “tipping point” and make them viable for use by industry, NASA, and other government agencies in order to accelerate the transfer and commerlization of these technologies. Cultivates small businesses as the central home for NASA SBIR/STTR and engages with academia through early stage research. Continues formulation activities for a full-scale in-space demonstration of on-orbit robotic satellite servicing. Continues development of high-powered solar electric propulsion to meet demands by U.S. aerospace industry, and for NASA exploration missions. Support fast transit in-space propulsion and high-bandwidth deep space communication to support future exploration missions.Aeronautics Research - $790 million Advances aeronautics research bringing transformational advances in the safety, capacity, and efficiency of the air transportation system while minimizing impacts on the environment. Develops transformative capabilities that enable the U.S. aviation industry to maintain and advance its global leadership and contributes to the nation’s economic growth and job creation Establishes a major new experimental flight initiative to demonstrate and validate new technologies that dramatically reduce fuel consumption, emissions, and noise, and open new markets for U.S. Industry Supports research and development for revolutionary low carbon emission aircraft, including associated transportation systems, as part of a multiagency effort to enable a 21st century clean transportation system.Education - $100 million Continues to provide opportunities for educators, learners and institutions that are consistent with the goals, objectives, and strategies of the Five-Year Federal Strategic Plan on STEM Education. Continues the Agency’s investment in the Space Grant, EPSCOR, and MUREP Programs.Safety, Security and Mission Services and Construction & Environmental Compliance and Restoration - $3,257 million Funds Agency-wide mission support operations, including facilities and environmental activities. Ensures NASA infrastructure and assets are safe, secure, environmentally sound, and operate efficiently.For information, how NASA Contracts:How a Typical NASA contract for one of major projects currently in work is accomplished? The Boeing SLS program: taken from a Q&A session NASA, Boeing provide details about Space Launch System contractUnder Boeing’s agreement with NASA, does Boeing handle the subcontractors fees under the agreement – or is the amount Boeing will be paid separate from what the subcontractors are paid? – “Yes, Boeing is responsible for overall contract performance, to include subcontract management and payment of subcontract costs (inclusive of any fees).”Given ATK has a major role in building SLS, will the $2.8 billion contract includes the subcontractors, to include ATK – or is the amount they are paid separate from this? – “Payment of any Stages-related ATK subcontract cost is covered in the Stages contract with prime contractor Boeing. That being said, ATK is also considered a prime contractor to NASA for the boosters and that is under a separate contract.”What is the total cost of one SLS rocket? – “As part of its Key Decision Point-B review, NASA estimated preliminary SLS development and operations costs of between $7.65 and $8.59 billion through the first non-crewed launch of SLS in 2017.” As noted, the first flight of SLS is currently on schedule to launch in 2017. This is planned to be an uncrewed test flight of the SLS booster itself, along with an Orion spacecraft. Orion is currently set to undertake its first test flight in December of this year atop a United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket.The space agency along with the contractors and subcontractors will test out various systems relating to the duo before the first crewed test flight is carried out in 2021. Due to budget constraints, NASA is unable to conducting a testing regimen similar to that seen during the Apollo era.The U.S. space program has been split into two distinct efforts. The first involves ceding the delivery of crew and cargo to the only current low-Earth-orbit destination, the International Space Station to private companies. The second element involves the use of SLS and Orion to send crews to orbits beyond the orbit of Earth. These include a diverse array of targets which currently include an asteroid, potential locations such as a Lagrange Point or the Martian moon Phobos with the primary target being a crewed mission to Mars sometime in the 2030s. Read more at http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/nasa/nasa-space-launch-system/#7xJh7StqLZrLL3X1.99So, what alternatives are there? Say, by allocating a few cents per tax $ collected to the NASA budget we’d be walking on Mars and other planets by now, not to mention other tremendous advances in science that would benefit all mankind and in a short time improve the overall wealth of the United States. Or we could cut their budget, puting thousands out of work and losing any technological advantage our nation does have in the sciences.As far as I'm concerned, that $19B is well spent. Even reallocation of it all to some of the other much needed programs such as rebuilding our infrastructure, health care, food for the poor, free education.. etc……would be blowing in the wind because of the astronomical costs involved, and $19B isn't going to solve anything!

