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
MayOctober 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 $53.3754.08
billion, or a 2.74% increase from FY2015-estimated levels. Within that amount:
•
$46.32
$47.04 billion is requested for enduring or core funding and $7.05 billion is
designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding;
•
$17.54, excluding addons and rescissions;
$17.55 billion of the total request is for State Department Operations and related
agencies (10.6% increase over FY2015 estimates);
•
$35.82
$36.53 billion is for Foreign Operations (-0.8% from the FY2015 estimates,
largely because of the Ebola emergency supplemental appropriated for FY2015);
•
Excluding1.2% above the FY2015 estimates);
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 6.57% 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 passed FY2016 budget resolutions in late 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
establishedsuballocations were not
established.
The House Appropriations Committee reported its FY2016 SFOPS bill out of committee on June
11, 2015. The House committee bill (H.R. 2772; H.Rept. 114-154) recommended $48.19 billion
in total funding, excluding rescissions, but including $7.33 billion designated as OCO.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its FY2016 bill out of committee on July 9, 2015.
The Senate committee bill (S. 1725; S.Rept. 114-79) recommended $49.77 billion in total
funding, excluding rescissions, but including $9.48 billion designated as OCO and $759 million
in emergency funds.
On September 30, 2015, the House and Senate approved, and President Obama signed into law, a
resolution (P.L. 114-53) to provide temporary FY2016 continuing appropriations through
December 11, 2015.
On October 5, 2015, the Senate SFOPS bill was incorporated in a national security-related
“minibus” bill (S. 2130), one of four minibus bills into which Senate FY2016 appropriations bills
were bundled.
On October 6, Senate SFOPS leaders introduced supplemental appropriations legislation (S.
2145) to increase FY2016 migration and refugee assistance funding by $1 billion to address the
Middle East refugee crisis.
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, available
FY2015 estimates, and FY2016 legislation. The report 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. ......................................................................................................................................... 12
The Budget Control Act and State-Foreign Operations Appropriations .................................... 3 4
FY2016 Request: Enduring vs. Overseas Contingency Operations Funding ............................ 45
State Department Operations ........................................................................................................... 56
State Operations: Key Issues ........................................................................................................... 6
Frontline States 7
House Appropriators: 15% Operational Funding Withheld ...................................................... 7
Frontline States.......................................................................................................................... 68
International Organizations/Peacekeeping ................................................................................ 78
Diplomatic Security ................................................................................................................... 7 9
Management and Human Resources of the Department of State .............................................. 9 11
Foreign Operations ........................................................................................................................ 1012
Top Foreign Assistance Recipients .......................................................................................... 11 14
Foreign Operations: Key Issues ..................................................................................................... 1215
Administration Initiatives ........................................................................................................ 1215
Global Health Initiative ..................................................................................................... 1215
Feed the Future .................................................................................................................. 13 16
Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI). ........................................................................ 1317
Africa Initiatives. ............................................................................................................... 1417
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) .............................................................................. 1418
Syria Crisis/IS .................................................................................................................................... 14 19
Afghanistan/Pakistan ............................................................................................................... 1520
Countering Russian Aggression. .............................................................................................. 1521
Central America ....................................................................................................................... 16 22
Figures
Figure 1. State and Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2006-FY2016 Request ....................... 23
Figure 2. Composition of the FY2016 SFOPS Budget Request ...................................................... 34
Figure 3. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Funding Trends,
FY2006-FY2016 Request ............................................................................................................. 5 6
Figure 4. Composition of State Operations and Related Accounts, FY2016 Request ..................... 56
Figure 5. Foreign Operations by Type, FY2016 Request .............................................................. 10
Figure 6. FY2016 Foreign Operations Request, by Region12
Figure 6. Aid Allocation by Region and Top Recipients, FY2016 Request .................................. 14
Figure 7. Enduring, OCO and Emergency Funding in Foreign Operations Accounts:
FY2015 Est., FY2016 Proposals ............................................................................................... 12. 19
Tables
Table 1. Status of State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2016 ............................................ 12
Table 2. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Funding Trends,
FY2006-FY2016 Request ............................................................................................................. 4
5
Congressional Research Service
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Table 3. State Department and Related Accounts: Total Funding and Select Accounts .................. 6
Congressional Research Service
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
7
Table 4. Diplomatic Security Funding: Selected Accounts... ........................................................... 910
Table 5. Foreign Operations by Type, FY2014, FY2015 and the FY2016 request ....................... 10
Table 6. Top 15 recipients of U.S. Foreign Assistance, FY2016 Request ,the FY2016 Request, and
FY2016 Legislation ............................................................... 12
Table A-1. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2014-FY2016 Request ............................................................. 13
Table 6. Global Heath Programs: FY2015 Est., FY2016 Proposals ............................................... 17 16
Table B-1. International Affairs Budget, FY2014-FY2016 Request A-1. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agency Appropriations,
FY2015-FY2016 Request, House and Senate ................................................. 23........................... 23
Table B-1. International Affairs Budget, FY2015-FY2016 Request, House, and Senate ............. 31
Appendixes
Appendix A. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, by Account. ............................................ 1723
Appendix B. International Affairs (150) Function Account, FY2014 Actual, FY2015
Estimate, and FY2016 Request ................................................................................................... 23 31
Contacts
Author Contact Information. .......................................................................................................... 23
Congressional Research Service
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
FY2016 Most Recent Actions
31
Congressional Research Service
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
FY2016 Most Recent Actions
Refugee Supplemental. On October 6, the chairman and ranking Member of the Senate SFOPS
subcommittee introduced a supplemental appropriations bill (S. 2145) to provide an additional $1
billion in FY2016 emergency funding, through the Migration and Refugee Assistance account, to
address the refugee crisis caused by conflict in the Middle East.
Minibus Legislation. On October 5, 2015, four “minibus” appropriations bills were introduced in
the Senate, including S. 2130, which bundles the Senate FY2016 SFOPS bill (S. 1725) with the
Senate FY2016 bills making appropriations for the Department of Defense, Energy and Water
Development, Department of Homeland Security, Military Construction, and Department of
Veterans Affairs.
Continuing Resolution (CR). On September 30, 2015, the House and Senate approved, and
President Obama signed into law, a resolution to provide temporary FY2016 continuing
appropriations through December 11, 2015 (P.L. 114-53). The CR covers all of the regular
appropriations, including the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
(SFOPS), and continues the same authorities and conditions as the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235), except Title IX (Ebola Response and
Preparedness). Under the CR, most programs and activities would be funded at the FY2015 level,
minus an across-the-board reduction of 0.2108%. The reduction would not apply to funds
designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). According to CBO’s calculations,
SFOPS FY2016 discretionary budget authority is estimated to be $40.6 billion, plus an additional
$9.3 billion of OCO funds.
