So while this is a real increase in terms of authorization and appropriation. it will not increase outlays above the current level. And for the Moscow Embassy account. this is an issue of such size and importance that it will simply have to be considered separately on its own merits. Excluding outyear U.N. arrearages. recapitalization of the State Department building account. the refugee increase. and Moscow Embassy. the real increase in this bill shrinks to 8 percent or about current services given the higher rate of overseas inflation. The operational accounts of USIA and BIB. in fact do not even fully account for inflation. The subcommittee only made substantive shifts of $24 million within this bill of $6 billion without increasing the total amount. The one important exception to this is the increase in the refugee account. which I have already mentioned. Most of the $24 million in shifts between accounts was to move funds from capital to operational accounts to maintain the State Departments daytoday operations at current services. Some of these shifts. however. were to fund speciallyfavored projects that were not requested by the administration which I will refer to later. Again. the one exception to rule of using cuts to fund specific increases is a $110 million increase in the refugee account the chairman added to the bill without offsetting reductions. The committee was concerned that the administrations requested level for the refugee account would prove to be inadequate due to dramatic new refugee needs in the Middle East. the Soviet Union. and elsewhere that had occurred since the budget was drafted. I did not object to this add on with the assurance that offsets would be found within the foreign aid process. I would also like to highlight several initiatives I included in this bill during subcommittee and committee consideration.