My answer to this question: Yes. With a twist.Here’s how it needs to be done.There needs to be a dedicated trust fund for Amtrak.Part of what is to follow is a repeat from a post on my Blogger blog earlier this summer.While I like the fact that states are willing to pitch in and do their part to fund Amtrak service that benefits their states, Amtrak is a NATIONAL system and the primary source of funding sufficient for the entire system should be Federally-based.One of my ideas: raise the federal motor fuel and aviation taxes by one penny each and create a dedicated national Amtrak Trust Fund, similar to the highway, mass transit, and aviation trust funds.This would be a dedicated source of at least partial funding for the Amtrak national system, independent of the General Fund and independent of support from the various states.The Amtrak fund should earn a moderate interest on the funds on account. This Amtrak Trust Fund would primarily support day-to-day operation of all passenger service (including traditional dining car service, and reducing the burden on the states to provide funding for shorter routes), with a strong secondary focus on basic maintenance and upkeep of rolling stock, trackage owned directly by Amtrak and the station infrastructure. I would imagine that major improvement projects would still need to be funded on an individual basis through the appropriations process.Apparently, I’m not alone in thinking this. In researching this, I discovered (from Jeff Davis of the Eno Transportation Weekly) that Congress came close to establishing a trust fund for Amtrak back in 1997:“Since the Budget Act of 1974, the only way to get contract authority (multi-year mandatory budget authority) from Congress is to have it drawn from an excise-tax-supported trust fund. The federal highway, mass transit formula, and airport aid programs all have access to contract authority and therefore have a kind of certainty to their funding levels in future years (at least until the multi-year reauthorization bill providing the contract authority expires). Multi-year certainty is a good thing where capital programs are concerned. Amtrak actually came close to trust fund access once – the Senate version of the 1997 tax reconciliation bill would have created an Intercity Passenger Rail Fund supported by a half-cent of the existing gasoline and diesel taxes. But the House killed that provision in conference, and Amtrak has never come close to trust fund access again.”[1]In 2014, the federal gas tax raised $35 billion.Dedicating just two percent of that to Amtrak would raise $700 million.In 2015, the federal aviation fuel tax raised about $14 billion.Dedicating just 1.5 percent of that to Amtrak would raise $210 million.That is a combined $910 million as a dedicated funding source for Amtrak, at least on a supplemental basis, irrespective of any other Federal grants or revenue from fares.(What are the major federal excise taxes, and how much money do they raise?)I wouldn’t even mind paying an extra $1 per ticket, as an Amtrak passenger, to help pitch in to this Amtrak Trust Fund. Amtrak earned $3.2 billion in FY 2017 in passenger fare revenue (a record) on over 31 million passenger trips, so (assuming one passenger trip equals one ticket) naturally a $1 ticket surtax could bring in as much as $31 million.(Amtrak Sets Ridership, Revenue and Earnings Records - Amtrak Media)Also, I believe the big Class I freight railroads, and even the Class II railroads, should contribute more towards Amtrak. This idea, while I think it is perfectly fair, is sure to draw much weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. Yes, I know that Amtrak was created to take the burden of passenger service off of these carriers, and in the 1960s and 1970s, these railroads were financially struggling so much, the entire rail industry was on the path to completely disappear in this nation.What is clear NOW: In the years since Congress took action to save the rail industry, and the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 (deregulation) was passed, the freight railroads became, and are currently, quite profitable and as the “host railroads” to Amtrak are critical to Amtrak’s success.BNSF alone reported $21 billion in revenues in 2017.https://www.bnsf.com/about-bnsf/financial-information/pdf/performance_update_4q_2017.pdfBNSF, which actually owns 35% of Amtrak’s preferred stock, should pay one percent of revenue into the Amtrak Trust Fund. One percent is not very much to ask, but it would provide an annual infusion of $210 million. Multiply this amount by four (to hypothetically account for contributions from Union Pacific, Kansas City Southern, CSX and Norfolk Southern) and let’s even subtract $300 million to account for lower operating revenues from KCS, CSX and NS and add $50 million as a combined contribution from ALL Class II railroads, about 15 or so (those Class II railroads operated