Anomalies within the CR that affect SFOPS accounts or activities include
allowing funding allocated in certain accounts for Ukraine to be obligated at an
accelerated rate, if necessary, to sustain assistance to that country (Sec. 148);
prohibiting high rates of funding distribution early in the fiscal year (Sec. 109),
which would undermine the 30-day distribution requirement for Foreign Military
Financing aid to Israel;
extending the authority of the U.S. Commission on International Freedom from
September 30, 2015, to December 11, 2015 (Sec. 147); and
extending authority for the U.S. Commission on Public Diplomacy beyond
October 1, 2015 to December 11, 2015 (Sec. 149).
Committee Action. On July 9, 2015, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its FY2016
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriation bill (S. 1725) and
reported it to the full Senate. Totaling $49.77 billion before rescissions, the Senate committee
recommendation is $2.20 billion (4.2%) below the FY2015 appropriated level, which included
Ebola supplemental funding, and $4.31 billion (8%) below the President’s FY2016 request. Net
of rescissions, the Senate bill funding totals $48.01 billion.
On June 11, 2015, the House Appropriations Committee approved the FY2016 State and Foreign
Operations Appropriations bill (H.R. 2772) on a voice vote. Totaling $48.19 billion, before
rescissions, H.R. 2772 is $3.78 billion (7.3%) below the FY2015 enacted level (including Ebola
emergency appropriations) and $5.89 billion (10.9%) below the FY2016 request. (See Table A-1
for account-by-account comparison of the request and House levels.) Net of rescissions, the
House bill funding totals $47.99 billion.
Congressional Research Service
1
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Budget Resolution (302(a) and 302(b) Allocations). On March 25 and 27, respectively, the
House and Senate passed budget resolutions for FY2016. 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
Senate
3/25/15
3/27/2015
4/30/15
05/05/15
06/11/15
7/9/15
$38.34
$47.79
$40.20
$40.20
Senate$47.99
$48.01
Floor Action
House
Senate
Conference/Agreement
House
Senate
Public
Law
Agreement
Note: Since Congress did not set Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) sub-allocationssuballocations levels for the
Departments of Defense and State, OCO funds are not included in the above table. The conference report
columns under H.Rept. 114-96 above.
The conference report (H.Rept. 114-96) passed by both House and Senate includes $96.287 billion for total
government-wide OCO.
a. 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 $53.3754.08 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
through the State operations and related agencies accounts (a 10.9% increase over FY2015
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% decreaseappropriations. 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.) This funding total does not reflect a requested $1,180 million IMF quota rescission, which
affects budget scoring.
Congressional Research Service
2
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
estimates that include emergency Ebola funds), and $36.53 billion is for Foreign Operations
accounts (a 1.2% increase from FY2015 estimates that include emergency Ebola funds). About
13% of the request is designated for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), compared with
14.6% of the FY2015 SFOPS funding request and 17.8% of enacted FY2015 funding.2
Figure 1. State and Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2006-FY2016 Request
(in billions of current US$)
Source: Annual congressional budget justifications, CRS calculations.
Note: Includes emergency 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
components.
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
23
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
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.
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. A
standoff between the President, who requested raising the budget caps for both defense and
nondefense in FY2016, and some in Congress who want to raise the caps only for defense may
result in a veto or changing sequestration for FY2016 and possibly beyond.
Congressional Research Service
4.
Congressional Research Service
3
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
FY2016 Request: Enduring vs. Overseas Contingency Operations
Operations Funding
In the FY2016 request, as every year since FY2012, the Administration distinguishesdistinguished 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 2 and Figure 3.)4
Table 2. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Funding
Trends, FY2006-FY2016 Request
(in billions of current U.S. dollars)
Enduring
OCO/Supp.
Total
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.19
47.04
4.47
5.66
5.66
1.83
2.34
0.00
11.20
10.82
6.52
11.78
7.05
Total
35.85
37.07
40.18
52.13
51.78
48.80
53.00
50.57
49.43
51.95
53.3797
54.08
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 $2.5253 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
45
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
TheFor FY2016, the Administration seeks to grow funding for the State Department and Related Accounts
Accounts category by 1110.6% over FY2015-estimated levels, to $17.5455 billion. Both “base” (or
“enduring”)
funding and overseas contingency operations (OCO) funding would grow under the
proposal, by
12 11.6% and 54.6%, respectively. The composition of this portion of the budget request
is illustrated in
Figure 4, and a. (A 10-year historical trend line appears in Figure 1.
)
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 10.59.6%, 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
Congressional Research Service
6
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
including exchange programs and international broadcasting, would see a 3.2% boost to a total of
$1.37 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 $2.22 billion, a 4.5% decrease from the
FY2015-estimated level (see Table 3). Other noteworthy reductions in the proposed budget
include significant proposed cuts in the “Related Programs” account, which funds a number of
non-governmental institutions. The FY2016 request proposes a 20% lower level for these
accounts overall, which would mean budget reductions to, among other institutions, the East-West
Center, the Asia Foundation, and the National Endowment for Democracy (cuts of 35%, 29%,
and 23%, respectively).
Table 3. State Department and Related Accounts: Total Funding and Select Accounts
(in billions of current US$U.S. dollars)
TOTAL, State & Related
Agencies
Diplomatic & Consular
Intl. Orgs / Peacekeeping
Embassy Security, Construction &
& Maintenance
Intl. Broadcasting
Exchanges
Related Programs
Other
FY2016
Senate
FY2014
Actual
FY2015
Estimate
FY2016
Request
% change,
FY2015FY2016
15.89
FY2016
House
15.89
15.87
17.55
15.97
16.86
8.01
3.11
2.67
15.86
7.797.85
3.59
2.32
17.54
8.60
4.62
2.22
+11%
+10%
+29%
-4%8.04
3.59
2.22
8.23
4.26
2.22
0.73
0.58
0.21
0.58
0.74
0.59
0.20
0.58
0.75
0.62
0.16
+1%
+6%
-20%
0.58
0.75
0.58
0.22
0.57
0.74
0.59
0.24
0.58
Source: CRS calculations based on Department of State, FY2016 Congressional Budget Justification.
Note: Figures may not add due to rounding.
State Operations: Key Issues
The following sections provide additional information about a number of particularly noteworthy
elements within the State Operations accounts.
