Contents

• Introduction
• Congressional Action
• FY2018 Budget Request for State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS)
• Department of State and Related Programs
• Worldwide Security Protection
• Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance
• Contributions to International Organizations and Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities
• Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs
• Foreign Operations
• Key Foreign Operations Issues
• Economic Support and Development Fund
• Proposed Agency Eliminations
• Possible Impact on Key Sectors

Summary

The 115^th Congress is considering FY2018 funding levels Nearly six months after the start of FY2018, the 115^th Congress enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (H.R. 1625; P.L. 115-141, signed March 23, 2018), which provided FY2018 funding for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS). Division K of the act―State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS)― provided a total of $54.18 billion, including Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds and rescissions. This represented a decrease of 6.1% from the FY2017 actual funding level. Of the total, $16.22 billion (not including rescissions) was for the Department of State, international broadcasting, and related agencies, a reduction of 10.7% as compared with FY2017 levels, and $37.99 billion (not including rescissions) was enacted for foreign operations, 4% below the FY2017 funding level. for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS). President Donald J. Trump submitted his FY2018 budget request to Congress on May 23, 2017. The request seekssought $40.25 billion (-30% compared with FY2017 enacted) for SFOPS, including Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds. Of this total, $13.20 billion (-27% compared with FY2017 enacted) would be for the have been for Department of State Operations and related programs. For Foreign Operations, the FY2018 request includesincluded $27.05 billion (-31% compared with FY2017 enacted). The total OCO funds in the request amountamounted to $12.02 billion (-42% below FY2017 enacted, including the FY2017 supplemental; excluding the supplemental, it would be -21%). OCO funds are important in the budget request since these funds do not counthave been -21%). The OCO designation has the important feature of not counting against the discretionary spending limits imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25).

Prominent issues in the SFOPS request includeincluded, among others, a reductionreductions in annual appropriations for diplomatic security, contributions to international organizations and international peacekeeping, and educational and cultural exchange programs; a proposal to consolidate several bilateral foreign aid programs into one new account called the Economic Support and Development Fund (ESDF); proposed elimination of some foreign operations entities, such as the Trade and Development Agency and the Inter-American Foundation; and a 44% reduction in humanitarian assistance, including a zeroing out of the P.L. 480 (Food for Peace) foreign food aid program.

The FY2018 appropriations for Defense (DOD) and/or nondefense could affect SFOPS funding in FY2018 because of the discretionary spending limits set by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25). For FY2018, the caps for enduring or base funds are set at $549 billion for defense and $516 billion for nondefense (including SFOPS). Exceeding these caps could lead to congressional action. Congress may seek to avert sequestration by amending or repealing the BCA, or passing a bipartisan budget agreement to raise OCO-designated funding for both DOD and SFOPS, as it did in FY2015. (For more detail on defense FY2018 budget issues, see CRS Report R44866, FY2018 Defense Budget Request: The Basics.)

On July 24, 2017, the House Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 3362, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2018. The bill would providehave provided $47.5 billion in discretionary and mandatory funding for FY2018, including $12.02 billion for OCO (the same as requested). The text of H.R. 3362 was later incorporated into a consolidated spending bill, H.R. 3354, which passed the House on September 14, 2017. The total House funding level reflectsreflected a $7.3 billion (+18%) increase over the Administration request.

On September 7, 2017, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 1780 with a total of $51.35 billion in discretionary and mandatory funding for FY2018, including $20.79 billion (the same as the FY2017 enacted level) for OCO. This bill would providehave provided 42% more OCO funds than either the request or the House bill. The Senate SFOPS total funding level iswas $11.1 billion (22%) more than the Administration request and $3.8 billion (7%) more than the House bill.

On September 7 and 8, 2017, the Senate and House respectively passed the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018, and Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2017 (H.R. 601; P.L. 115-56). As signed by the President on September 8, 2017, the act providesprovided government funding (a continuing resolution, or CR) at the FY2017 rate, reduced by 0.6791%, through December 8, 2017. Subsequent CRs amended that date first to December 22, 2017, then to January 19, 2018, and then February 8, 2018. On February 9, 2018, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA, H.R. 1892; P.L. 115-123), which continuescontinued government funding through March 23, 2018; raises both security and nonsecurityraised discretionary spending limits for FY2018 and FY2019; and extendsextended direct spending reductions through FY2027. The act eased the FY2018 budget process and prevented a breach of the BCA spending limits by raising the overall revised discretionary spending limit from $1.069 trillion for FY2017 to $1.208 trillion for FY2018. It raised the defense cap by $80 billion to $629 billion and the nondefense cap (including SFOPS) by $63 billion to $579 billion for FY2018. (For more detail on defense FY2018 budget issues, see CRS Report R44866, FY2018 Defense Budget Request: The Basics.)