through a governmental agency, such as the LIRR, which is basically part of the New York City transit system, would be exempt). We get $590 million.The Aviation Trust Fund gets a portion of its revenue from a 6.25 percent surcharge on air cargo. I think a one percent Federally-mandated surcharge on all Class I and Class II freight cargo (payable directly and exclusively by the cargo shippers themselves) would be a fair way to supplement the Amtrak Trust Fund. In fiscal year 2016, the total revenue for BNSF, just from freight alone, was nearly $19 billion. One percent of that would make $190 million. Added to the $590 million number we arrive at $780 million. (Mind you, for this surcharge, I am not counting contributions from the other Class I and Class II railroads, just BNSF alone.)Added to the $910 million this gives us a minimum of well over one and a half billion dollars ($1,610,000,000) in dedicated annual revenue (give or take about 5 percent or so each year) to keep Amtrak strong. Hell, I’d be happy with one billion.Amtrak has consistently received about $1 billion most years of its history in the form of appropriations from Congress (but in some years as low as $600 million).With a dedicated trust fund supplied through minor increases in the motor fuel and aviation fuel taxes and contributions from the freight railroads, including a surcharge on freight, Congress, and even some of the individual states, can actually get away with appropriating less money directly.This is keeping in mind that according to the FAA, at the beginning of FY 2018, the Aviation Trust Fund had a cash balance of about $15 billion. The Highway Trust Fund had a cash balance of about $37 billion. I don’t think $1 to 1.5 billion in dedicated annual revenue is too much to ask, in light of that, to keep America’s passenger rail network strong.I would even go further and propose that Congress simply move $5 billion from both the Aviation and Highway Trust Funds to provide initial seed funding for an Amtrak Trust Fund, and allow for the same formula I proposed above: modest contributions from the Aviation and Highway Trust Funds plus modest contributions from the Class I and Class II freight railroads.Amtrak has been under a mandate to be completely and totally self-sufficient by means of revenue from passenger fares and other sources. Amtrak now depends on appropriations from the federal General Fund to survive on a year-to-year basis. Citizens who support Amtrak are always rallied to contact their members of Congress to plead and beg for Amtrak to be adequately funded each funding cycle.While Amtrak certainly does earn a good deal of revenue from passenger fares, a self-sufficiency mandate without a dedicated funding source to back it up is completely and totally unrealistic and unfair. When transportation systems, be they motor coach or commercial aviation, are left to fend for themselves to be profitable, the first thing that happens is that they shut down and cease operations if they are NOT profitable. If Southwest Airlines tries to increase service from Tucson, for example, and no one is flying on the planes, Southwest will and must cancel some of those departures in the name of profitability. Passengers are (in some cases quite literally) left stranded.Amtrak, in my opinion, is too critically important to a balanced national transportation system to be left to the insecurity and uncertainty of the “free market.” America needs passenger intercity rail transport as a complement to our highways and commercial aviation infrastructure. Intercity passenger rail connects our big cities AND smaller communities in a way the airlines arguably cannot.Intercity passenger rail provides yet another option for the overall mobility of the American people. To simply neglect it by intentionally underfunding it to the benefit of highways and aviation only, is inherently unfair, and un-American in my view.Amtrak is too important to be canceled.Footnotes[1] Amtrak Submits Ambitious $11 Billion Budget Request - The Eno Center for Transportation

Obviously. Ebola scared millions of Americans. Obama sent troops to Ebola affected countries to try to stem EBOLA from coming into the USA.MENUThe U.S. Response to Ebola: Status of the FY2015 Emergency Ebola AppropriationJennifer Kates Follow @jenkatesdc on Twitter, Josh Michaud Follow @joshmich on Twitter, Adam Wexler, and Allison ValentinePublished: Dec 11, 2015OverviewThe Ebola outbreak of 2014 was a global wake-up call regarding the ongoing threat of emerging infectious diseases. After a slow initial response by the global community, including the U.S. government, the U.S. mounted what has become the largest effort by a single donor government to respond to Ebola. This includes an emergency appropriation of $5.4 billion by Congress as part of its final FY 2015 spending package, a funding amount significantly larger than previous emergency response efforts to address emerging infectious disease outbreaks such as SARS and avian influenza.1,2Since this funding was designated by Congress as an emergency funding measure, it did not count toward existing budget caps on discretionary spending.Today, a