House Appropriators: 15% Operational Funding Withheld
H.R. 2772 would provide $8.04 billion for Diplomatic and Consular Programs, both enduring and
OCO, including $3.4 billion for Worldwide Security Protection. However, Section 7077 of the
legislation, “Preservation and Transparency of Department of State Records,” would withhold
15% of all non-Worldwide Security Protection funds (an estimated $700 million) from the
Diplomatic and Consular Programs account until the Secretary of State certifies and reports that
the department has updated its procedures, guidance, and training to comply with federal
regulations that all employees are properly preserving official records and ensuring their prompt
accessibility. In addition, the measure would require the department to develop and implement a
plan to reduce backlog for information requests and improve response time.
While the Senate measure would not withhold funds for these purposes, Section 7077 of S. 1725
prohibits funding “to support the use or establishment of email accounts or email servers created
outside the .gov domain or not fitted for automated records management as part of a Federal
Government records management program.” The Senate bill also requests a recurring report on
Congressional Research Service
7
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
pending congressional committee information requests, as well as a report on reducing the State
Department’s backlog of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
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.
H.R. 2772 does not provide a specific funding recommendation for operational funding levels in
the frontline states, explaining in the accompanying report language regarding Afghanistan and
Pakistan that this is a natural result of the continuing fluidity of staffing and programmatic
requirements in those countries.
In S. 1725, Senate Appropriators recommend the full amount of the President’s budget request for
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq under the Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP) and
Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) headings. For Afghanistan, the
measure includes a regular reporting requirement on the number of U.S. personnel in-country
under Chief of Mission authority, including locally employed staff and contractors. For Iraq
operations, the Senate measure includes a limitation prohibiting funding for construction,
rehabilitation, or other improvements to U.S diplomatic facilities in Iraq on property for which no
land-use agreement exists.
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 $1.554 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,
Congressional Research Service
8
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
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
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
House appropriators would not provide the requested increase for these two accounts in H.R.
2772, instead funding the CIPA and CIO accounts at the same level as enacted for FY2015 (and
not providing any OCO funding). As in FY2015, the committee recommendation does not include
an appropriation for a Peace Operations Response Mechanism.
Senate appropriators would provide $1.51 billion for the CIO account (in between the
Administration’s $1.54 billion request and the House’s $1.47 billion), $52 million of which would
be OCO funds. S. 1725 would provide a significant increase from FY2015 for the CIPA account,
to $2.75 billion (of which $505 million are in OCO funds), $177 million less than the President’s
request. As in FY2015, the committee recommendation does not include an appropriation for a
Peace Operations Response Mechanism.
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
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
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.
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
9
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
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
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 $2.77 billion for WSP.
Congressional Research Service
8
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Table 4. Diplomatic Security Funding: Selected Accounts
(in billions of current US$U.S. dollars)
FY2014
Actual
FY2015
Estimated
FY2016
Request
% changeChange
(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.
Under H.R. 2772, House appropriators would provide the full enduring and OCO amounts
requested for the Worldwide Security Protection account (WSP) and the Worldwide Security
Upgrades (WSU) account. The bill prohibits the use of funds for the development of FASTC until
Congressional Research Service
10
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
the training center is specifically authorized by a subsequent act of Congress. Should the
authorization not be provided before September 30, 2016, the appropriators allow requested funds
to be used to expand training at existing sites.
Senate appropriators would also provide the full amount requested under Worldwide Security
Protection. The bill would provide $1.3 billion for Worldwide Security Upgrades, meeting the
President’s request for enduring funding, but not providing an additional $124 million in
requested OCO funding (which the House would provide). In addition, Section 7006 of the act
would provide authority for the Department of State to award local guard contracts globally on
the basis of best value as determined by a cost-technical tradeoff analysis (an authority previously
extended only to high-risk, high-threat posts), which the committee report states is “essential to
improving security at missions abroad.”
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 levels4 billion. 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
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 serviceForeign 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
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.
H.R. 2772 would provide a total of $2.32 billion for Department of State human resources, or 4%
less than requested. S. 1725 would provide $2.24 billion for human resources, and does not
support funding for new positions other than those explicitly described in report language.
8
As points of comparison, the State Department requested appropriated funding for 53 new positions in its FY2015
request, for 35 new positions in FY2014, for 121 new positions in FY2013, and for 133 in FY2012.
Congressional Research Service
911
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
adjustment, the first two tranches of which were supported by Congress in previous years. The
third OCP phase has not been supported by congressional appropriators to date.
Foreign Operations
The Foreign Operations budget funds most traditional foreign aid programs, with the exception of
food aid.9 It includes bilateral economic aid, multilateral aid, security assistance, and export
promotion programs, as well as USAID administrative accounts.
Figure 5. Foreign Operations by Type, FY2016 Request
Source: FY2016 International Affairs CBJ.
Notes: Excludes export promotion accounts.
Figure 5 shows the FY2016 foreign operations request broken out proportionately by the
categories typically used in appropriations legislation, while Table 5 shows the funding trend for
each category for FY2014, FY2015 and the FY2016 request.
Table 5. Foreign Operations by Type, FY2014, FY2015 and the FY2016 request
(in billions of current US$)
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
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; For FY2016, the Administration
requested about $36.53 billion for Foreign Operations accounts, 1.2% more than the FY2015
estimate.10 Within this, about $5.2 billion was requested with the OCO designation.
Figure 5. Foreign Operations by Type, FY2016 Request
Source: FY2016 International Affairs CBJ.
Notes: Excludes export promotion accounts. Humanitarian assistance includes the International Disaster
Assistance, Migration and Refugee Assistance, and Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance accounts.
The FY2016 State-Foreign Operations legislation approved by the appropriations committees of
both the House and Senate provide less than requested for foreign operations accounts. The
legislation approved by the House appropriations committee (H.R. 2772) includes $32.22 billion
for Foreign Operations accounts, including $5.55 billion designated as OCO. Overall, this
represents about 12% less than the Administration request and 11% less than FY2015 estimated
funding. The bill passed by Senate appropriators (S. 1725) includes a total of $32.92 billion for
foreign operations accounts, about 10% less than requested. This includes not only $6.82 billion
designated as OCO, but an additional $759 million designated as humanitarian and emergency
response (a designation, like OCO, which precludes these funds from being counted toward the
BCA caps).
Figure 5 shows the FY2016 foreign operations request broken out proportionately by the
categories typically used in appropriations legislation, while Table 5 shows the funding trend for
each category for FY2014, FY2015, the FY2016 request, and the FY2016 House and Senate
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.
10
Earlier versions of this report stated that the request was 0.8% below the FY2015 funding level. The change is the
result of updated estimates in the export promotion accounts. At the time of the budget request, total export and
investment promotion revenues were anticipated to exceed costs in FY2016 by $1.06 billion. CBO request estimates
accompanying the House and Senate bills reduced that estimate to $0.59 billion.