This is the final update of this report.

Introduction

About six months into the fiscal year, the 115^th Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (H.R. 1625; P.L. 115-141, signed March 23, 2018), which provided FY2018 funding through September 30, 2018. Division K of the act―State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS)―provided a total of $54.18 billion, including Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds and rescissions. This represented a decrease of 6.1% from the FY2017 actual funding level. Of the total, $16.22 billion (excluding rescissions) was for the Department of State, international broadcasting, and related agencies, 10.7% below FY2017 levels, and $37.99 billion (excluding rescissions) was enacted for foreign operations, 4% below the FY2017 funding level.

On May 23, 2017, the Trump Administration submitted its FY2018 budget request to Congress (see Appendix B for a discussion on the differences between the International Affairs budget function and State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations) direct spending reductions through FY2027.

This report will be updated as congressional action on the foreign affairs budget occurs.

---

Introduction

The 115^th Congress is considering FY2018 appropriations measures for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS). On May 23, 2017, the Trump Administration submitted its FY2018 budget request to Congress. The SFOPS total requested for FY2018 (including Overseas Contingency Operations funds, otherwise known as OCO) iswas $40.25 billion, 30% below the enacted FY2017 SFOPS funding level of $57.53 billion. For State Operations and Related Programs, the request iswas $13.20 billion, 27% below the enacted level of $18.09 billion. For Foreign Operations, the FY2018 request iswas $27.05 billion, 31% below the FY2017 enacted level of $39.44 billion. (For a comparison of the FY2018 SFOPS request with past funding levels, see Table 1 below. For account-by-account details regarding the FY2018 request, FY2016 actuals, and comparison with and legislation, compared to the FY2017 enacted funding levels, see Table A-1.)

The SFOPS FY2018 request seekssought a total of $12.0 billion in OCO funds for FY2018, representing a 42% reduction compared with the FY2017 enacted OCO level.¹ The Trump Administration wouldwanted to expand the designation of OCO funds from short-term, temporary war-related costs as requested by the Obama Administration to include longer-term, core costs for countries vital to U.S. national interests; for extraordinary activities that are critical to U.S. national security objectives; for preventing, addressing, or recovering from natural and manmade crises; and for securing State Department and USAID global operations.²

The Administration's broader FY2018 request to fund the government as a whole would breachhave breached defense discretionary spending caps but not the caps for nondefense (that includes SFOPS) required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25). To avoid sequestration, Congress had the option to amend or repeal the BCA prior to appropriating the higher funds, or designate more funds as OCO for defense or foreign affairs, if nondefense caps become more restrictive. Onon February 9, 2018, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA, H.R. 1892; P.L. 115-123), which raises that raised both security and nonsecurity discretionary spending limits for FY2018 and FY2019.

Congressional Action

On September 7 and 8, 2017, the Senate and House respectively passed the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018, and Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2017 (H.R. 601; P.L. 115-56). As signed by the President on September 8, 2017, the act providesprovided continuous government funding (continuing resolution, or CR) at the FY2017 level, reduced by 0.6791%, through December 8, 2017. ThisThe date was extended by subsequent continuing resolutions, first through December 22, 2017, by P.L. 115-90; then January 19, 2018, by P.L. 115-96; and February 8, 2018 by P.L. 115-120. On February 9, 2018, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123), which extends funding through March 23, 2018. It also raises discretionary spending caps for both security ($80 billion for FY2018 and $85 billion for FY2019) and nonsecurity ($63 billion for FY2018 and $68 billion for FY2019), and extends direct spending reductions through FY2027.

Senate action. On September 7, 2017, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its State, Foreign Operations, 2018 bill (S. 1780), with a total of $51.35 billion in discretionary and mandatory funding for FY2018 ($6.2 billion more than the FY2018 request), including $20.79 billion for OCO (the same as FY2017 enacted). As compared with the request and the House bill, the Senate bill includesincluded 42% more OCO funds. OCO funds could bewere significant in negotiating the final omnibus or consolidated bill because of the potential for sequestration. The Senate SFOPS total funding level iswas $11.1 billion (22%) more than the Administration request and $3.8 billion (7%) more than the House bill.

