< Back to Current Version

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations

Changes from April 9, 2015 to May 13, 2015

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.


State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations Susan B. Epstein Specialist in Foreign Policy Marian L. Lawson Specialist in Foreign Assistance Policy Alex Tiersky Analyst in Foreign Affairs April 9May 13, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43901 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations Summary On February 2, 2015, the Obama Administration submitted to Congress its budget request for FY2016. The request for State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) totals $53.37 billion, or a 2.7% increase from FY2015-estimated levels. Within that amount: • $46.32 billion is requested for enduring or core funding and $7.05 billion is designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding; • $17.54 billion of the total request is for State Department Operations and related agencies (10.6% increase over FY2015 estimates); • $35.82 billion is for Foreign Operations (-0.8% from the FY2015 estimates, largely because of the Ebola emergency supplemental appropriated for FY2015); • Excluding the FY2015 Ebola supplemental funding, the State Department Operations FY2016 request is a 10.9% increase over FY2015 estimates, and the Foreign Operations FY2016 request is a 6.5% increase over FY2015 funding estimates. House and Senate committees held several hearings on various aspects of the international affairs budget in February and March. Both chambers also passed FY2016 budget resolutions in late March, though the two bills have not yet been reconciled in conference and appropriations subcommittee allocations have not been March. The House (on April 30, 2015) and the Senate (on May 5, 2015) reconciled budget resolution funding levels in conference (H.Rept. 114-96); however, OCO sub-allocations have not been established. This report provides an overview of the FY2016 SFOPS request, a discussion of key issues and historic context, and account-by-account funding comparisons with FY2014 actuals and FY2015 estimates. It will be updated throughout the appropriations process. Congressional Research Service State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations Contents FY2016 Most Recent Actions .......................................................................................................... 1 Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1 The Budget Control Act and State-Foreign Operations Appropriations .................................... 3 FY2016 Request: Enduring vs. Overseas Contingency Operations Funding ............................ 34 State Department Operations ........................................................................................................... 45 State Operations: Key Issues ........................................................................................................... 6 Frontline States .......................................................................................................................... 6 International Organizations/Peacekeeping ................................................................................ 67 Diplomatic Security ................................................................................................................... 7 Management and Human Resources of the Department of State .............................................. 89 Foreign Operations .......................................................................................................................... 9 10 Top Foreign Assistance Recipients .......................................................................................... 1011 Foreign Operations: Key Issues ..................................................................................................... 1112 Administration Initiatives ........................................................................................................ 1112 Global Health Initiative ..................................................................................................... 1112 Feed the Future .................................................................................................................. 1213 Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI)......................................................................... 1213 Africa Initiatives................................................................................................................ 1314 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) .............................................................................. 1314 Syria/IS .................................................................................................................................... 1314 Afghanistan/Pakistan ............................................................................................................... 1415 Countering Russian Aggression............................................................................................... 1415 Central America ....................................................................................................................... 1516 Figures Figure 1. State and Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2006-FY2016 Request ....................... 2 Figure 2. Composition of the FY2016 SFOPS Budget Request ...................................................... 23 Figure 3. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Funding Trends, FY2006-FY2016 Request ............................................................................................................. 45 Figure 4. Composition of State Operations and Related Accounts, FY2016 Request ..................... 5 Figure 5. Foreign Operations by Type, FY2016 Request ................................................................ 9 10 Figure 6. FY2016 Foreign Operations Request, by Region........................................................... 11 Tables Table 1. 12 Tables Table 1. Status of State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2016 ............................................ 1 Table 2. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Funding Trends, FY2006-FY2016 Request ............................................................................................................. 34 Table 23. State Department and Related Accounts: Total Funding and Select Accounts .................. 5 Table 36 Congressional Research Service State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations Table 4. Diplomatic Security Funding: Selected Accounts.............................................................. 8 Congressional Research Service State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations 9 Table 45. Foreign Operations by Type, FY2014, FY2015 and the FY2016 request ....................... 10 Table 56. Top 15 recipients of U.S. Foreign Assistance, FY2016 Request ..................................... 1112 Table A-1. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2014-FY2016 Request ........................................................................................................... 1617 Table B-1. International Affairs Budget, FY2014-FY2016 Request ............................................. 2223 Appendixes Appendix A. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, by Account............................................. 1617 Appendix B. International Affairs (150) Function Account, FY2014 Actual, FY2015 Estimate, and FY2016 Request................................................................................................... 