year later, as Ebola case numbers have dropped and countries have been declared Ebola-free, the emergency response has been winding down and a transition period toward more sustained support for health systems in the region and other vulnerable areas has begun. Given the large U.S. investments for Ebola, including approximately $2.0 billion that has been obligated by the U.S. for the international response effort, now is an opportune time to examine where the U.S. response stands.3,4What specifically was funding provided for and what is its current status? How is U.S. funding being used to address the outbreak and its aftermath, and prepare for future health threats? How available and transparent is information about these activities? This issue brief seeks to shed light on some of these issues, focusing on the $5.4 billion emergency Ebola funding and providing an overview of its international activities, the agencies carrying out these activities, and the status of funding to date.IntroductionThe West African Ebola outbreak in 2014 caught most of the world by surprise. Although the first cases were identified as far back as March 2014,5,6the initial response to these early cases was slow and inadequate, and over the summer and fall of 2014 case numbers rose dramatically in the three most affected countries of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. By the summer of 2014 the region was experiencing devastating rates of transmission, as high as a thousand new cases every week.6,7Since that time, transmission of the disease has been almost entirely interrupted. Overall, there have been over 28,000 cases and 11,000 deaths in this outbreak, making it by far the deadliest Ebola outbreak ever.6As case numbers began to rise in West Africa last year, the United States response was initially delayed and slow to ramp up, but by August 2014 the U.S. government had begun to mount what has become the largest effort by a single donor government to respond to Ebola, a response that has included marshalling financial resources, personnel, and technical expertise. Notably, this included an emergency funding request by the Obama Administration in November 2014 for $6.2 billion.8Eventually Congress appropriated $5.4 billion in emergency Ebola funding in December 2014, most of which was to be directed to international activities.1This was significantly larger than previous emergency response funding provided by Congress to address an emerging disease outbreak such as SARS and avian influenza.2As Ebola case numbers have dropped and countries have been declared Ebola-free, the emergency response is now transitioning toward more sustained support for health systems in the region, including a planned five-year effort through the Global Health Security Agenda to bolster the capacity of countries across sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere to prevent, detect, and respond to future outbreaks and other emerging health threats.9Given the large U.S. investments for Ebola in the region, this brief reviews where the U.S. response stands. What specifically was funding provided for and what is its current status? How is U.S. funding being used to address the outbreak and its aftermath, and prepare for future health threats? How available and transparent is information about these activities? This issue brief seeks to shed light on some of these issues, focusing on the $5.4 billion emergency Ebola funding and providing an overview of its international activities, the agencies carrying out these activities, and the status of funding to date.BackgroundU.S. efforts to respond to emerging and infectious diseases (EIDs), such as Ebola, are conducted through multiple departments and agencies that oversee both ongoing and emergency programs in both domestic and international settings. Ongoing programs receive funding each year from Congress through the annual appropriations process and primarily support efforts to detect and prevent outbreaks, although, this funding may also be used for emergency response efforts should an outbreak occur. Separately, Congress also provides annual funding for emergency and disaster assistance efforts that can be utilized to respond to emergencies, including health emergencies, such as the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. In addition to these ongoing programs and the support for emergency situations, the USG provides funding for EID-related research activities through the National Institutes of Health (NIH).10During the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, U.S. government activities to combat the growing epidemic were initially funded using regular appropriations already available at the civilian agencies, particularly the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for ongoing EID programs and emergency and disaster response efforts. The U.S. military was also involved in the response, and the Department of Defense (DoD) initially funded its Ebola response activities through existing appropriations, but eventually sought and received permission from Congress to transfer funding from its Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account