Supporting comparatively strong funding levels for SFOPS, the Senate committee report (S.Rept. 115-152) refersreferred to the President's SFOPS proposed reductions for FY2018 as "unjustified cuts" and statesstated that "battlefield technology and firepower cannot replace diplomacy and development." The report also includesincluded statements that would limit the Administration's discretion with respect to foreign affairs programs, such as setting minimum levels for Foreign Service and Civil Service positions that the appropriations are intended to support, and restates the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (CBICA; title X of P.L. 93-344) that "limits the authority of the administration to reduce or withhold funding provided in the law by action or inaction."³

House action. On July 24, 2017, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 3362 (H.Rept. 115-253), a FY2018 SFOPS proposal that would providehave provided $35.50 billion for enduring funds and $12.02 billion for OCO, totaling $47.52 billion.⁴ While the bill would providehave provided $7.3 billion more than the President's request, it representsrepresented a $10 billion (17%) decline compared with FY2017 total enacted. Overall, the House committee's bill proposesproposed $1.24 billion (3%) less for enduring funds than the FY2017 enacted budget and $8.8 billion (42%) less for OCO funds. Compared with the Senate bill, the House funding levels would behave been $3.8 billion (7%) less. The House Appropriations committee report statesstated the following: "Military power alone cannot solve all the [challenges and emerging crises throughout the world], especially over the long term. Advancing United States national interests also requires effective diplomatic engagement and foreign assistance." At the same time, the committee recognizesrecognized resources are limited, and it supportssupported steps to reduce waste, inefficiency, and duplication, and to press other nations to do more⁵ (see Table 2).

On September 14, 2017, the House approved a consolidated appropriations bill for FY2018, H.R. 3354, which incorporated the text of H.R. 3362 in the SFOPS section, Division G.

FY2018 Budget Request for State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS)

The Trump Administration's FY2018 budget request reflectsreflected a departure from past Administration budget proposals for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS). Discussion of some key changes follows.

Department of State and Related Programs

The Administration proposesproposed to cut funding for the State Department and Related Agency category⁶ by 27% from FY2017 enactedactual levels, to $13.20 billion.⁷ Base funding would decreasehave decreased under the Administration's proposal by 19%, while OCO funding would decrease by 21%. Cuts arehave decreased by 41%. Cuts were proposed in areas such asincluding Capital Security Cost Sharing (CSCS) and Maintenance Cost Sharing (MCS) program contributions,⁸ contributions to international organizations, contributions for international peacekeeping activities, and educational and cultural exchange programs. Department of State officials have said that although combined funding for bureaus within the Department of State that lead planning and implementation of diplomatic security-related activities (the Bureau of Diplomatic Security [DS] and the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations [OBO]) would decline by approximately 13% relative to the FY2017 estimated level, the level of resources available to these bureaus would increase by 11% when one accounts for adjustments to CSCS and MCS program payments.⁹ The department's flexibility to make these adjustments owes in part to congressional decisions to provide "no-year" appropriations, or appropriated funds that the Department of State is authorized to carry forward beyond the fiscal year for which they were appropriated, to the department's key diplomatic security accounts.

Among the top-line accounts, the Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP) account, the State Department's main operations account, would decline by 14have declined by 15% to $8.26 billion. The had the Administration's proposal been enacted. Additionally, the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account would totalhave totaled $1.14 billion, a 62% decrease from the FY2017 enactedactual level. Other noteworthy reductions in the proposal includeincluded significant cuts in "Related Programs" accounts, which fund a number of nongovernmental institutions (see Table 3). For example, the FY2018 request seekssought to end direct appropriations for the Asia Foundation and the East-West Center (the department maintainsState Department said in its request that these organizations willwould remain eligible to compete for federal grant funding opportunities and receive private sector contributions). The request also lookslooked to cut the direct appropriation for the National Endowment for Democracy by 39% from the FY2017 enactedactual level (see Table 3).¹⁰

9 However, P.L. 115-141 maintained direct appropriations to all three of these entities that were equal to the direct appropriations provided to each of them in FY2017.