2223 Contacts Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 2223 Congressional Research Service State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations FY2016 Most Recent Actions Budget Resolution (302(a) and 302(b) Allocations). On March 25 and 27, respectively, the House and Senate passed budget resolutions for FY2016. The resolutions have not yet been reconciled in conference. Hearings. In February and March, Secretary of State John Kerry and Acting USAID Administrator Alfonso Lenhardt testified before the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, as well as the House Foreign Affairs and the Senate Foreign Relations Committees on the FY2016 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs request. Other Administration officials testified regarding various aspects of the international affairs budget request as well. Budget Submitted to Congress. On February 2, 2015, the President submitted his FY2016 budget to Congress. Overview On February 2, 2015, the Obama Administration submitted to Congress its FY2016 budget request, which includes $53.37 billion for the State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Appropriations (SFOPS).1 Of the total SFOPS request, $17.54 billion is for programs funded In H.Con.Res. 27, the House recommended an FY2016 budget authority of $38.34 billion for International Affairs, while in S.Con.Res. 11 the Senate recommended $47.79 billion. On April 30, 2015, the House agreed to a conference report that set the FY2016 budget authority for International Affairs enduring funds at $40.20 billion; the Senate agreed to the same on May 5, 2015. While the conference report included $96.287 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) topline levels, suballocation levels of OCO were not provided. Hearings. In February and March, Secretary of State John Kerry and Acting USAID Administrator Alfonso Lenhardt testified before the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, as well as the House Foreign Affairs and the Senate Foreign Relations Committees on the FY2016 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs request. Other Administration officials testified regarding various aspects of the international affairs budget request as well. Budget Submitted to Congress. On February 2, 2015, the President submitted his FY2016 budget to Congress. Table 1. Status of State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2016 (Budget Authority in billions of current U.S. dollars) 302 Allocationsa H.Con.Res. 27 and S.Con.Res. 11 Conference H.Rept. 114-96 Appropriations Committee Action House Senate House Senate House 3/25/15 3/27/2015 4/30/15 05/05/15 $38.34 $47.79 $40.20 $40.20 Senate Floor Action House Senate Conference/Agreement House Senate Public Law Agreement Note: Since Congress did not set Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) sub-allocations levels for the Departments of Defense and State, OCO funds are not included in the above table. The conference report passed by both House and Senate includes $96.287 billion for OCO. a. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 established a congressional budget process. The act, as amended, includes Section 302 (a) and 302(b) requirements that the House and Senate allocate funds to the Appropriations Committees, which are then divided among the 12 subcommittees. Overview On February 2, 2015, the Obama Administration submitted to Congress its FY2016 budget request, which includes $53.37 billion for the State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Appropriations (SFOPS).1 Of the total SFOPS request, $17.54 billion is for programs funded 1 The International Affairs budget, or Function 150, includes funding that is not in the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriation: foreign food aid programs (P.L. 480 Food for Peace and McGovernDole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programs) are in the Agriculture Appropriations, and the Foreign Claim Settlement Commission and the International Trade Commission are in the Commerce, Justice, Science (continued...) Congressional Research Service 1 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations through the State operations and related agencies accounts (a 10.6% increase over FY2015 estimates that include emergency Ebola funds), and $35.82 billion is for foreign operations accounts (a 0.8% decrease from FY2015 estimates that include emergency Ebola funds). About 13% of the request is designated for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), compared with 14.6% of the FY2015 SFOPS funding request and 17.8% of enacted FY2015 funding.2 1 The International Affairs budget, or Function 150, includes funding that is not in the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriation: foreign food aid programs (P.L. 480 Food for Peace and McGovernDole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programs) are in the Agriculture Appropriations, and the Foreign Claim Settlement Commission and the International Trade Commission are in the Commerce, Justice, Science Figure 1. State and Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2006-FY2016 Request (in billions of current US$) Source: Annual congressional budget justifications, CRS calculations. Note: Includes supplemental and overseas contingency operations funds. Figure 1, above, shows funding for State Operations and Foreign Operations accounts for each of the past 10 years. Figure 2, below, provides a breakout of the total FY2016 SFOPS budget request by key categories. (...continued) appropriations. In addition, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriation measure includes funding for certain international commissions that are not part of the International Affairs Function 150 account. (See Appendix B.) 2 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding has been defined by the Administration as extraordinary, temporary funding requested primarily for the frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and, more recently, Syria. The designation has been applied more broadly by Congress since it was first requested for foreign affairs in FY2012. Congressional Research Service 12 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations Figure 1. State and Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2006-FY2016 Request (in billions of current US$) Source: Annual congressional budget justifications, CRS calculations. Note: Includes supplemental and overseas contingency operations funds. Figure 1, above, shows funding for State Operations and Foreign Operations accounts for each of the past 10 years. Figure 2, below, provides a breakout of the total FY2016 SFOPS budget request by key categories. Figure 2. Composition of the FY2016 SFOPS Budget Request Source: Congressional Budget Justification, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, Fiscal Year 2016, and CRS calculations Notes: The figure includes OCO funding. The blue portion of the chart is funding under the State Department Operations; the portion in orange is within Foreign Operations. Embassy security includes Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) within the Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP) account and Worldwide Security Upgrades (WSU) within the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account. Public Diplomacy includes Educational and Cultural Exchanges plus International Broadcasting. Percentages were calculated as a portion of total State, Foreign Operations, and Related funding before offsetting collections from Export Promotion activities were applied. Congressional Research Service 2 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations This report provides an overview and highlights of the request, as well as congressional actions, and offers an account-by-account comparison of the FY2016 request to the FY2015-estimated funding (where such estimates are available) and FY2014 actual funding. Appendix B provides the International Affairs 150 budget function funding levels. This report will be updated throughout the appropriations process. The Budget Control Act and State-Foreign Operations Appropriations The Obama Administration announced in early February 2015 that its FY2016 budget request exceeds the discretionary budget caps established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25) that established defense and nondefense discretionary spending limits for FY2012FY2021. This raises concern about the possibility of sequestration. Should Congress appropriate discretionary funds that exceed the BCA caps, without repealing the BCA or otherwise legislating a change in the caps, an automatic