Congressional Research Service
12
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
committee-approved bills. (The overall foreign operations 10-year trend line is depicted in Figure
1.)
Table 5. Foreign Operations by Type, FY2014, FY2015,the FY2016 Request, and
FY2016 Legislation
(in billions of current U.S. dollars)
FY2014
Actual
FY2015
Estimate
FY2016
Request
Change, FY2015FY2016 Req.
House
(H.R.
2772)
Senate
(S.
1725)
USAID
Administration
1.31
1.43
1.69
+18.2%
1.36
1.52
Bilateral Economic
Assistance
(includes Treasury
Accounts)
15.80
16.98
17.45
+2.8%
15.12
16.24
Humanitarian
Assistance
(excludes food aid)
4.91
6.44
4.24
-34.2%
5.00
4.59
Independent
Agencies
1.33
1.33
1.70
+27.8%
1.33
1.33
Security Assistance
8.51
8.45
8.61
+1.9%
8.61
7.97
Multilateral
Assistance
3.01
2.77
3.45a
+24.5%
1.45
1.91a
Export Promotion
(0.88)
(1.30)
(0.59)
+45%
(0.65)
(0.64)
Foreign Operations,
Total
33.99
36.10
36.53
+1.2%
32.22
32.92
Source: FY2016 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs; Congressional Budget
Justification; H.Rept. 114-154; S.Rept. 114-79; 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. Multilateral assistance
numbers include IMF quota increase that are listed in Title X of S. 1725. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
a. Includes $295 million for International Monetary Fund quota increase in the request and title X of the
Senate bill.
The House committee bill, H.R. 2772, matches the Administration’s requested security assistance
increase, exceeds the humanitarian assistance request by 18%, and would provide less than the
requested amount for all other categories of aid. Multilateral assistance would be reduced
significantly, with a recommended funding level 58% below the request and 48% lower than the
current year estimate. The Economic Support Fund (ESF) account would also be reduced
significantly, though it is not clear exactly which programs might be affected.
S. 1725, the Senate committee bill, would provide less than the Administration request for every
aid category except humanitarian assistance, for which it recommends 8% more than requested,
but comes closer than the Senate to meeting the requests for bilateral economic assistance and
multilateral assistance. Still, the Senate recommendation on multilateral aid is only about 55% of
the amount requested, and about 31% less than FY2015 enacted funding, with sharply reduced
contribution to international financial institutions reflecting “an austere budget environment,”
according to the accompanying report. Unlike the House bill, the Senate provides the requested
Congressional Research Service
13
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
$295 million for an International Monetary Fund quota increase, which is counted in the
multilateral totals.
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 iswas 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 6 show the proposed FY2016 foreign operations budget allocations by region
and country.
Congressional Research Service
11
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Figure 6. FY2016 Foreign Operations
Request, by Region
Table 6. 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
$591shows the proposed FY2016 foreign operations budget allocations by region and
country.
Figure 6. Aid Allocation by Region and Top Recipients, FY2016 Request
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
12
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)
The House committee-passed bill does not include comprehensive country allocations, but the
committee report does specify aid levels for Israel ($3.1 billion) and Jordan (no less than $1
Congressional Research Service
14
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
billion) and emphasizes the committee’s particular support for assisting Ukraine, Afghanistan,
Mexico, and Colombia.
The report accompanying the Senate-passed legislation, S.Rept. 114-79, provides unusually
detailed account allocation tables. While it does not comprehensively list country allocations, it
details funding by account to several countries of particular interest: Israel ($3.100 billion),
Afghanistan ($3.168 billion), Jordan ($1.175 billion), Iraq ($335 million), Egypt ($1.456 billion),
Lebanon ($201 million), Pakistan ($1.942 billion), Ukraine ($514 million), and West Bank/Gaza
($362 million), among others. The report also recommends up to $675 million to support the U.S.
Strategy for Engagement in Central America. Notably, the Senate bill would also reestablish the
Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia (AEECA) account, defunct for several years,
recommending a total of $853.93 million for regions that have generally seen assistance levels
decline over the past decade. The AEECA funding would incorporate many programs for which
the Administration requested funding under the ESF and INCLE accounts.
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. House and Senate appropriators have expressed different views on these
initiatives in their pending FY2016 legislation, fully supporting some, seemingly ignoring others,
and asserting their own priorities through suballocation recommendations. Both the House and
Senate are notably less supportive than the Administration of the multilateral components of these
initiatives.
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. 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%).11
The House and Senate committee-approved bills both include more funding for global health
programs than requested by the Administration, with the House bill including $8.454 billion
(equal to the FY2015 estimate, excluding emergency Ebola funds) and the Senate $8.468 billion.
Both committees recommend flat funding for HIV/AIDS programs, rejecting the Administration’s
proposed reduction in the U.S. contribution to the Global Fund. The House proposal would also
11
For more in U.S. global health funding, see CRS In Focus IF10131, U.S. Global Health Assistance: The FY2016
Budget, by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther.
Congressional Research Service
15
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
provide more than requested for maternal and child health, nutrition, and vulnerable children,
while recommending less than the request for family planning and reproductive health programs.
The Senate committee recommendation matches the request for family planning and reproductive
health programs; recommends more than requested for nutrition, vulnerable children, and some
infectious diseases; and would provide less than requested for maternal and child health
programs. Table 6 compares the major suballocations within global health programs for FY2015
with those requested by the Administration and recommended by the House and Senate
appropriations committees for FY2016.
Table 6. Global Heath Programs: FY2015 Est., FY2016 Proposals
(in millions of U.S.$)
Program/Activity
FY2015 Est.
FY2016 Request
H.R. 2772
715.0
770.0
882.0
715.0
(200.0)
(235.0)
(235.0)
(200.0)
115.0
101.0
115.0
115.0
Vulnerable Children
22.0
14.5
22.0
22.0
HIV/AIDS (USAID)
330.0
330.0
330.0
330.0
6,570.0
5,426.0
5,670.0
5,670.0
(1,350.0)
(1,107.0)
(1,350.0)
(1,350.0)
Family Planning/Reproductive Health
524.0
538.0
461.0
538.0
Malaria
669.5
674.0
674.0
670.0
Other Infectious Diseases
408.5
327.5
300.0
409.0
Ebola Emergency Funds
312.0
8,181.0
8,454.0
8,468.0
Maternal and Child Health
(of which, GAVI)
Nutrition
HIV/AIDS (State)
(of which, Global Fund to Fight HIV, AIDS and TB)
Total
8,766.0
S. 1725
Source: S.Rept. 114-79; H.Rept. 114-154; FY2016 Foreign Operations CBJ; explanatory statement
accompanying P.L. 113-235.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are subsumed in the previous row.