to support its West Africa operations as its engagement grew in scope.11It is estimated that initial response funding from U.S. agencies totaled more than $770 million prior to passage of the emergency Ebola appropriation, most of which was provided by USAID.12As the outbreak worsened and it became apparent that a larger response was necessary to both control further spread and recover from its impacts, the President sent an emergency funding request to Congress.8Emergency Ebola FundingOn November 5, 2014, President Obama sent an emergency funding request to Congress for $6.2 billion to support the Ebola response and recovery effort.8When Congress finalized appropriations for FY 2015 in December 2014, it included $5.4 billion, almost the entire amount, in emergency Ebola funding (see Table 1).1,13,14Of the $5.4 billion Congress provided, approximately $3.7 billion, or more than two thirds (69%), was designated for international efforts, $1.1 billion (21%) for the domestic response, and $515 million (10%) for research and development activities (see Figure 1). The research and development funding could be used in either domestic or international settings. Additionally, it is possible that some of the domestic funding could be used for international efforts.Table 1: Emergency Ebola Funding – FY15 Omnibus (millions)Agency / Department / AccountTotal FundingExpenditure PeriodInternational ResponseDepartment of State$41.7–Diplomatic & Consular Programs$36.4“to remain available until September 30, 2016”International Security Assistance$5.3“to remain available until September 30, 2016”USAID$2,484.7–Operating Expenses$19.0“to remain available until September 30, 2016”Office of Inspector General$5.6“to remain available until expended”Global Health Programs (GHP) account$312.0“to remain available until expended”International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account$1,436.3“to remain available until expended”Economic Support Fund (ESF) account$711.7“to remain available until September 30, 2016”Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)$1,200.0“to remain available until September 30, 2019”Department of Defense (DoD)$17.0–Equipment Procurement$17.0“to remain available until September 30, 2017”Total International Response$3,743.4–Research and DevelopmentHealth and Human Services (HHS)$420.0–National Institutes of Health (NIH)$238.0“to remain available until September 30, 2016”Biomedical Advanced Research and Development (BARDA)$157.0“to remain available until September 30, 2019”Food & Drug Administration (FDA)$25.0“to remain available until expended”Department of Defense (DoD)$95.0–Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)$45.0“to remain available until September 30, 2016”Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP)$50.0“to remain available until September 30, 2016”Total Research and Development$515.0–Domestic ResponseHealth and Human Services (HHS)$1,147.0–Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)$571.0“to remain available until September 30, 2019”Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR)$576.0“to remain available until September 30, 2019”Total Domestic Response$1,147.0–Total Ebola Funding$5,405.4–NOTES: The emergency funding for Ebola does not count towards overall budget caps. Research and development funding may be used for either domestic or international efforts. It is also possible that some of the $1.1 billion for the domestic response may be used for international efforts.SOURCE: Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of the “Consolidated and Further Appropriations Act, 2015” (P.L. 113-235) and associated explanatory statements.The majority of the $3.7 billion specified for the international response effort was provided to USAID ($2.5 billion), followed by the CDC ($1.2 billion, of which $597 million is designated to support national public health institutes and global health security), the State Department ($42 million), and DoD ($17 million).15Of the $1.1 billion that was designated for domestic purposes, $576 million was provided to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and $571 million was provided to the CDC (it is possible that some of the domestic funding could be used for international purposes). Of the $515 million in research and development funding, which could be used in either domestic or international settings, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) ($238 million) accounted for the largest amount, followed by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development (BARDA) program at HHS ($157 million), DoD ($95 million), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ($25 million) (see Figure 2).Figure 1: Emergency Ebola Funding, FY 2015 OmnibusFigure 2: Emergency Ebola Funding, by Agency, FY 2015 OmnibusIn the appropriations bill, Congress stipulated that the emergency Ebola funding could be used to reimburse previous expenditures/accounts. According to USAID, all of the funding they had already spent to respond to Ebola in 2014 was “back-filled” by the emergency Ebola appropriation; it is not yet known whether other departments