spending reduction process established by the BCA would be triggered, consisting of a combination of sequestration and lower discretionary spending caps. The sequestration process was triggered in FY2013, but avoided in FY2014 and FY2015 when Congress adhered to less stringent spending caps for those years established by the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA, H.J.Res. 59, P.L. 113-67). For FY2016, the BCA caps are again in effect. Congressional Research Service 3 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations FY2016 Request: Enduring vs. Overseas Contingency Operations Funding In the FY2016 request, as every year since FY2012, the Administration distinguishes between enduring or “core” funding and funding to support “overseas contingency operations” (OCO), described in earlier budget documents as “extraordinary, but temporary, costs of the Department of State and USAID in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”3 The OCO designation is particularly significant because the BCA specified that emergency or OCO funds do not count toward the budget caps established by the act. For FY2016, $7.05 billion, or about 13% of the SFOPS request, is designated as OCO. The FY2016 OCO request represents a decline of 23.9% compared with the FY2015-estimated level of $9.26 billion (excluding Ebola Emergency funds) that included funds for the three frontline states, “other areas of unrest,” anti-terrorism activities, and operations to counter the Islamic State (IS). (See Table 12 and Figure 3.)4 Table 12. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Funding Trends, FY2006-FY2016 Request (in billions of current U.S. dollars) FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 Est. FY16 Req. Enduring 31.38 31.41 34.52 50.30 49.44 48.80 41.80 39.75 42.91 40.17 46.32 OCO/Supp. 4.47 5.66 5.66 1.83 2.34 0.00 11.20 10.82 6.52 11.78 7.05 3 Executive Budget Summary, Function 150 & Other International Programs, Fiscal Year 2013, p. 137. For more detail on OCO within SFOPS, see CRS In Focus IF00063, Foreign Affairs Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO): Background and Current Issues. 4 Congressional Research Service 3 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations Total FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 Est. FY16 Req.Total 35.85 37.07 40.18 52.13 51.78 48.80 53.00 50.57 49.43 51.95 53.37 Sources: Congressional Budget Justification, Department of State and Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2016; CRS appropriations reports; CRS calculations. Note: OCO = Overseas Contingency Operations; Supp. = Supplemental funding, which includes funds requested for Iraq and Afghanistan prior to FY2012, when OCO was first requested and appropriated. FY2015 OCO/Supp. includes $9.26 billion for OCO and $2.52 billion for emergency Ebola funds. 3 Executive Budget Summary, Function 150 & Other International Programs, Fiscal Year 2013, p. 137. For more detail on OCO within SFOPS, see CRS In Focus IF00063, Foreign Affairs Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO): Background and Current Issues. 4 Congressional Research Service 4 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations Figure 3. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Funding Trends, FY2006-FY2016 Request Source: Congressional Budget Justifications, FY2008-FY2016 and CRS calculations. State Department Operations The Administration seeks to grow funding for the State Department and Related Accounts category by 11% over FY2015-estimated levels, to $17.54 billion. Both “base” (or “enduring”) funding and overseas contingency operations (OCO) funding would grow under the proposal, by 12% and 5%, respectively. The composition of this portion of the budget request is illustrated in Figure 4, and a 10-year historical trend line appears in Figure 1. Congressional Research Service 4 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations Figure 4. Composition of State Operations and Related Accounts, FY2016 Request Source: CRS calculations based on Department of State, FY2016 Congressional Budget Justification. Congressional Research Service 5 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations Among the top-line accounts, Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP), the Department’s main operating account, would grow by 10.5%, to $8.6 billion. Public diplomacy (PD) spending, including exchange programs, would see a 6% boost to a total of $1.19 billion under the FY2016 request. The State Department’s second largest administrative account is Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance (ESCM); the FY2016 proposal calls for $2.22 billion, a 4.5% decrease from the FY2015-estimated level (see Table 23). Other noteworthy reductions in the proposed budget include significant proposed cuts in the “Related Programs” account, which funds a number of non-governmental institutions. The FY2016 request proposes a 20% lower level for these accounts overall, which would mean budget reductions to, among other institutions, the East-West Center, the Asia Foundation, and the National Endowment for Democracy (cuts of 35%, 29%, and 23%, respectively). Table 23. State Department and Related Accounts: Total Funding and Select Accounts (in billions of current US$) TOTAL, State & Related Agencies Diplomatic & Consular Intl. Orgs / Peacekeeping Embassy Security, Construction & Maintenance Intl. Broadcasting Exchanges Related Programs FY2014 Actual FY2015 Estimate FY2016 Request % change, FY2015FY2016 15.89 8.01 3.11 2.67 15.86 7.79 3.59 2.32 17.54 8.60 4.62 2.22 +11% +10% +29% -4% 0.73 0.58 0.21 0.74 0.59 0.20 0.75 0.62 0.16 +1% +6% -20% Source: CRS calculations based on Department of State, FY2016 Congressional Budget Justification. Note: Figures may not add due to rounding. Congressional Research Service 5 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations State Operations: Key Issues The following sections provide additional information about a number of particularly noteworthy elements within the State Operations accounts. Frontline States Operations in the challenging environments of the three countries termed “frontline states”— Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq—continue to be a focus of attention by the department. Together, these three countries make up almost 18% of the department’s overall request for operational funding. In contrast to its FY2015 request for operations in Afghanistan, which sought funding for facilities in multiple locations (including consulates in Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif, and presence in Kandahar and Jalalabad), the department’s FY2016 request of $963 million would fund a Kabul-only presence and return 21 direct-hire positions to other priorities at the department, reflecting a more conservative approach in the wake of the ongoing U.S. military drawdown. An increase of 23% in enduring funding over FY2015-estimated levels is requested to enable the Embassy to be self-sustaining. Congressional Research Service 6 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations The request for State operations in Pakistan is also impacted by the U.S. military drawdown in Afghanistan. The department seeks to continue “normalizing” operations in that country, through an additional 21% increase in requested funding over FY2015 levels to $114 million, to compensate for reduced carryover funding from previous years. FY2016 funding requested for State operations in Iraq—a total of $1.1 billion—would continue a trend of shifting OCO funding requests to enduring funding, with the latter category growing by 113%, and OCO decreasing by 5% from FY2015 levels. International Organizations/Peacekeeping The International Organizations accounts, including both Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) and Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA), would see a significant jump in funding under the FY2016 proposal, to $4.62 billion. Growth of nearly 29% for the two accounts over FY2015-estimated levels would fund a number of Administration priorities. The CIO account funds the U.S. share of the assessed budgets of 45 international organizations. The FY2016 request seeks $1.5 billion under this category, a 5% increase from FY2015estimated levels that would boost funding to the UN and Affiliated Agencies, NATO, and other organizations. The CIO request does not include funds for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), although Administration officials suggest they will continue to seek a waiver from Congress to fund the organization.5 The CIPA request jumps 38% from FY2015 levels to $2.93 billion; the request funds a number of UN peacekeeping missions and international war crimes tribunals. Reasons for this increase 5 For more information on the UN accounts, see CRS Report RL33611, United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues, by Marjorie Ann Browne. Congressional Research Service 6 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations include (1) $380 million to cover projected outstanding assessments remaining from FY2015; (2) differences between the U.N.