H.R. 3362, the House committee bill, would providehave provided $15.52 billion in new appropriations for the State Department and Related Agency category (not reflecting rescissions of prior year funds). This compriseswas approximately 18% more than requested and 1415% less than FY2017 enactedactual funding. About 27% of the State Department and Related Agency funding would behave been designated for OCO. The appropriations report accompanying the committee bill makesmade note of ongoing Administration efforts to reorganize the Department of State, asserting that "it is essential that Congress be provided detailed information regarding any reorganization plan prior to its implementation."¹¹

10

The Senate committee bill, S. 1780, would providehave provided $15.69 billion in new appropriations for the State Department and Related Agency Category. This comprisescomprised approximately 19% more than the Administration's request and 1314% less than FY2017 enactedactual funding. In addition, the bill would provideSenate measure would have provided around 1% more funding than the House committee bill. If enacted, S. 1780 would designatehave designated approximately 25% of the State Department and Related Agency funding contained therein for OCO. Like the House committee report, the Senate committee report accompanying S. 1780 discussesaddressed efforts to reorganize the Department of State. The report expressesexpressed concern that "the process by which the Department of State and USAID intend to reorganize lacks clarity" and that "the administration has a predetermined outcome for the reorganization or redesign."¹²11

P.L. 115-141 provided $16.22 billion for the Department of State, international broadcasting, and related agencies. This was 11% less than the FY2017 funding level and 23% above the Administration's request. Of these appropriated funds, $12.04 billion were provided for the enduring budget and $4.18 billion were provided for OCO. The FY2018 enduring budget funds were 7% above the FY2017 actual funds, while FY2018 OCO funds were 39% below the FY2017 actual level. Section 7081 of this law provides that funds appropriated for the Department of State may not be used to implement a reorganization or redesign without consultation with Congress.

Worldwide Security Protection

The Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) request within D&CP is the primary source of funding for DS. DS's responsibilities include but are not limited to developing and implementing security programs to protect all personnel at every U.S. diplomatic mission; protecting the Secretary of State, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and foreign dignitaries below the head-of-state level who visit the United States; investigating passport and visa fraud; conducting personnel security investigations; and issuing security clearances.¹³12

Under the Administration's proposal, which totals $3.76 billion, funding for WSP would declinehave declined 19% from the FY2017 enacted level. When one excludesactual level of $4.64 billion to $3.76 billion. Excluding FY2017 supplemental funding, this proposal marksmarked an increase of 1.1%.%.¹³ The Department of State maintainsmaintained that congressional action to fully fund WSP with "no-year" appropriations has created an ample pipeline of unobligated funds. It addsadded that a large share of the difference between the FY2018 request and FY2017 figure owesowed to nonrecurrent OCO expenditures.¹⁴ However, the department cautionscautioned that the increasing percentage of recurring DS operations at overseas facilities funded in the WSP account through OCO may present future year challenges, as it anticipatesanticipated that OCO funding willwould be significantly reduced in the years ahead. With regard to non-OCO funds, the Administration's $871 million request for DS funds through WSP comprisescomprised a $46.4 million net decrease reflecting "prior-year efficiencies" and doesdid not make mention of future efficiencies to be realized.¹⁵

H.R. 3362 and S. 1780 would have each appropriatedeach appropriate a total of $3.76 billion for WSP, which iswas equal to the Administration's request. The proportions of enduring funds ($1.38 billion) and OCO funds ($2.38 billion) provided in each bill also mirrormirrored the Administration's request. Both bills would maintainhave maintained the status of WSP as a no-year appropriation for both OCO and non-OCO funds, meaning that the Department of State could carry forward any balance of unobligated FY2018 appropriated funds for expenditure in subsequent fiscal years.

The FY2018 appropriation for WSP provided in P.L. 115-141 was also identical to the Administration's request in terms of the overall appropriation, the proportions of enduring and OCO funds, and the maintaining of WSP as funded exclusively through no-year appropriations.

Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance

The ESCM account is the primary source of funding for OBO. OBO's responsibilities include but are not limited to setting the department's priorities for the design, construction, acquisition, maintenance, and use of diplomatic mission properties.¹⁶ One key funding area within ESCM is the Worldwide Security Upgrades (WSU) allocation, which is used in part to meet the Department of State's share of obligations to the CSCS and MCS programs.