and agencies involved in the response also used the emergency appropriation to reimburse prior activities. In addition, the bill specified that funding could be disbursed over a multi-year period, although the periods vary by agency and account. For instance, Congress specified that the funding provided to the CDC ($1.8 billion, of which $1.2 billion is for international efforts) would remain available through FY19, while the majority of the $2.5 billion provided to USAID would “remain available until expended” (see Figure 3). Overall, $1.1 billion (20%) was provided as two-year funding, $17 million (less than 1%) as three-year funding, $2.5 billion (46%) as five-year funding, and $1.8 billion (33%) until expended. Congress also included specific reporting requirements on how the emergency funding was being utilized. For instance, USAID is required to report monthly, while HHS is required to report quarterly. These reports, however, are not publicly available at this time.Figure 3: Emergency Ebola Funding by Expenditure Period, FY 2015 OmnibusInternational Activities Supported by the Emergency Ebola FundingThe overarching goals for the emergency funding, as described in the President’s request to Congress, were to “fortify domestic public health systems, contain and mitigate the epidemic in West Africa, speed the procurement and testing of vaccines and therapeutics, and…enhancing capacity for vulnerable countries to prevent disease outbreaks, detect them early, and swiftly respond before they become epidemics that threaten our national security.”8When it approved the emergency Ebola appropriation, Congress provided direction to each agency receiving funding as to the kinds of activities to be supported with this funding as follows (see Table 2):USAID was named the lead agency for the Ebola response, and Congress directed emergency funding to the agency to support a variety of activities including immediate disaster assistance and humanitarian response needs in the highly affected countries. Such activities ranged from the establishment of Ebola treatment units and community care facilities; provision of supplies such as personal protective equipment; community outreach, communication and mobilization efforts; and logistics support. USAID was also directed to use the funding to address the secondary economic and social impacts of the outbreak, from food insecurity to economic stabilization and security.The Department of State was provided funding to assist countries to “prevent, prepare for, and respond” to Ebola, and to “promote biosecurity practices” and “mitigate the risk of illicit acquisition of the Ebola virus.”CDC was named the medical lead for the international response, and directed by Congress to use the funding to help countries prevent, prepare for, and respond to the Ebola outbreak through activities such as infection control, contact tracing and laboratory surveillance and training; building up emergency operation centers; and providing education and outreach. CDC has also been involved in the conduct of clinical trials in affected countries to assess the safety and efficacy of vaccine and treatment candidates.Likewise, Congress identified some funding to go to agencies for the purpose of research and development of vaccines, treatments, and other medical technologies for addressing Ebola.NIH received funding to help advance clinical trials on the safety and efficacy of Ebola vaccines and therapeutics.BARDA was directed to use its funding to develop medical countermeasures such as vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and medical supplies.The Department of Defense was provided emergency funding for clinical trials for vaccines and treatments, and for Ebola diagnostic development.16The FDA was provided funding to help develop these countermeasures and provide oversight during review of the products and the post-market surveillance of these products.Many of these activities remain in progress and in some cases have not yet even begun, as some agencies have multiple-year time frames to utilize the funds. As mentioned above, while Congress required reports from agencies detailing progress on these activities and the funds that have been expended to date, these reports have not yet been made public. Therefore, a clear and comprehensive accounting of what has been spent, and for which activities, is not yet available. This includes a lack of information about which activities supported the initial response and which are supporting ongoing transition and recovery efforts as well as more general health system strengthening.Table 2: Activities Supported by the Emergency Ebola FundingAgency / Department / AccountTotal FundingInternational ResponseDepartment of State–Diplomatic & Consular ProgramsTo prevent, prepare for, and respond to the Ebola outbreakInternational Security AssistanceMitigate the risk of illicit acquisition of the Ebola virus and to promote biosecurity practices associated with EbolaUSAID–Operating ExpensesTo prevent, prepare for, and respond to the Ebola outbreakOffice of Inspector GeneralOversight of Ebola activitiesGlobal Health Programs (GHP) accountTo