-assessed U.S. share of peacekeeping costs (28.36%) and the amount recognized by U.S. law (27.14%); and (3) growth in the scope and cost of UN peacekeeping missions in the Central African Republic, Somalia, and South Sudan. In addition, the Administration’s FY2016 request includes a $150 million Peace Operations Response Mechanism, a repeat proposal from the FY2015 request intended to support urgent—but as yet undefined—peacekeeping needs. The OCO funds requested for the Peace Operations Response Mechanism would allow State to support contingency operations without taking funds from other peacekeeping efforts in progress or returning to Congress for off-cycle budgetary requests, officials suggest. The proposal was not funded by appropriators in FY2015. Diplomatic Security In the wake of the September 11, 2012, attack on U.S. personnel in Benghazi, Libya, congressional and executive branch efforts to better prepare U.S. diplomats and facilities abroad for security threats have continued.6 In its FY2016 budget, the Administration seeks funding to 5 For more information on the UN accounts, see CRS Report RL33611, United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues, by Marjorie Ann Browne. 6 See CRS Report R43195, Securing U.S. Diplomatic Facilities and Personnel Abroad: Legislative and Executive Branch Initiatives, by Alex Tiersky. Congressional Research Service 7 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations continue to implement the initiatives launched under the FY2013 Increased Security Proposal7 and meet the post-Benghazi Accountability Review Board’s (ARB) recommendations. The request includes approximately $3.4 billion in Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) funds to provide security personnel with technical tools and training, and approximately $1.4 billion in Worldwide Security Upgrades (WSU) funds to upgrade and maintain safe, secure diplomatic facilities. The FY2016 request for Worldwide Security Protection (WSP), which supports the Diplomatic Security Bureau’s functions around the world, would grow by 9% over FY2015-estimated levels to $3.4 billion. Much of the increase in requested funding is for security measures in Iraq, which were funded by carryover funding in previous years. The WSP request also includes a new request for $99 million that would enable the department to undertake the first phase of construction of the planned Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (FASTC), a new facility intended to consolidate diplomatic security training at Fort Pickett, Virginia. The request also includes $50 million for security enhancements at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Libya, which has been under suspended operations since July 26, 2014. Physical security upgrades at diplomatic facilities, which are mostly funded through Worldwide Security Upgrades (WSU) under the Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance (ESCM) account, are managed by the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations. The WSU request for FY2016 is for $1.4 billion, a 4.5% decrease from FY2015-estimated levels. Within the ESCM request is $1 billion to provide for the Department of State’s share of the Capital Security Cost 6 See CRS Report R43195, Securing U.S. Diplomatic Facilities and Personnel Abroad: Legislative and Executive Branch Initiatives, by Alex Tiersky. 7 Sharing (CSCS) program, which is an interagency shared funding mechanism designed to ensure each U.S. government agency represented abroad is paying its fair share of construction costs for new and more secure facilities. The amount requested is down from the $1.4 billion appropriated for this purpose for FY2014, a result of higher assessed contributions from other agencies into the common account. Department officials underline that the CSCS request meets the full $2.2 billion level called for by the post-Benghazi Accountability Review Board. Table 4 summarizes recent funding for the three accounts containing the bulk of funding for diplomatic security measures: Worldwide Security Protection (for security programs including a worldwide guard force), Worldwide Security Upgrades funding (for bricks and mortar security needs, including construction of secure new embassy compounds), and Diplomatic Security Bureau D&CP funding. 7 In December 2012, the Secretary of State presented an Increased Security Proposal to Congress, which requested authority to transfer $1.3 billion in OCO funds previously appropriated for Iraq operations towards diplomatic security needs. Of that, $553 million would be for additional Marine security guards worldwide, $130 million for 151 new diplomatic security personnel and $736 million for improved security at overseas facilities. While the transfer authority was not provided by the 112th Congress, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 (H.R. 933, P.L. 113-6) provided $918 million for WSP and $1.3 billion for ESCM, while rescinding $1.1 billion in unobligated balances from FY2012 OCO funds. H.R. 3547, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, exceeded the Administration’s request for ESCM of $2.4 billion by $25 million in OCO funds, to be used to harden high-risk posts. It also provided a total of $2.77 billion for WSP. Congressional Research Service 7 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations Sharing (CSCS) program, which is an interagency shared funding mechanism designed to ensure each U.S. government agency represented abroad is paying its fair share of construction costs for new and more secure facilities. The amount requested is down from the $1.4 billion appropriated for this purpose for FY2014, a result of higher assessed contributions from other agencies into the common account. Department officials underline that the CSCS request meets the full $2.2 billion level called for by the post-Benghazi Accountability Review Board. Table 3 summarizes recent funding for the three accounts containing the bulk of funding for diplomatic security measures: Worldwide Security Protection (for security programs including a worldwide guard force), Worldwide Security Upgrades funding (for bricks and mortar security needs, including construction of secure new embassy compounds), and Diplomatic Security Bureau D&CP funding. Table 38 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations Table 4. Diplomatic Security Funding: Selected Accounts (in billions of current US$) FY2014 Actual FY2015 Estimated FY2016 Request % change (FY15 to FY16) Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) 2.77 3.12 3.40 +9% Worldwide Security Upgrades (WSU) 1.61 1.49 1.42 - 4% Diplomatic Security (DS) in D&CP 0.09 0.09 0.09 +1% TOTAL 4.47 4.7 4.91 +4% Source: CRS calculations from Department of State budget presentation documents. Notes: Includes OCO funding levels. Other embassy and diplomatic security funding is within two other subaccounts: Counterterrorism within the Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP), and Diplomatic Security within Border Security Program (BSP). See CRS Report R43721, Diplomatic and Embassy Security Funding Before and After the Benghazi Attacks, by Susan B. Epstein. Management and Human Resources of the Department of State With the support of Congress, the