Feed the Future
The Administration’s food security initiative, Feed the Future, would receive 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 (DA) 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).
Congressional Research Service
16
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
H.R. 2772 includes $1.006 billion for bilateral food security and agricultural development
activities but would not directly fund U.S. contributions to the related multilateral programs. The
committee report notes, however, that bilateral funds may be used to provide grants to GAFSP for
activities in Feed the Future countries.
S. 1725 also allocates $1.006 in bilateral assistance for food security and agricultural
development. An additional $21.5 million, half the amount requested, is included for a U.S.
contribution to the GAFSP.
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.United States will complete a four-year, $2 billion
billion pledge with proposed FY2016 funding. The Administration asserts that the requested contribution
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
13
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
negotiations.12
H.R. 2772, as passed by the full House Appropriations Committee, makes no mention of the
GCCI, eliminates funding for the multilateral climate investment funds, and provides no funding
for the Green Climate Fund.
S. 1725, as passed by Senate appropriators, does not establish a specific allocation for climate
change programs. The report recommends U.S. contributions to the multilateral climate funds at
half the requested levels: $85.34 million for the Clean Technology Fund and $29.81 million for
the Strategic Climate Fund. The bill does not include a specific allocation for a Green Climate
Fund, but the report notes that other funds in the act, or enacted in prior foreign operations
appropriations, may be used for this purpose with proper congressional notification.13
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
12
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.
13
S.Rept. 114-79, p. 99.
Congressional Research Service
17
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
U.S. commitment.14 $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.
H.R. 2772 does not specify funding levels for any of these initiatives. The accompanying report
notes that the legislation does support the ongoing Global Peace Operations initiative, which “has
a similar mandate” to the African Peacekeeping Raid Response Partnership.
S. 1725 includes $76.7 million for Power Africa, nearly matching the Administration request, and
recommends, from within the Peacekeeping Operations account, $20 million for an African
Peacekeeping Rapid Response Partnership and $16.85 million for a Security Governance
Initiative.
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 (IDA) request and $819 million
million within the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) 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
14
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 military equipment.
As reported by committee, H.R. 2772 includes $5.55 billion designated as OCO in Foreign
Operations accounts, about 7% more than requested and nearly 26% less than the FY2015
estimate. Much of the increase in relation to the request is for the Migration and Refugee
Assistance (MRA), International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE), Foreign
Military Financing (FMF), and Peacekeeping Operations accounts. In the case of Peacekeeping
Operations, the OCO increase is largely offset by a reduction in enduring funds. The legislation
provides less OCO funding than requested for the Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and
Related (NADR) account.
14
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 Nicolas Cook et al.
Congressional Research Service
18
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
The Senate committee bill, S. 1725, designates $6.82 billion,15 or more than 21% of the foreign
operations funds in the bill, as OCO. The increase over the Administration request (+31%) is
spread across several accounts, though the bulk is in IDA and MRA, as well as Foreign Military
Financing. The Senate bill also would designate $759 million in additional IDA and MRA
assistance as emergency response, a designation, like OCO, which precludes counting it against
the BCA caps. With the OCO and emergency funding designations, about 23% of the foreign
operations funding proposed in the Senate bill would be outside the scope of the BCA caps.
Figure 7. Enduring, OCO and Emergency Funding in Foreign Operations Accounts:
FY2015 Est., FY2016 Proposals
(in U.S. $ billions)
Source: S.Rept. 114-79; H.Rept. 114-154; FY2016 Foreign Operations CBJ; P.L. 113-235.
Syria Crisis/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).16 The Administration
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.17
15
This figure does not reflect $222 million the bill rescinds from prior year OCO appropriations.
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.
17
For more information about the train and equip program, see CRS Report R43727, Train and Equip Program for
Syria: Authorities, Funding, and Issues for Congress, by Christopher M. Blanchard and Amy Belasco.
16
Congressional Research Service
19
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
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.
The House committee-passed bill, H.R. 2772, does not specify a funding level for Syria-related
activities but does identify $104 million above FY2015 funding to address the issue of foreign
fighters, fully funds the International Disaster Assistance request, maintains funding for
Migration and Refugee Assistance at the historically high FY2015 level ($3.06 billion, or 25%
more than requested), and allocates $100 million in Economic Support Fund money for Syrian
refugee host communities, especially in Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon.
The Senate committee report, S.Rept. 114-79, identifies $195 million in the Senate committee bill
for non-lethal assistance to Syria, primarily through the Economic Support Fund and
Peacekeeping Operations accounts. The bill also includes $1.175 billion for Jordan, along with a
provision stating that additional funding shall be made available to implement the Jordan
Response Plan 2015 for the Syria Crisis, including assistance for host communities in Jordan. The
bill’s allocation for Iraq, $355.4 million, also comes with a provision saying that the funds may be
used to address needs in areas affected by the Syria crisis. In the humanitarian accounts, the
Senate bill includes $1.895 million for IDA, or 8.8% more than requested, and $2,644 million for
MRA, a 7.8% increase over the request. Unlike the request or the House legislation, the Senate
bill designates a portion ($298 million of IDA and $461 million of MRA) of the humanitarian
funding in the bill as “emergency spending.”
The Senate committee bill also includes a new general provision on countering violent
extremism, Section 7073, which recommends not less than $141.152 million be used for this
purpose. The provision requires that funds be made available to counter the flow of foreign
terrorist fighters and to strengthen governance and security in fragile states bordering countries
where violent extremist groups operate.
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.18
18
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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
20
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
H.R. 2772 does not specify assistance levels for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The committee report
(H.Rept. 114-154) states that funding for these countries will remain under continuous review as
circumstances in the region evolve, and the Administration is directed to develop its programming
plans for these countries in consultation with the appropriations committees.19
S. 1725 includes $939 million in new foreign operations funds for Afghanistan, largely through
the ESF and INCLE accounts, noting in the report that an additional $3.168 billion in previously
appropriated funds are expected to remain available to carry over into FY2016. For Pakistan, the
bill recommends $625.8 million in new assistance funds, primarily through ESF and FMF, with
the report noting that an additional $1,317 million in previously appropriated but unobligated
carryover funds are expected to be available. The committee report notes improved relations
between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and “encourages continued cooperation on issues of mutual
interest.”20
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.1721 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
15
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
address military equipment shortfalls and improve interoperability with NATO and other western
forcesaddress military equipment shortfalls and improve interoperability with NATO and other western
forces.