prevent, prepare for, and respond to the Ebola outbreak in countries directly affected by, or at risk of being effected by, EbolaInternational Disaster Assistance (IDA) accountAssistance for countries affected by, or at risk of being affected by, EbolaEconomic Support Fund (ESF) accountTo prevent, prepare for, and respond to the Ebola outbreak and to address economic and stabilization requirements resulting from an outbreakCenters for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)To prevent, prepare for, and respond to the Ebola outbreak internationallyDepartment of Defense (DoD)–Equipment ProcurementEquipment for detection and diagnostic systems, mortuary supplies, and isolation transport unitsResearch and DevelopmentHealth and Human Services (HHS)–National Institutes of Health (NIH)To prevent, prepare for, and respond to Ebola domestically and internationallyBiomedical Advanced Research and Development (BARDA)To prevent, prepare for, and respond to Ebola domestically and internationally, and to develop necessary medical countermeasures and vaccines including the development and purchase of vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and necessary medical supplies and administrative activitiesFood & Drug Administration (FDA)For an additional amount for “Salaries and Expenses”, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the Ebola virus domestically and internationally, and to develop necessary medical countermeasures and vaccines, including the review, regulations, post market surveillance of vaccines and therapies, and administrative activitiesDepartment of Defense (DoD)–Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)Clinical trials for vaccines and treatments for EbolaChemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP)Develop vaccines, treatments, and diagnostic systems for EbolaDomestic ResponseHealth and Human Services (HHS)–Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)To prevent, prepare for, and respond to the Ebola outbreak domesticallyAssistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR)For the renovation and alteration of privately owned facilities to improve preparedness and response capabilities and to reimburse domestic transportation and treatment costs for individuals treated in the US.SOURCE: Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of the “Consolidated and Further Appropriations Act, 2015” (P.L. 113-235) and associated explanatory statements.Status of Ebola FundingData on the status of the emergency Ebola funding are limited. Some data are available from USAID, which has released regularly updated factsheets providing information on the international response effort and funding amounts obligated by USAID, CDC, and DoD, and from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at USAID, which has released Congressionally mandated quarterly reports on the U.S. government’s international Ebola response and preparedness efforts. To date, the Department of State (DOS), USAID, CDC, and DoD report that they had obligated approximately $2.0 billion in total international funding towards the Ebola outbreak (see Table 3).3,4USAID accounted for the largest amount ($1.2 billion), followed by the DoD ($474 million), CDC ($364 million), and the DOS ($32 million). An additional $523 million ($365 million through HHS and $158 million through DoD) has been obligated for research and development activities, but this funding could not be disaggregated by international or domestic purposes. In addition, the status of domestic funding is not currently known.Table 3: Total U.S. Ebola Funding for the International Response (FY 2014 – FY 2016)3,4AgencyTotal Funding(in millions)International ResponseDepartment of State (DOS)$32.1Diplomatic & Consular Programs$22.1International Security Assistance$5.0Economic Support Fund (ESF)$5.0U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)$1,158.8Operating Expenses$3.0Office of the Inspector General (OIG)$1.9Global Health Programs (GHP)$159.2International Disaster Assistance (IDA)$869.8Economic Support Fund (ESF)$124.8Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)$364.5Department of Defense (DoD)$473.8Equipment Procurement$14.3Overseas, Humanitarian, Disaster Assistance, & Civic Aid$406.4Cooperative Threat Reduction$53.0Operations & Maintenance<$0.1Total$2,029.2NOTES: Includes funding provided prior to and since passage of the emergency Ebola appropriation. The CDC total includes approximately $50 million in funding provided during the FY 2015 Continuing Resolution (CR) period; this funding could not be disaggregated by international and domestic purposes. Funding for Research & Development (R&D) activities, which totaled $533 million ($364.6 million at HHS and $158 million at DoD) as of September 30, 2015, is not included as this funding could not be disaggregated by international and domestic purposes.SOURCES: Funding obligations as detailed in USAID OIG “Lead Inspector General Quarterly Progress Report on U.S. Government Activities: International Ebola Response and Preparedness, September 30, 2015” and USAID “West Africa – Ebola Outbreak, Fact Sheet #5, Fiscal Year (FY) 