Foreign Service grew by almost 20% between FY2008 and FY2012, and the department’s Civil Service by 7% over that same time period. The growth was an attempt to address what many observers saw as chronic personnel shortfalls that were worsened by a sudden need to fill large numbers of overseas positions in the frontline states. The Foreign Service is now experiencing a youth bulge, with junior officers hired in these years beginning to move into the mid-levels of the service. The Administration’s FY2016 request for Human Resources (under Diplomatic & Consular Programs) is 1% higher than FY2015-enacted levels, at a total of $2.7 billion—a reduction of 2% from FY2014 actual levels. The request indicates that the department seeks 39 new positions funded by appropriations (12 Foreign Service and 27 Civil Service), although 21 of these would be realigned from previously existing positions based in Afghanistan.8 The department also seeks 8 As points of comparison, the State Department requested appropriated funding for 53 new positions in its FY2015 request, for 35 new positions in FY2014, for 121 new positions in FY2013, and for 133 in FY2012. Congressional Research Service 8 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations funding throughout the request to address what it terms a gap in the pay of Locally Employed Staff at its overseas posts, relative to local salary conditions. State’s more than 46,000 local employees make up upwards of 65% of the department’s total workforce; the department seeks to ensure that working as part of U.S. diplomatic missions abroad remains an attractive proposition. Among other personnel-related issues, the Department’s request notably does not include additional funding for Overseas Comparability Pay (OCP) (as it did in recent years, although not in FY2015). OCP adjustment is intended to bring the base pay of Foreign Service personnel posted overseas to levels comparable to their Foreign Service colleagues serving in Washington, DC, who receive locality pay. OCP has long been a priority of the foreign service rank-and-file, who argue that the discrepancy affects morale, retention of FSOs, and acts as a financial disincentive to serve overseas, including by its cumulative impact on retirement pay. The department sought $81.4 million in FY2014 funding to provide the third portion of a three-phase 8 As points of comparison, the State Department requested appropriated funding for 53 new positions in its FY2015 request, for 35 new positions in FY2014, for 121 new positions in FY2013, and for 133 in FY2012. Congressional Research Service 9 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations adjustment, the first two tranches of which were supported by Congress in previous years. The third OCP phase has not been supported by congressional appropriators to date. Foreign Operations The Foreign Operations budget funds most traditional foreign aid programs, with the exception of food aid.9 It includes bilateral economic aid, multilateral aid, security assistance, and export promotion programs, as well as USAID administrative accounts. Figure 5. Foreign Operations by Type, FY2016 Request Source: FY2016 International Affairs CBJ. Notes: Excludes export promotion accounts. 9 The two international food assistance programs, Food for Peace (aka P.L. 480, title II) and Food for Education (aka McGovern-Dole), are funded through the Agriculture appropriations bill. Congressional Research Service 9 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations Figure 5 shows the FY2016 foreign operations request broken out proportionately by the categories typically used in appropriations legislation, while Table 45 shows the funding trend for each category for FY2014, FY2015 and the FY2016 request. Table 45. Foreign Operations by Type, FY2014, FY2015 and the FY2016 request (in billions of current US$) FY2014 Actual FY2015 Estimate FY2016 Request Change, FY2015FY2016 USAID Administration 1.31 1.43 1.69 +18.2% Bilateral Economic Assistance (includes Treasury Accounts) 15.80 16.98 17.45 +2.8% Humanitarian Assistance (excludes food aid) 4.91 6.44 4.24 -34.2% 4.91 6.44 4.24 -34.2% 9 The two international food assistance programs, Food for Peace (aka P.L. 480, title II) and Food for Education (aka McGovern-Dole), are funded through the Agriculture appropriations bill. Congressional Research Service 10 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations FY2014 Actual FY2015 Estimate FY2016 Request Change, FY2015FY2016 Independent Agencies 1.33 1.33 1.70 +27.8% Security Assistance 8.51 8.45 8.61 +1.9% Multilateral Assistance 3.01 2.77 3.19 +15.2% Export Promotion (0.88) (1.28) (1.06) +17.2% Foreign Operations, Total 33.99 36.12 35.82 -0.8% (excludes food aid) Source: FY2016 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs; Congressional Budget Justification; CRS calculations. Notes: Export promotion programs managed by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the Export-Import Bank often bring in more revenue through interest payments and fees than they expend, resulting in a net gain to the Treasury, reflected in negative numbers (in parenthesis) in this table. Top Foreign Assistance Recipients Under the FY2016 request, top foreign assistance recipients would not differ significantly from FY2014 (FY2015 country data are not yet available). Israel would continue to be the top recipient, with a requested $3.1 billion (level with FY2014) in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) funds, followed by Afghanistan, for which $1.5 billion is requested (a 28% increase from FY2014). Egypt would receive $1.5 billion (-3% from FY2014), largely in FMF to support shared security interests, and Jordan would get $1.0 billion (-1% from FY2014) to promote security and stability in the region as well as address economic and security strains related to the crisis in Syria. Pakistan would get $804 million (a 10% cut from FY2014), to continue ongoing efforts to increase stability and prosperity in the region. Other top recipients include Kenya ($630 million), Nigeria ($608 million), Tanzania ($591 million), and other African nations that are focus countries for HIV/AIDS programs. A new addition to the top recipient list under the request would be Ukraine, for which $514 million was requested, as discussed further below. Figure 6 and Table 56 show the proposed FY2016 foreign operations budget allocations by region and country. Congressional Research Service 1011 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations Figure 6. FY2016 Foreign Operations Request, by Region Table 56. Top 15 recipients of U.S. Foreign Assistance, FY2016 Request (aid in millions) 1. Israel $3,100 9. Ukraine $514 2. Afghanistan $1,514 10. Uganda $459 3. Egypt $1,456 11. WB/Gaza $442 4. Jordan $1,000 12. Zambia $438 5. Pakistan $804 13. Mozambique $409 6. Kenya $630 14. Ethiopia $404 7. Nigeria $608 15. South Africa $374 8. Tanzania $591 Source: Data for the above figure and table is from FY2015 budget roll-out documents provided by the State Department. Does not include administrative funds, MCC, humanitarian assistance or food aid. Notes: WH = Western Hemisphere; SCA = South Central Asia; EE = Europe and Eurasia; EAP = East Asia and Pacific. Funding allocation among regions would change slightly under the FY2016 request compared with FY2014 (FY2015 regional data are not yet available), with Europe/Eurasia and the Western Hemisphere increasing their share by 2% each as a result of proposed funding for Ukraine and Central America. Africa’s share of aid funding would decline by about 5% from FY2014 estimates. Foreign Operations: Key Issues Administration Initiatives The Obama Administration’s four broad foreign assistance initiatives would continue to play a major role under the FY2016 budget request, accounting for about 30% of the total foreign operations request. Global Health Initiative The request for the Global Health Programs account is $8.18 billion, or 6.7% less than the FY2015-estimated funding, including emergency Ebola funding. Excluding the Ebola funds, the request is a 3% decrease from the FY2015 estimate. Requested resources would be focused on HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention, maternal