Like WSP, Congress has provided no-year appropriations for ESCM and, by extension, WSU. The Administration's $1.14 billion request for ESCM constitutesconstituted a 62% decrease relative to the FY2017 enactedactual figure of $3.01 billion. However, the department intendsintended to draw on its balance of unobligated funds to increase actual ESCM total direct obligations from an estimated $2.219 billion in FY20172017 to $2.329 billion in FY20182018.¹⁷

Within ESCM, the department seeksintended to carry forward $618.4 million in funds that Congress previously appropriated for WSU in FY2017 to meet its FY2018 CSCS and MCS obligations. The department maintainsmaintained that these carry-over funds, and requested new funds totaling $337.7 million for this purpose for FY2018, and additional funds provided through Machine Readable Visa (MRV) fees will bewould have been sufficient to meet its required share of contributions to CSCS and MCS. According to the department, other agencies with overseas staff under Chief of Mission authority will contributewould have contributed an additional $1.1 billion, bringing total contributions to $2.2 billion, which is the annual level the Benghazi Accountability Review Board recommended.¹⁸

H.R. 3362 would appropriatehave appropriated a total of $2.31 billion for ESCM, or approximately 103% more than the Administration's FY2018 request. While the Administration doesdid not request any OCO funds for the ESCM account, H.R. 3362 would providehave provided $71.78 million for OCO. With regard to WSU, the bill would providehave provided $1.49 billion, or over $1.1 billion more than what the Administration is requestingrequested. The appropriations report accompanying H.R. 3362 notesnoted that the committee recommendation doesdid not include the Administration-requested authority to use prior year funds to augment its CSCS contribution for the Department of State. The committee instead recommendsrecommended that the department obligate no less than $956.152 million made available for ESCM in this legislation for its CSCS and MCS obligations. As with WSP, the funds provided under ESCM would comprisehave comprised a no-year appropriation.¹⁹

S. 1780 would providehave provided a total of $2.06 billion for ESCM. This compriseswas approximately 8180% more than the Administration's FY2018 request and 11% less than the House committee bill. Despite appropriating less total funds for ESCM than the House committee bill, S. 1780 would designatehave designated far more monies ($158.82 million, compared to $71.78 million in the House committee measure) for OCO. Within this amount, the Senate committee measure providesprovided $1.30 billion for WSU, or over $900 million more than the Administration's request. The appropriations report accompanying S. 1780 includesincluded funding recommendations for several programs and activities funded by ESCM, including $1.12 billion for CSCS and MCS obligations.²⁰ This indicatesindicated that, as with the House committee measure, this bill conflictsthe Senate bill conflicted with the department's intended approach of using prior-year funds to account for a significant proportion of its FY2018 CSCS and MCS contributions. Among other provisions, the appropriations report also callscalled for making available at least $160.5 million of MCS program funds for the compound renovation project at Embassy Moscow and $32 million of such funds for an American Center at Embassy Moscow.²¹ As in the House committee bill, all funds provided under this measure would comprisehave comprised no-year appropriations.

Like the House committee measure, the ESCM appropriation within P.L. 115-141 provided a total of $2.31 billion. While the ESCM appropriation and the House committee measure appropriated identical funds for OCO ($71.78 million), P.L. 115-141 provided a slightly smaller proportion of the broader enduring appropriation ($1.48 billion) for WSU than was provided in the House bill ($1.49 billion). However, the sum of the overall ESCM appropriation ($2.42 billion) in P.L. 115-141 and the House committee measure was identical. The overall appropriation for ESCM was 23% less than the FY2017 actual level for this account. The explanatory statement accompanying this law, as did the appropriations report accompanying S. 1780, provides $1.12 billion for the State Department's CSCS and MCS obligations, in effect rejecting the department's aforementioned intent to use prior-year funds to meet a large share of its FY2018 contributions. However, the explanatory statement did not provide prescriptive funding levels for capital projects in Russia, requiring instead that the Secretary of State consult with the committees on appropriations regarding funding directives for diplomatic facilities in that country.²²

no-year appropriations.

Contributions to International Organizations and Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities

Within the Department of State and Related Programs AppropriationAgency category, funds are provided to international organizations through the Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) and Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) accounts. In previous years, requests for these accounts have included itemized lists of intended U.S. contributions to international organizations and international peacekeeping activities. However, the department has yet todid not clarify how much it intendsintended to contribute to individual entities in FY2018. Therefore, its FY2018 request includesincluded aggregate figures divided only into enduring and OCO requests.