H.R. 2772, as reported by House appropriators, includes $524 million for security and economic
stability assistance to the Ukraine, as well as funds to support broadcasting to counter Russian
propaganda. Accompanying report language states that International Disaster Assistance funding
in the bill may be used to assist people displaced by the conflict in Ukraine. The bill also includes
Foreign Military Financing funds for Ukraine ($47 million), Georgia ($20 million), and Moldova
($12.75 million) as well as $50 million designated as OCO “for European and Eurasian countries
facing Russian aggression.”
The Senate bill, S. 1725, would reestablish the Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia
(AEECA) account, which has not been used in recent years, “to more effectively counter Russian
influence and pressure.”22 The committee recommends $853.9 million for the account (of which
about $411 million would be designated as OCO). Within that total, $433 million is for Ukraine,
including $275 million to support a loan guarantee. Georgia would receive $54 million in AEECA
funds, and Moldova about $35 million. Additional funding from the FMF, NADR, IMET, and
(...continued)
Kronstadt.
19
H.Rept. 114-154, p. 6.
20
S.Rept. 114-79, p. 24.
21
For more information on aid to Ukraine, see CRS Report RL33460, Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy, by
Steven Woehrel.
22
S.Rept. 114-79, p. 30. The assistance recommended by the committee under AEECA is largely requested by the
Administration under the ESF and INCLE accounts. The AEECA funds would support a range of programs beyond
former Soviet states, including assistance to Kosovo and Ireland.
Congressional Research Service
21
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Global Health Programs would bring total Ukraine assistance to $513.5 million. Georgia ($20
million) and Moldova ($12.75 million) would receive FMF funds as well.
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
1823
H.R. 2772 and the committee report (H.Rept. 114-154) note the committee’s particular emphasis
on security concerns related to Central America. The bill allocates $296.5 million for CARSI, as
well as additional assistance to Mexico for securing that country’s southern border. Non-security
assistance for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras is not specified.
In S.Rept. 114-79, Senate appropriators detail $675.3 million in foreign operations funds
allocated to implement the Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle of Central
America. Specific allocations and conditions attached to the funds are laid out in Section 7045(a)
of S. 1725. Within the total, $231.5 million is allocated for CARSI, about $84 million for other
security and military assistance, and approximately $360 million for development and health
programs, primarily in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
23
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
1622
Appendix A. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, by Account
Table A-1. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related AgenciesAgency Appropriations, FY2014FY2015-FY2016 Request, House
and Senate
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
FY2015
Estimate
Totala
FY2016 House
(H.R. 2772)
FY2016 Request
Enduring
OCO/
Emergencyb
Total
Enduring
FY2016 Senate
(S. 1725)
OCO
Total
Enduring
OCO/
Emergencyb
Total
Title I. State,
Broadcasting &
Related Agency,
TOTAL
15,874.40
15,707.76
1,849.12
17,556.88
14,188.14
1,782.32
15,970.46
14,196.93
2,659.37
16,856.30
Administration of Foreign
Affairs, Subtotal
11,200.21
10,190.00
1,699.12
11,889.12
9,573.02
1,699.12
11,272.04
9,384.99
2,095.97
11,480.96
Diplomatic & Consular
Programsc
7,848.39
7,096.33
1,507.42
8,603.75
6,530.42
1,507.42
8,037.84
6,342.47
1,884.57
8,227.04
(of which Worldwide
Security Protection)
[3,117.82]
[2,327.14]
[1,067.96]
[3,395.10]
[2,327.14]
[1,067.96]
[3,395.10]
[2,094.71]
[1,300.39]
[3,395.10]
66.40
56.40
56.40
56.40
2,219.90
2,085.10
134.80
2,219.90
2,085.10
[1,424.00]
[1,300.00]
[124.00]
[1,424.00]
[1,300.00]
Capital Investment
Fund
Embassy Security,
Construction &
Maintenance
(of which Worldwide
Security Upgrades)
Conflict Stabilization
Operationsd
56.40
66.40
2,324.06
2,085.10
134.80
[1,490.50]
[1,300.00]
[124.00]
38.50
—
Ed. & Cultural
Exchanges
589.90
623.08
Office of Inspector
General
130.30
82.40
CRS-23
—
—
—
134.80
—
56.40
2,219.90
[1,300.00]
—
—
—
—
—
[11.00]
10.00
10.00
—
623.08
582.53
—
582.53
590.90
—
590.90
56.90
139.30
82.40
56.90
139.30
72.70
66.60
139.30
FY2015
Estimate
Totala
Representation
Expenses
FY2016 House
(H.R. 2772)
FY2016 Request
Enduring
OCO/
Emergencyb
Total
Enduring
OCO
FY2016 Senate
(S. 1725)
Total
Enduring
OCO/
Emergencyb
Total
8.03
8.45
—
8.45
8.03
—
8.03
8.03
—
8.03
Protection of Foreign
Missions & Officials
30.04
29.81
—
29.81
30.04
—
30.04
29.81
—
29.81
Emergency-Diplomatic
& Consular Services
7.90
7.90
—
7.90
7.9
—
7.90
7.90
—
7.90
Repatriation Loans
1.30
1.30
—
1.30
1.30
—
1.30
1.30
—
1.30
Payment American
Institute Taiwan
30.00
30.34
—
30.34
30.00
—
30.00
30.00
—
30.00
158.90
158.90
—
158.90
158.90
—
158.90
158.90
—
158.90
International Orgs,
Subtotal
3,592.44
4,470.25
4,620.25
3,518.04
74.40
3,592.44
3,704.40
557.10
4,261.50
Contributions to Int’l
Orgs
1,473.55
1,540.03
—
1,540.03
1,399.15
74.40
1,473.55
1,456.18
52.10
1,508.28
Contributions,
International
Peacekeeping
2,118.89
2,930.22
—
2,930.22
2,118.89
—
2,118.89
2,248.22
505.00
2,753.22
—
—
150.00
—
—
—
—
—
Foreign Service
Retirement
(mandatory)
Peacekeeping
Response Mechanisme
150.00
150.00
—
International