and child health, and stopping infectious diseases. Of the total requested, $5.43 billion is requested for the State Department, almost all for HIV/AIDS-related activities. The proposed reduction in funding would come largely from a reduced U.S. contribution to the Global Fund, the multilateral component of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The Global Fund contribution would decline by 18%, or $244 million, from FY2015. Funding for tuberculosis programs would also decline under Congressional Research Service 1112 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations the request, from an estimated $236 million to $191 million, and the allocation for Neglected Tropical Diseases would fall from $100 million to $86.5 million. In contrast, the U.S. contribution to GAVI, the vaccine alliance, would increase by 18%, or $35 million, reflecting a four-year, $1 billion commitment made by the Administration in 2014. The request would also provide a slight increase over the FY2015 estimate for family planning and reproductive health programs (+2.7%).10 Feed the Future The Administration’s food security initiative receives just over $1 billion in the FY2016 request, an 8% drop from the FY2014 funding level (a FY2015 funding estimate is not yet available), primarily through the Development Assistance account. The initiative promotes agricultural productivity, expanding markets, improved nutrition, and economic resilience in vulnerable rural communities. Funds requested for FY2016 would support programs to build agriculture sector resilience to climate change, promote nutrition-sensitive agriculture, and adapt to recurring shocks such as droughts and floods. The proposal would shift funding toward countries for which additional funds are deemed necessary to reach targeted goals, and reduce funding to countries for which prior year funding is expected to remain available. New funding would be provided for Guinea and Sierra Leone, to accelerate food security programming and build resilience in the wake of the Ebola crisis. The request also includes $43 million for the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), the multilateral component of the initiative, consistent with a pledge to provide $1 for every $2 provided by other donors. In addition, the request includes $30 million for the first tranche of funding to replenish the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) GCCI would receive a major funding boost under the request, increasing 55% from FY2014 funding (a FY2015 funding estimate is not yet available) to $1.29 billion in FY2016. The initiative continues to focus bilateral resources in three areas: adaptation, clean energy, and sustainable landscapes, for which funding would decline 4% from FY2014 under the request. The increase in total funding is largely attributable to a proposed contribution ($500 million, split between State and Treasury accounts) to a multilateral Green Climate Fund, to which the Administration pledged $3 billion in November 2014. The fund is intended to succeed the multilateral Climate Investment Funds to which the U.S. will complete a four-year, $2 billion pledge with proposed FY2016 funding. The Administration asserts that the requested contribution is an important demonstration of U.S. leadership and will help leverage contributions from other donors as well as leverage binding emission reduction targets from all countries (e.g., China, India) during the ongoing U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations.11 10 For more in U.S. global health funding, see CRS Report IF10131, U.S. Global Health Assistance: The FY2016 Budget, by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther. 11 For more information on GCCI, see CRS Report R41845, The Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI): Budget Authority and Request, FY2010-FY2016, by Richard K. Lattanzio. Congressional Research Service 1213 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations Africa Initiatives The Administration requested $77 million in FY2016 for Power Africa, a public-private collaboration launched in 2013 to increase access to power in sub-Saharan Africa. The Administration committed to $300 million in annual funding for the initiative at the 2014 U.S.African Leaders’ Summit where a goal was established to generate 30,000 megawatts of new, cleaner electricity, accessible by at least 60 million households and businesses. Budget documents explain that the $77 million being requested through the Development Assistance account will be supplemented by additional money made available from prior-year funding, as well as funding through agencies such as MCC and the U.S. Africa Development Foundation, to fully meet the U.S. commitment.12 $47 million is requested for Trade in Africa, though budget documents explain that additional money will be made available from prior-year funding. For the first time, the request also includes $110 million for an African Peacekeeping Rapid Response Partnership, which is described as a partnership to increase the capacity of six African countries to rapidly deploy military peacekeepers to address conflict in the region. The request also includes $24 million for a new Security Governance Initiative, a joint Department of Defense-State Department program to improve governance and capacity in the security sector of partner countries Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Within the FY2016 foreign operations request, $5.2 billion, or about 14.5%, was requested as OCO funding for “extraordinary costs” of assistance in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Ukraine. This is down from 20.8% estimated for FY2015 and 15.1% in FY2014. A significant portion of requested foreign operations OCO funding continues to be for activities in the frontline state of Afghanistan ($1.21 billion), Iraq ($311 million), and Pakistan ($600 million), for which the designation was originally proposed. Unlike State operations, foreign operations country requests do not a show a clear shift of funds in recent years from OCO to base funding in these countries. Humanitarian accounts also make up a large portion of the OCO request, including $810 million within the International Disaster Assistance request and $819 million within the Migration and Refugee Assistance request. These funds are not requested by country, but the Administration anticipates they will be needed primarily for Syria, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and Iraq. The request also includes OCO funds for opposition support in Syria ($235 million), broad economic and military support activities in Jordan ($327 million), the State Department portion of a proposed new Counterterrorism Partnership Fund ($390 million), for which funding has also been requested through the Defense appropriation, and assistance to Ukraine ($317 million) to support a potential $1 billion loan guarantee and supply military equipment. Syria/IS The FY2016 foreign operations request would increase U.S. financial commitments toward responding to the crisis in Syria and fighting the Islamic State (IS).13 The Administration 12 For more information about U.S. support for power development in Africa, see CRS Report R43593, Powering Africa: Challenges of and U.S. Aid for Electrification in Africa, by Richard J. Campbell et al. 13 For more information about IS and related U.S. policy, see CRS Report R43612, The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy, by Christopher M. Blanchard et al. Congressional Research Service 1314 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations identifies $1.82 billion in its FY2016 request for these purposes, including $255 million for nonhumanitarian assistance to support opposition groups within Syria. Of this amount, $65 million is requested from the peacekeeping operations (PKO) account to provide non-lethal assistance to vetted members of the armed Syrian opposition, in parallel to the Department of Defense-led train and equip program, for which the Administration has requested $600 million in defense funding.14 Most of the requested foreign operations funding would be used to address the