CIO. The Administration's request for the CIO account totals $996totaled $996.43 million, a 27% decrease from the FY2017 enactedactual level of $1.36 billion. The department statesstated that inherent in this request iswas the expectation that organizations to which the United States contributes willwould cut costs and distribute funding burdens more evenly across member states. The budget request notesnoted that the department willwould lead an interagency review of U.S. contributions to international organizations, adding that priority willwould be given to organizations that "most directly support U.S. national security interests" and "American prosperity." The request also providesprovided three means through which the department iswas considering significantly reducing U.S. contributions to international organizations: (1) reducing the levels of international organizations' budgets, including through cooperating with key allies that have supported previous efforts to limit budget growth; (2) reducing the U.S. assessment rate; and/or (3) possibly not paying U.S. assessments in full.²²23

H.R. 3362 would providehave provided $1.17 billion for CIO, which marks a 17% increase relative to the Administration's FY2018 request and a 14% decrease from the FY2017 enactedactual figure. The appropriations report statesstated the committee's expectation that the Secretary of State prioritize payments for organizations whose work promotes human health and international security, which the committee says includessaid included the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).²³ The report notes the committee's disappointment with "the ascension to the UNHRC [United Nations Human Rights Council] of countries with poor human rights records." This is reflected in a measure in H.R. 3362 requiring the Secretary of State to determine and report to the Committees on Appropriations that the UNHRC is taking significant steps to increase transparency in the election of members for funds appropriated under this act to be made available in support of the UNHRC. This measure also requires the Secretary of State to report to the committees that U.S. participation in the UNHRC is in the national security interest of the United States and that it is taking significant steps to remove Israel as a permanent agenda item It added that the appropriation for this account is intended to ensure adequate resources for such organizations.²⁴

S. 1780 would providehave provided $1.45 billion for CIO. This figure comprisesamount was an approximately 4645% increase when compared to the Administration's FY2018 request, a 7% increase relative to the FY2017 enactedactual figure, and a 24% increase from the House committee measure. The appropriations report notesnoted "the importance of United States engagement with international organizations, including the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the World Trade Organization" and statesstated the committee's view that "fully meeting U.S. commitments to such organizations, combined with robust engagement to promote transparency and accountability to member states, is important to U.S. security and economic interests."²⁵ The report also callscalled on the Secretary of State to provide a cost-benefit analysis of each contribution made to an international organization receiving $5 million or less in the most recent report of U.S. contributions to international organizations.²⁶ The committee statesstated that such analysis shall include information regarding "(1) the extent to which the U.S. contribution and the mission of such organization align with the U.S. national interest; (2) the efficacy and cost effectiveness of the operations and programs conducted by such organization; and (3) whether the organization conducts or funds programs and activities similar to other organizations included in the report, and the extent of any such overlap."²⁷ Like H.R. 3362, S. 1780 includes a measure requiring the Secretary of State to determine and report to the Committees on Appropriations that U.S. participation in the UNHRC is in the national security interest of the United States and that the UNHRC is taking significant steps to remove Israel as a permanent agenda item before funds appropriated under the act may be made available in support of the UNHRC. However, unlike H.R. 3362, this requirement does not include language mandating that the Secretary report that the UNHRC is taking significant steps to increase transparency in the election of members.²⁸ Language regarding the transparency issue was not included in the reporting requirement regarding the UNHRC in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2017 (P.L. 115-31).

CIPA. The Administration's request for CIPA totals $1.19 billion, a 37% decrease from the FY2017 enacted level of $1.90 billion. The department asserts that because the United States will

The $1.47 billion appropriation for CIO in P.L. 115-141 was 8% higher than the FY2017 actual figure, 25% higher than the House committee measure, and 1% higher than the Senate committee measure. Of the funds appropriated, $1.37 billion was provided for the enduring budget. An additional $96.2 million was provided for OCO, which was identical to the proposed OCO sums in the House and Senate committee measures and the Administration's request. In lieu of the cost benefit analysis reporting requirement called for in the Senate bill report, the explanatory statement requires the Secretary of State to inform Congress of the current tools available to the Department of State and others to prioritize and assess the value of contributions to international organizations, and to provide any recommendations for the development of more effective tools and methods.