2016” released on December 4, 2015.Of the $1.2 billion that USAID has obligated to the response effort, the majority is provided through the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account ($870 million), followed by the Global Health Programs (GHP) account ($159 million), and the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account ($125 million). According to USAID, the agency’s emergency funding reimbursed all expenditures incurred prior to passage of the emergency Ebola appropriation.17As such, the entire funding amount that has been obligated to date by USAID would therefore be attributed to the emergency funding provided by Congress, which would leave approximately $1.3 billion in funding that remains to be obligated.It is not known whether or not the CDC and DoD emergency Ebola funding was used to reimburse prior activities as was done at USAID. As such, the status of CDC’s $1.2 billion in international funding and DoD’s $112 million in the emergency Ebola funding is not yet known. However, if the CDC’s emergency Ebola funding was used to replace prior obligations, as was done with USAID, then $836 million of the $1.2 billion emergency appropriation would remain for international efforts. DoD has obligated more than $600 million towards its Ebola activities ($474 for the international response and $158 million for research and development activities) using a combination of existing funding, which includes prior appropriations supporting the Overseas Contingency Operations account (OCO), and the $112 million in emergency Ebola funding, of which $17 million was for the international effort and $95 million was for research and development activities.11It is not known how much of the DoD’s $112 million in emergency Ebola funding has been obligated to date.Conclusion and Looking AheadThe Ebola outbreak of 2014 was a global wake-up call regarding the ongoing threat of emerging infectious diseases. After a slow initial response, the U.S. mounted what has become the largest effort by a single donor government to respond to Ebola, including $5.4 billion in emergency funding, the greatest amount of emergency funding ever provided by Congress for an international health emergency. Most of this funding (more than two thirds, or $3.7 billion) was directed toward international activities, both for the initial response as well as ongoing recovery and rebuilding efforts, and is channeled through multiple agencies including USAID, State, CDC and DoD. Agencies report that approximately $2.0 billion has been obligated so far, indicating a significant amount of the emergency Ebola funding remains for ongoing and future activities. Congress made most funding available to agencies for at least a five-year period or available until expended, in recognition of the longer term nature of the challenges ahead and the need to transition to broader support for health systems and public health capacities in the affected countries and beyond.While we have some general information about how the U.S. has spent and plans to spend the Emergency Ebola funding, many questions remain. At the current time, only limited information is publicly available as to the specific activities funded through the emergency funding. With the exception of USAID, information on the approximately $2.0 billion that has been obligated on the Ebola response thus far is not currently available. Data are also not available to indicate what share of this funding is part of the emergency Ebola appropriation and what is from other funding lines. It is also unclear how much will be directed to longer-term rebuilding and health systems strengthening activities, and exactly what form those activities take. Given that the Ebola response represents a historically large expenditure and is a key humanitarian and health security priority for the U.S. government, understanding how the funds were used and their impact is critical to inform how to respond in future global crises and help to build efforts to address future outbreaks of infectious disease.TOPICSGlobal Health PolicyTAGSEbolaFederal BudgetDOWNLOADISSUE BRIEFALSO OF INTERESTThe U.S. Congress and Global Health: A PrimerThe U.S. Government Engagement in Global Health: A PrimerDonor Government Funding for Family Planning in 2017Voices from Puerto Rico: Reflections Two Months After Maria (Video)GET THE LATEST ON HEALTH POLICYSign Up For Email AlertsSIGN UPFOLLOW KFFTwitterFacebookInstagramEmail AlertsFeedsTOPICSCoronavirus (COVID-19)Global Health PolicyHealth CostsHealth ReformHIV/AIDSMedicaidMedicarePrivate InsuranceRacial Equity and Health PolicyUninsuredWomen’s Health PolicySECTIONSPollingPerspectivesState Health FactsGraphics & InteractivesCharts & SlidesKaiser Health NewsSocial Impact MediaPeterson-KFF Health System TrackerNEWSROOMNews ReleasesEventsSubscribe to EmailsCite Us/ReprintMedia ContactsABOUT USPresident’s MessageOur ProgramsSupport Our WorkKey StaffMedia FellowshipsBarbara Jordan Conference CenterContact UsEmployment OpportunitiesPrivacy Policy© 2020 KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATIONPowered by WordPress.com VIPCITATIONS AND REPRINTSPRIVACY POLICY