impact of the crisis on Syria’s neighbors. The Administration identifies its entire $1 billion request for Jordan as helping to counter IS and mitigate Syria-related economic and security concerns. The Administration also requested $335 million to strengthen Iraq’s counterterrorism capabilities and $211 million to assist Lebanon in meeting the needs of Syrian refugees and addressing the IS threat. The overall “Syria and Counter-ISIL” request is a 17% increase over FY2014 funding for this purpose (FY2015 funding data are not available). An additional $1.6 billion in U.S. humanitarian assistance is being requested for the region to respond to the Syria-Iraq crises in FY2016.15 Afghanistan/Pakistan The FY2016 foreign operations request for Afghanistan is $1.514 billion (+28% from FY2014), which is consistent with the 2012 Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework. The funding is provided primarily though the Economic Support Fund (OCO) account, and intended to support the new Afghan government and continue a trend away from stabilization and infrastructure programs. The request includes $804 million for Pakistan (-10% from FY2014) to support regional stability, counter-terrorism, and long-term political and economic stability. Stability and prosperity in Pakistan are seen by the Administration as essential to maintaining gains in Afghanistan. The request describes funding for both countries as consistent with a responsible glide path, demonstrating that the United States is not abandoning the region even as the U.S. military presence declines.16 Countering Russian Aggression The budget request includes $639.8 million (+283% from FY2014) in FY2016 to bolster Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia against “Russian aggression and pressure.” Of this, $513.5 million is for Ukraine, primarily from Economic Support Funds, to promote economic reforms, advance democracy and anti-corruption efforts, and support an additional $1 billion loan guarantee if progress is made on IMF reforms.17 Funding for Moldova ($49.1 million) and Georgia ($77.2 million) would support greater security, democracy and accountability, as well as closer integration with Europe. All three countries would receive Foreign Military Financing funds to 14 For more information about the train and equip program, see CRS Report R43727, Train and Equip Authorities for Syria: In Brief, by Christopher M. Blanchard and Amy Belasco. 15 For more information about the U.S. humanitarian response to the crisis in Syria, see CRS Report R43119, Syria: Overview of the Humanitarian Response, by Rhoda Margesson and Susan G. Chesser. 16 For more about U.S. policy towards Afghanistan and foreign assistance to Pakistan, see CRS Report RL30588, Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, by Kenneth Katzman, and CRS Report R42116, Pakistan: U.S. Foreign Aid Conditions, Restrictions, and Reporting Requirements, by Susan B. Epstein and K. Alan Kronstadt. 17 For more information on aid to Ukraine, see CRS Report RL33460, Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy, by Steven Woehrel. Congressional Research Service 1415 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations address military equipment shortfalls and improve interoperability with NATO and other western forces. Central America A notable shift in regional funding proposed by the Administration for FY2016 is the $1 billion requested for Central America, a region for which funding has generally stagnated in recent years. The request is 225% more than the FY2014 funding level, and would support a whole-ofgovernment U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America aimed at promoting economic prosperity, security, and good governance in the region as a means of stemming the flow of undocumented migration. The primary recipients of the requested funds would be El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Of the total requested, $287 million is allocated for the Central American Regional Security Initiative (CARSI).18 18 For more information on CARSI, see CRS Report R41731, Central America Regional Security Initiative: Background and Policy Issues for Congress, by Peter J. Meyer and Clare Ribando Seelke. For more information on the President’s FY2016 request for Central America, see a CRS Insight on the subject at http://www.crs.gov/pages/ Insights.aspx?PRODCODE=IN10237. Congressional Research Service 1516 Appendix A. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, by Account Table A-1. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2014-FY2016 Request (in millions of current U.S. dollars) FY2014 Actual Enduring OCO 2015 Estimate Total Enduring OCO/Ebola Emergency FY2016 Request Totala Enduring OCO Total % change FY16 vs. FY15 14,076.49 1,817.71 15,894.20 14,056.63 1,768.60 OCO 36.42 EE 15,861.65 15,695.50 1,849.12 17,544.62 10.6% Administration of Foreign Affairs, Subtotal 9,990.12 1,732.89 11,723.01 9,479.76 1,683.50 OCO 36.42 EE 11,199.68 10,190.00 1,699.12 11,889.12 6.2% Diplomatic & Consular Program 6,617.63 1,391.11 8,008.73 6,437.14 1,350.80 OCO 36.42 EE 7,787.94 7,096.33 1,507.42 8,603.75 [1,867.15] [900.27] [2,767.42] [2,128.13] [989.71] OCO [3,117.82] [2,327.14] [1,067.96] [3,395.10] 8.9% 56.40 66.40 66.40 17.7% 2,324.06 2,085.10 134.80 2,219.90 -4.5% [1,490.50] [1,300.00] [124.00] [1,424.00] -4.5% Title I. State, Broadcasting & Related Agencies, TOTAL (of which Worldwide Security Protection) Capital Investment Fund Embassy Security, Construction & Maintenance (of which Worldwide Security Upgrades) Conflict Stabilization Operationsb Ed. & Cultural Exchanges Office of Inspector General Representation Expenses 76.90 2,399.45 275.00 [1,614.10] 76.90 56.40 2,674.45 2,063.26 [1,614.10] [1,240.50] 21.80 8.50 30.30 23.50 567.81 8.63 576.44 589.90 69.41 49.65 119.06 73.40 260.80 OCO [250.00] 15.00 OCO 56.90 OCO 38.50 — 589.90 623.08 130.30 82.40 — 56.90 10.5% — — 623.08 5.6% 139.30 6.9% 8.03 8.03 8.03 8.03 8.45 8.45 5.2% 28.20 28.20 30.04 30.04 29.81 29.81 -0.8% Emergency-Diplomatic & Consular Services 9.24 9.24 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.90 0% Repatriation Loans 1.54 1.54 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 0% 31.22 31.22 30.00 30.00 30.34 30.34 1.1% 158.90 158.90 158.90 158.90 158.90 158.90 0% 3,105.58 3,518.04 3,592.44 4,470.25 4,620.25 28.6% Protection of Foreign Missions & Officials Payment American Institute Taiwan Foreign Service Retirement (mandatory) International Orgs, Subtotal CRS-1617 3,031.18 74.40 74.40 OCO 150.00 FY2014 Actual Enduring Contributions to Int’l Orgs 1,265.76 Contributions, International Peacekeeping Peacekeeping Response Mechanismc International Commission subtotal (Function 300) OCO 74.40 2015 Estimate Total Enduring OCO/Ebola Emergency 74.40 OCO FY2016 Request Totala Enduring 1,340.16 1,399.15 1,765.42 1,765.42 2,118.89 — — — — — OCO Total % change FY16 vs. FY15 1,473.55 1,540.03 1,540.03 4.5% 2,118.89 2,930.22 2,930.22 38.3% 150.00 — -2.4% 150.00 125.92 125.92 122.95 122.95 120.06 120.06 Int’l Boundary/U.S.