CIPA. The Administration's request for CIPA totaled $1.20 billion, a 37% decrease from the FY2017 actual level of $1.91 billion. The department asserted that because the United States would not have an opportunity to achieve a reduction in its U.N. peacekeeping assessment rate until December 2018,²⁹28 reduced U.S. funding musthad to be achieved through reductions in overall U.N. peacekeeping budget levels or reduced U.S. contributions. The department addsadded that while U.N. peacekeeping missions help achieve U.S. government objectives, these missions must be implemented in a more effective manner, enabling them to better "address conflicts, support political solutions, and meet the needs of the people they are intended to help." The request also includesincluded a call to other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to join the United States in a strategic review of each peacekeeping mission, and more equitable mission cost sharing among U.N. member states.³⁰

29

H.R. 3362 would provide $1.5have provided $1.50 billion for CIPA. This iswould have been a 25% increase relative to the Administration's FY2018 request and a 22% decrease from the FY2017 enactedactual figure. The appropriations report notesnoted that the committee recommendation providesprovided the resources necessary to fund the assessed cost of peacekeeping missions at the statutory level of 25%. It also statesstated the committee's concern about the scope, duration, and costs of U.N. peacekeeping missions and supportssupported U.S. efforts to bring down costs while maintaining U.S. interests and international security.³¹30

The Senate committee measure, S. 1780, would providehave provided $1.38 billion for CIPA. This figure constitutesconstituted an approximately 1516% increase compared with the Administration's request, a 27% decrease from the FY2017 enactedactual figure, and an 8% decrease from the amount that would have been provided under H.R. 3362. As with the House committee measure, the appropriations report for S. 1780 statesstated that the bill providesprovided sufficient funds for contributions equal to the 25% statutory limitation on such contributions.³¹

P.L. 115-141 provided an appropriation of $1.38 billion for CIPA. This marked a reduction of 28% from the FY2017 actual figure and an increase of 16% relative to the Administration's FY2018 request. While the total amount provided for CIPA through P.L. 115-141 is very close to that provided through the Senate measure, P.L. 115-141 provides $20,000 less than what would have been provided had the Senate committee measure been enacted. Of this appropriation, more was provided for OCO ($967.46 million) than was offered in the House committee measure ($965.91 million) and the Senate committee measure ($602.34 million). However, the enduring appropriation ($414.62 million) was lower than the Senate committee measure ($779.76 million) and the House committee measure ($529.91 million). As with the appropriations reports accompanying the House and Senate committee measures, the explanatory statement accompanying this law states that sufficient funds are provided for United States contributions to peacekeeping missions at the statutory level of 25%.³²

sufficient funds for contributions equal to the 25% statutory limitation on such contributions.³²

Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs

The Administration's FY2018 budget request for the Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs account totalstotaled $285 million, a 55% reduction from the FY2017 enactedactual level of $634.14 million. The department notesnoted that these programs help build strategic relationships and networks between American citizens and people in other countries to advance U.S. foreign policy goals.

According to the Department of State, the FY2018 request iswas intended to be more narrowly targeted toward specific foreign policy goals, avoid duplication, and focus on "core programs" including the Fulbright program. The request callscalled for federal funding for the Fulbright program to total $125.6 million, a 4748% reduction from the FY2017 enacted level of $240 million.³³ Some Members of Congress have expressed concern that this request could significantly curb or even zero out federal funding for additional unspecified congressionally mandated exchange programs.

actual level of $240 million.³³

H.R. 3362 would providehave provided $590.9 million for Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs, including no less than $236 million for the Fulbright program. This marksmarked a 107% increase relative to the Administration's FY2018 request and a 7% reduction compared to the FY2017 enactedactual level. It also includesincluded language provided in past appropriations laws requiring that any substantive modifications from the prior fiscal year to programs funded by this act under this heading shall be subject to prior consultation with, and the regular notification procedures of, the Committees on Appropriations.

S. 1780 would provide $634.1have provided $634.14 million for Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs, which iswas equal to the FY2017 enactedactual figure. Furthermore, it marksmarked an increase of 122123% relative to the Administration's request and 7% more than the House committee measure. Of these funds, S. 1780 setsset aside no less than $240 million for the Fulbright program. Unlike H.R. 3362, S. 1780 providesprovided that a portion of the Fulbright awards from the Eurasia and Central Asia regions shall be designated as Edmund S. Muskie Fellowships. Similar provisions designating a portion of Fulbright awards as such have been included in recent appropriations bills, as enacted.³⁴ Like the House committee bill, this measure includesincluded language requiring the department to engage with the Committees on Appropriations prior to enacting substantive modifications from the prior fiscal year to programs funded under this heading of this act.