Commission subtotal
(Function 300)
122.95
120.06
—
120.06
119.22
—
119.22
122.72
—
122.72
Int’l Boundary/U.S.Mexico
73.71
75.68
—
75.68
73.71
—
73.71
73.70
—
73.70
American Sections
12.56
12.33
—
12.33
12.33
—
12.33
12.33
—
12.33
International Fisheries
36.68
32.05
—
32.05
33.18
—
33.18
36.68
—
36.68
International Broadcast,
Subtotal
742.07
751.44
—
751.44
742.79
751.59
733.06
CRS-24
8.80
6.30
739.36
FY2015
Estimate
Totala
Broadcasting
Operations
Capital Improvements
737.27
FY2016 House
(H.R. 2772)
FY2016 Request
Enduring
OCO/
Emergencyb
741.44
—
Total
741.44
Enduring
737.99
OCO
8.80
FY2016 Senate
(S. 1725)
Total
746.79
Enduring
728.26
OCO/
Emergencyb
6.30
Total
734.56
4.80
10.00
—
10.00
4.80
—
4.80
4.80
—
4.80
Related Approps,
Subtotal
204.51
163.75
—
163.75
222.81
—
222.81
239.51
—
239.51
Asia Foundation
17.00
12.00
—
12.00
17.00
—
17.00
17.00
—
17.00
U.S. Institute of Peace
35.30
36.99
—
36.99
35.30
—
35.30
35.30
—
35.30
Center for Middle
East-West DialogueTrust & Program
0.10
0.10
—
0.10
0.10
—
0.10
0.l0
—
0.l0
Eisenhower Exchange
Programs
0.40
0.40
—
0.40
0.40
—
0.40
0.40
—
0.40
Israeli Arab
Scholarship Program
0.01
0.01
—
0.01
0.01
—
0.01
0.01
—
0.01
16.70
10.80
—
10.80
—
—
—
16.70
—
16.70
135.00
103.45
—
103.45
170.00
—
170.00
170.00
—
170.00
Other Commissionsf
12.22
12.26
—
12.26
12.26
—
12.26
12.26
—
12.26
FOREIGN
OPERATIONS,
TOTAL
36,101.89
31,328.99
5,198.33
36,527.32
26,670.78
5,551.69
32,222.47
25,337.53
6,820.66
+759.00 E
32,917.19
Title II. Admin of
Foreign Assistance
1,426.08
1,626.33
65.00
1,691.33
1,290.69
65.00
1,355.69
1,377.91
139.26
1,517.17
USAID Operating
Expenses
1,235.34
1,360.00
65.00
1,425.00
1,058.11
65.00
1,123.11
1,143.61
139.26
1,282.87
USAID Capital
Investment Fund
130.82
203.33
—
203.33
169.58
—
169.58
168.30
—
168.30
USAID Inspector
General
59.92
63.00
—
63.00
63.00
—
63.0
66.00
—
66.00
East-West Center
National Endowment
for Democracy
CRS-25
FY2015
Estimate
Totala
Title III. Bilateral
Economic
Assistance
FY2016 House
(H.R. 2772)
FY2016 Request
Enduring
24,752.46
19,587.35
8,765.95
8,181.00
GHP (USAID)
[3,095.95]
GHP (State)
OCO/
Emergencyb
Enduring
OCO
Total
Enduring
3,903.17
21,459.67
16,663.99
OCO/
Emergencyb
17,556.50
—
8,181.00
8,453.95
—
8,453.95
8,468.00
—
8,468.00
[2,755.00]
—
[2,755.00]
[2,783.95]
—
[2,783.95]
[2,798.00]
—
[2,798.00]
[5,670.00]
[5,426.00]
—
[5,426.00]
[5,670.00
—
[5,670.00
[5,670.00]
—
[5,670.00]
Development
Assistance
2,507.00
2,999.69
—
2,999.69
2,507.00
—
2,507.00
2,637.85
—
2,637.85
International Disaster
Assistance (IDA)
3,331.27
931.00
1,741.00
1,085.00
810.00
1,895.00
560.00
1,037.00
+298.00 E
Transition Initiatives
67.00
67.60
—
67.60
47.00
20.00
67.00
47.00
20.00
67.00
Complex Crises Fund
50.00
30.00
—
30.00
0
—
0
30.00
—
30.00
Development Credit
Authority –Admin
8.12
9.20
—
9.20
8.12
—
8.12
8.12
—
8.12
Development Credit
Authority Subsidy
[40.00]
[40.00]
—
[40.00]
[40.00]
—
[40.00]
[40.00]
—
[40.00]
6,135.49
1,817.32
3,924.10
1,991.07
2,019.03
4,010.10
410.87
853.93
Economic Support
Fund
Asst Europe, Eurasia,
Central Asia
Democracy Fund
5,428.62
3,952.16
2,183.33
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
443.06
—
—
—
140.50
—
140.50
140.50
3,059.00
931.89
130.50
3,059.00
1,634.60
Emergency Refugee
and Migration
50.00
50.00
Independent Agencies
subtotal
1,331.50
1,704.10
Migration & Refugee
Assistance
CRS-26
810.00
819.00
2,106.78
966.39
4,738.01
+759.00 E
Total
23,399.68
Global Health
Programs (GHP), State
+ USAID
3,812.33
Total
FY2016 Senate
(S. 1725)
—
1,251.11
+461.00 Eg
22,161.00
1,895.00
140.50
2,453.60
2,092.61
2,644.00
—
50.00
50.00
—
50.00
50.00
—
50.00
—
1,704.10
1,331.50
—
1,331.50
1,333.00
—
1,333.00
FY2015
Estimate
Totala
FY2016 House
(H.R. 2772)
FY2016 Request
Enduring
OCO/
Emergencyb
Total
Enduring
OCO
FY2016 Senate
(S. 1725)
Total
Enduring
OCO/
Emergencyb
Total
Inter-American
Foundation
22.50
18.10
—
18.10
22.50
—
22.50
22.50
—
22.50
African Development
Foundation
30.00
26.00
—
26.00
30.00
—
30.00
30.00
—
30.00
Peace Corps
379.50
410.00
—
410.00
379.50
—
379.50
379.50
—
379.50
Millennium Challenge
Corporation
899.50
1,250.00
—
1,250.00
899.50
—
899.50
901.00
—
901.00
Department of the
Treasury, subtotal
23.50
28.00
—
28.00
23.50
—
23.50
23.50
—
23.50
Treasury Department
Technical Assistance
23.50
28.00
—
28.00
23.50
—
23.50
23.50
—
23.50
Title IV. Int’l
Security Assistance
8,447.34
7,285.56
1,321.00
8,606.56
7,023.05
1,583.52
8,606.57
6,028.11
1,943.39
7,971.50
International Narcotics
Control & Law
Enforcement
1,296.25
967.77
226.00
1,193.77
935.02
366.65
1,301.67
735.70
284.00
1,019.70
Nonproliferation,
Anti-Terrorism,
Demining
690.80
609.33
390.00
999.33
588.08
170.00
758.08
474.19
262.52
736.71
International Military
Education & Training
106.07
111.72
111.72
108.12
—
108.12
107.59
5,880.53
5,166.54
640.00
5,806.54
5,160.56
740.0
5,900.56
4,543.93
1,186.87
5,730.80
473.69
430.20
65.00
495.20
231.27
306.87
538.14
166.70
210.00
376.70
2,774.97
3,421.85
—
3,421.85
1,448.50
1,448.50
1,905.48
—
1,905.48
136.56
168.26
—
168.26
84.13
—
84.13
Foreign Military
Financing
Peacekeeping
Operations
Title V. Multilateral
Assistance
World Bank: Global
Environment Facility
CRS-27
—
—
—
—
—
—
107.59
FY2015
Estimate
Totala
International Clean
Technology Fund
184.63
FY2016 House
(H.R. 2772)
FY2016 Request
Enduring
OCO/
Emergencyb
170.68
—
Total
Enduring
OCO
FY2016 Senate
(S. 1725)
Total
Enduring
OCO/
Emergencyb
Total
170.68
—
—
—
85.34
—
85.34
Strategic Climate Fund
49.90
59.62
—
59.62
—
—
—
29.81
—
29.81
Green Climate Fund
—
150.00
—
150.00
—
—
—
—
—
—
North American
Development Bank
—
45.00
—
45.00
—
—
—
22.50
—
22.50
World Bank: Int’l.