-Mexico 77.44 77.44 73.71 73.71 75.68 75.68 2.7% American Sections 12.50 12.50 12.56 12.56 12.33 12.33 -1.8% International Fisheries 35.98 35.98 36.68 36.68 32.05 32.05 -12.6% International Broadcast, Subtotal 729.08 4.40 733.48 731.37 10.70 OCO 742.07 751.44 751.44 1.3% Broadcasting Operations 721.08 4.40 725.48 726.57 10.70 OCO 737.27 741.44 741.44 0.6% 8.00 4.80 4.80 10.00 10.00 108.0% 206.21 204.51 204.51 163.75 163.75 -19.9% 17.00 17.00 17.00 12.00 12.00 -29.4% 37.00 35.30 35.30 36.99 36.99 4.8% Capital Improvements Related Approps, Subtotal 8.00 200.19 Asia Foundation 17.00 U.S. Institute of Peace 30.98 6.02 6.02 Center for Middle East-West Dialogue-Trust & Program 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0% Eisenhower Exchange Programs 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0% Israeli Arab Scholarship Program 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0% 16.70 16.70 16.70 16.70 10.80 10.80 -35.3% 135.00 135.00 135.00 135.00 103.45 103.45 -23.4% East-West Center National Endowment for Democracy 28,859.87 5,129.59 33,989.45 26,138.67 7,489.40 OCO 2,489.96 EE 36,118.03 30,624.29 5,198.33 35,822.61 -0.8% 1,222.17 91.04 1,313.21 1,275.94 125.46 OCO 24.66 EE 1,426.08 1,626.33 65.00 1,691.33 18.6% FOREIGN OPERATION, TOTAL Title II. Admin of Foreign Assistance CRS-1718 FY2014 Actual Enduring USAID Operating Expenses USAID Capital Investment Fund USAID Inspector General Title III. Bilateral Economic Assistance Global Health Programs (GHP), State + USAID 1,059.23 OCO 81.00 117.94 45.00 10.04 18,145.12 3,894.17 8,443.75 2015 Estimate Total Enduring 1,140.23 1,090.84 117.94 130.82 55.04 54.29 22,039.27 8,443.75 16,666.08 8,453.95 GHP (State Dept.) [2,773.75] [2,773.75] [2,783.95] GHP (USAID) [5,670.00] [5,670.00] Development Assistance 2,507.00 OCO/Ebola Emergency 125.46 OCO 19.04 EE 5.63 EE 5,626.38 OCO 2,460.00 EE 312.00 EE [312.00] EE FY2016 Request Totala Enduring 1,235.34 1,360.00 130.82 OCO 65.00 Total % change FY16 vs. FY15 1,425.00 15.4% 203.33 203.33 55.4% 59.92 63.00 63.00 5.1% 24,752.46 19,587.35 23,399.68 -5.5% 8,765.95 8,181.00 8,181.00 -6.7% [3,095.95] [2,755.00] [2,755.00] -11.0% 3,812.33 [5,670.00] [5,670.00] [5,426.00] [5,426.00] -4.3% 2,507.00 2,507.00 2,507.00 2,999.69 2,999.69 19.7% 1,741.00 -47.7% 876.83 924.17 1,801.00 560.00 1,335.00 OCO 1,436.27 EE 3,331.27 931.00 Transition Initiatives 48.18 9.42 57.60 47.00 20.00 OCO 67.00 67.60 67.00 0% Complex Crises Fund 20.00 20.00 40.00 20.00 30.00 OCO 50.00 30.00 30.00 0% 8.04 8.12 8.12 9.20 9.20 13.3% [40.00] [40.00] [40.00] [40.00] — 5,428.62 3,952.16 6,135.49 13.0% International Disaster Assistance (IDA) Development Credit Authority –Admin 8.04 Development Credit Authority Subsidy [40.00] Economic Support Fund Democracy Fund Migration & Refugee Assistance Emergency Refugee and Migration 2,932.97 [40.00] 1,656.22 130.50 1,774.65 1,284.36 4,589.18 2,602.62 130.50 130.50 3,059.00 931.89 2,114.27 OCO 711.73 EE 130.50 2,127.11 OCO 3,059.00 810.00 2,183.33 — 1,634.60 — 819.00 2,453.60 — -19.8% 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 0% 1,329.70 1,329.70 1,331.50 1,331.50 1,704.10 1,704.10 28.0% Inter-American Foundation 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 0% African Development Foundation 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 26.00 26.00 -13.3% 379.00 379.00 379.50 379.50 410.00 410.00 8.0% Independent Agencies subtotal Peace Corps CRS-1819 FY2014 Actual Enduring Millennium Challenge Corporation OCO 2015 Estimate Total Enduring OCO/Ebola Emergency FY2016 Request Totala Enduring OCO Total % change FY16 vs. FY15 898.20 898.20 899.50 899.50 1,250.00 1,250.00 39.0% Department of Treasury, subtotal 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 28.00 28.00 19.1% Treasury Department Technical Assistance 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 28.00 28.00 19.1% Debt Restructuring — — Title IV. Int’l Security Assistance 7,366.06 1,144.39 International Narcotics Control & Law Enforcement 1,005.61 344.39 630.00 70.00 Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining International Military Education & Training 105.57 8,510.45 — — — — — 6,704.49 1,737.55 OCO 5.30 EE 8,447.34 7,285.56 1,321.00 8,606.56 1.9% 1,350.00 853.06 443.20 OCO 1,296.25 967.77 226.00 1,193.77 -7.9% 700.00 586.26 99.24 OCO 5.30 EE 690.80 609.33 390.00 999.33 44.7% 105.57 106.07 106.07 111.72 111.72 5.3% Foreign Military Financing 5,389.28 526.20 5,915.48 5,014.11 866.42 OCO 5,880.53 5,166.54 640.00 5,806.54 -1.3% Peacekeeping Operations 235.60 200.00 435.60 144.99 328.70 OCO 473.69 430.20 65.00 495.20 4.5% 3.80 3.80 — — Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund — Global Security Contingency Fund — Title V. Multilateral Assistance 3,006.45 3,006.45 — — — 2,774.97 2,774.97 3,188.85 3,188.85 14.9% 23.2% World Bank: Global Environment Facility 143.75 143.75 136.56 136.56 168.26 168.26 International Clean Technology Fund 209.63 209.63 184.63 184.63 170.68 170.68 -7.6% Strategic Climate Fund 74.90 74.90 49.90 49.90 59.62 59.62 19.5% Green Climate Fund — — — — 150.00 150.00 — North American Development Bank — — — — 45.00 45.00 — 1,355.00 1,355.00 1,287.80 1,287.80 1,290.60 1,290.60 0.2% Int. Bank Recon & Dev 186.96 186.96 186.96 186.96 192.92 192.92 3.2% Inter-Amer. Dev. Bank - capital 102.00 102.00 102.02 102.02 102.02 102.02 0% 6.30 6.30 3.38 3.38 — — — World Bank: Int’l. Development Association IADB: Enterprise for Americas MIF CRS-1920 FY2014 Actual Enduring OCO 2015 Estimate Total Enduring OCO/Ebola Emergency FY2016 Request Totala Enduring OCO Total % change FY16 vs. FY15 Asian Development Fund 109.85 109.85 104.98 104.98 166.09 166.09 58.2% Asian Development Bank – capital 106.59 106.59 106.59 106.59 5.61 5.61 -94.7% African Development Fund 176.34 176.34 175.67 175.67 227.50 227.50 29.5% African Development Bank - capital 32.42 32.42 32.42 32.42 34.12 34.12 5.2% International Fund for Agricultural Development 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 31.93 31.93 6.4% Global Food Security Fund 133.00 133.00 — — 43.00 43.00 — International Organizations & Programs 339.72 339.72 344.17 344.17 315.00 315.00 -8.5% IDA Multilateral Debt Relief — — — — 111.00 111.00 — African Development Fund Multilateral Debt relief — — — — 13.50 13.50 — Transfer to Multilateral Trust Funds — — 29.91 29.91 — — — Int’l Monetary Fund — — — — 62.00 62.00 — Title VI. Export Assistance (879.93) (879.93) (1,282.81) (1,282.81) (1,063.80) (1,063.80) — Export-Import Bank (net) (669.60) (669.60) (1,032.60) (1,032.60) (875.00) (875.00) — Overseas Private Investment Corporation (net) (265.41) (265.41) (310.21) (310.21) (262.50) (262.50) — 60.00 60.00 73.70 73.70 22.8% 53,367.24 2.7% Trade & Development Agency 55.07 55.07 State, Foreign Ops & related Programs, TOTAL 42,936.36 6,947.30 49,883.65 40,195.30 Add Ons/ Rescissions (23.00) (427.30) (450.30) (30.00) State-Foreign Ops Total, Net of Rescissions 42,913.36 6,520.00 49,433.35 40,165.30 9,258.00 OCO 2,526.38 EE 11,784.38 51,979.68 46,319.79 (30.00) — 51,949.68 46,319.79 7,047.45 — 7,047.45 53,367.24 Source: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Congressional Budget Justifications for Fiscal Year 2015 and 2016, and Fiscal Year 2015 amended requests of June 26, 2014, November 5, and 10, 2014, P.L. 113-235, and CRS calculations. CRS-2021 2.7%2.7 Notes: EE = Ebola Emergency request. Shaded columns indicate fiscal year totals. Figures in brackets are subsumed in the larger account above and are not counted against the total. Figures in parentheses are negative numbers. “Enduring” funding is also sometimes referred to as “base” or “ongoing” funding in budget documents. Numbers may not add due to rounding. a. FY2015 totals include Ebola emergency funding. b. For FY2015, funding for Conflict Stabilization Operations is within the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account. c. Within the FY2016 budget request, this is called the Peacekeeping Operations Response Mechanism. CRS-2122 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations Appendix B. International Affairs (150) Function Account, FY2014 Actual, FY2015 Estimate, and FY2016 Request Table B-1. International Affairs Budget, FY2014-FY2016 Request (in millions of current U.S. dollars) FY2014 actual State-Foreign Operations, excluding commissionsa % change FY2016 vs. FY2015 FY2015 estimate FY2016 Request 49,307.43 51,826.73 53,247.18 +2.7% 2.10 2.33 2.37 +1.7% 83.00 84.50 131.50 +55.6% 1,651.13 1,657.63 1,611.63 -2.8% 51,043.66 53,571.19 54,992.68 +2.7% Commerce-JusticeScience Foreign Claim Settlement Commission Int’l Trade Commission Agriculture P.L. 480 and McGovern-Dole Total International Affairs (150) Source: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Congressional Budget Justifications for Fiscal Year 2015 and 2016, and Fiscal Year 2015 amended requests of June 26, 2014, November 5, and 10, 2014, P.L. 113-235, and CRS calculations. a. While funding for certain international commissions are appropriated in the State-Foreign Operations bill, they are not part of the International Affairs Function 150 Account. Author Contact Information Susan B. Epstein Specialist in Foreign Policy sepstein@crs.loc.gov, 7-6678 Alex Tiersky Analyst in Foreign Affairs atiersky@crs.loc.gov, 7-7367 Marian L. Lawson Specialist in Foreign Assistance Policy mlawson@crs.loc.gov, 7-4475 Congressional Research Service 2223