Development
Association
1,287.80
1,290.60
—
1,290.60
1,167.85
—
645.30
—
645.30
Int. Bank Recon & Dev
186.96
192.92
—
192.92
—
—
—
96.46
—
96.46
Inter-Amer. Dev. Bank
- capital
102.02
102.02
—
102.02
—
—
—
51.01
—
51.01
—
—
—
—
—
—
104.98
—
104.98
83.04
—
83.04
—
—
—
5.61
—
5.61
IADB: Enterprise for
Americas MIF
3.38
—
—
1,167.85
Asian Development
Fund
104.98
166.09
—
166.09
Asian Development
Bank – capital
106.59
5.61
—
5.61
African Development
Fund
175.67
227.50
—
227.50
175.67
—
175.67
113.75
—
113.75
African Development
Bank - capital
32.42
34.12
—
34.12
—
—
—
17.06
—
17.06
International Fund for
Agricultural
Development
30.00
31.93
—
31.93
—
—
—
15.97
—
15.97
Global Food Security
Fund
—
43.00
—
43.00
—
—
—
21.50
—
21.50
315.00
—
315.00
—
—
—
339.00
—
339.00
International
Organizations &
Programs
CRS-28
344.17
FY2015
Estimate
FY2016 House
(H.R. 2772)
FY2016 Request
OCO/
Emergencyb
Enduring
IDA Multilateral Debt
Relief
—
111.00
—
111.00
—
—
—
—
—
—
African Development
Fund Multilateral Debt
relief
—
13.50
—
13.50
—
—
—
—
—
—
Other multilateral/
IMF quota increaseh
—
295.00
—
295.00
—
—
—
295.00
—
295.00
(1,298.96)
(592.10)
—
(592.10)
(647.96)
—
(647.96)
(637.96)
—
(637.96)
(1,096.75)
(416.30)
—
(416.3)
(437.75)
—
(437.75)
(427.75)
—
(427.75)
(262.21)
(249.50)
—
(249.50)
(270.21)
—
(270.21)
(270.21)
—
(270.21)
60.00
73.70
—
73.70
60.00
—
60.00
60.00
—
60.00
7,047.45
54,084.20
40,858.92
48,192.93
39,534.46
9,480.04
+759.00 E
49,773.50
(1,180.00)k
(1,158.00)
(200.00)l
(364.82)
(222.04)
+ (1,180.00) E
(1,766.86)
5,867.45
52,926.20
47,992.93
39,169.64
Export-Import Bank
(net)
Overseas Private
Investment
Corporation (net)
Trade & Development
Agency
State, Foreign
Ops & related
Programs,
TOTAL
51,976.29
(26.00)i
47,036.75
22.00j
Enduring
—
OCO
7,334.01
—
Total
Enduring
OCO/
Emergencyb
Totala
Title VI. Export
Assistance
Total
FY2016 Senate
(S. 1725)
Add Ons/ Rescissions
State-Foreign Ops
Total, Net of
Rescissions
51,950.28
47,058.75
40,858.92
7,334.01
8,837.00
Total
48,006.64
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; H.R. 2772 and H.Rept. 114-154; CRS calculations.
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.
CRS-29
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
CRS-30
FY2015 totals include OCO and emergency funding.
OCO funding is in Title VIII of the request and the House and Senate bill. Title IX addresses funding for global emergency needs. S. 1725 designates $759 million in
new emergency funding for the humanitarian programs IDA and MRA. The President’s request would rescind FY2015-appropriated emergency funds. H.R. 2772
does not include emergency funds.
Includes the International Center (FY2015 estimate=$0.53 million; FY2016 request=$0.74 million; House= $0.74 million; Senate=$0.74million).
For FY2015, funding for Conflict Stabilization Operations (CSO) is within the Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP) account. For FY2016, the House
committee report recommends deferring funding for CSO until issues such as mission, bureau overlap, and staff size are resolved. The Senate committee report
recommends transferring $11.00 million from the D&CP account to CSO, plus $10.00 million within the Title VIII OCO funds.
Within the FY2016 budget request, this is called the Peacekeeping Operations Response Mechanism.
Includes the Commission on American Heritage Abroad, the Commission on International Religious Freedom, the Commission on Security and Cooperation in
Europe, the Congressional-Executive Commission the People’s Republic of China, and the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
On October 6, the chairman and ranking Members of the Senate SFOPS subcommittee introduced a supplemental appropriations bill (S. 2145) to provide an
additional $1 billion in FY2016 emergency funding, through the Migration and Refugee Assistance account, to address the refugee crisis caused by conflict in the
Middle East.
This is listed in Title X of the House and Senate bills.
This figure represents a $30 million Export-Import Bank rescission and a $4.0 million add-on in the general provisions (Sec. 7076) for an amendment to the Vietnam
Education Foundation Act.
This add-on reflects a special immigrant visa proposal in the general provisions on the request (Sec. 7034(0)).
IMF quota rescission from P.L. 111-32 emergency funds.
Rescission of prior year ESF cash transfer balances.
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, FY2015-FY2016 Request, House, and Senate
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
FY2015 Estimate
State-Foreign
Operations,
excluding
commissionsa
FY2016 Request
FY2016 House
FY2016 Senate
51,815.11
52,793.88
47,861.45
47,871.34
2.33
2.37
2.33
2.37
84.50
131.50
84.50
84.50
1,657.63
1,614.10
1,611.10
1,670.10
53,559.57
54,541.85
49,559.38
49,628.63
Enacted
CommerceJustice-Science
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, H.R. 3049, S. 1800, H.R. 2578, 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
31
(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-17
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-18
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-19
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-20
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-21
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-22
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
23