P.L. 115-141 provided a slight increase in the level of funds appropriated for the Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs account; the appropriation of $646.14 million marked a 2% increase relative to the FY2017 actual figure and an increase of 127% relative to the Administration's request. Of this amount, not less than $240 million was set aside for the Fulbright Program, which is identical to the amount set aside in the Senate committee measure. Like both the House and Senate committee measures, it included language requiring consultation with Congress prior to substantive modifications from the prior fiscal year to programs funded by the act. It also provided, like that Senate committee measure, that a portion of Fulbright Awards be designated as Muskie Fellowships.

Foreign Operations

The Foreign Operations accounts fund a range of activities encompassing bilateral economic aid, humanitarian assistance, security assistance, and export promotion programs. Together with two international food aid accounts appropriated through the Agriculture appropriation (P.L. 480 Title II Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole Food for Education accounts), Foreign Operations accounts comprise the foreign assistance component of the international affairs budget.

For FY2018, the Administration is requestingrequested $27.05 billion for Foreign Operations, about 31% less than the FY2017 enacted funding level. Of this total, $7.95 billion iswas designated as OCO (29%).

The House committee bill, H.R. 3362, includesincluded $33.46 billion in new appropriations for Foreign Operations (not reflecting rescissions of prior year funds), about 24% more than requested and 15% less than the FY2017 enacted funding. About 24% of the Foreign Operations funding would behave been designated as OCO.

The Senate committee bill, S. 1780, includesincluded $35.66 billion in new appropriations for Foreign Operations (not reflecting rescissions of prior year funds), about 32% more than requested and 10% less than the FY2017 enacted funding. About 47% of the Foreign Operations funding would behave been designated as OCO.

P.L. 115-141, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, was enacted on March 23 and included $37.99 billion for Foreign Operations accounts. This was 4.0% less than the FY2017 funding level and 40.4% above the funding level requested by the Administration. Of that total, $7.84 billion, or about 21%, was designated as OCO.

designated as OCO.

Table 4 shows Foreign Operations and foreign aid funding (foreign operations plus food aid) by typemajor categories for FY2016, FY2017 enacted,, and the FY2018 request and FY2018 pending legislation, House and Senate legislation, and enacted funding.

Every major category of foreign assistance would behave been reduced from FY2017 levels under the FY2018 request. Bilateral economic assistance and humanitarian assistance (not including food aid) would both behave been reduced by about a third overall from FY2017 levels, and multilateral aid cut about 30%. Security assistance and USAID administrative accounts would behave been subject to proportionately lighter cuts (-24% and -14%, respectively). Several accounts would behave been merged, eliminated, or funded only to cover close-out expenses, as discussed below.

The House bill would reducehave reduced funding compared to FY2017 in every category as well, though the cuts would generally behave been less than those proposed in the budget request. An exception iswas multilateral assistance, for which the House bill includesincluded $877 million, a 58% cut from the FY2017 appropriation and 41% less than the budget request.

The Senate committee proposal would providehave provided more funding than requested by the Administration, but less than enacted for FY2017, in every aid category. Most notably, the bilateral assistance funding in the Senate bill exceedswould have exceeded the Administration's request by 40%. The Senate funding levels also exceedexceeded the House funding for every aid category except for security assistance.

The final appropriation, P.L. 115-141, increased humanitarian assistance by 15% over for 2017 levels, maintained almost level funding for USAID Operations and security assistance, and cut bilateral economic assistance by about 12% and multilateral aid by 11%. Food aid funded through the agriculture appropriation was increased by 15%.

Under the FY2018 request, foreign assistance funding levels would declinehave declined in every region compared to FY2017, with proposed cuts ranging from 60% in Europe and Eurasia to 1123% in the Near East/North Africa. The proportional share of aid for each region would not changehave changed significantly, though the Near East would replacehave replaced Africa as the top regional recipient of foreign assistance, as aid to Africa would decline by 35have declined by 37%. Aid to the East Asia and Pacific regions would be cut nearly in half (46%) from FY2016region would have been cut 52% from FY2017 estimates, while aid to South and Central Asia would behave been cut by about 30% and Western Hemisphere by 36%. The request numbers, however, dodid not include humanitarian assistance, which may alterhave altered the regional breakdown once allocated.

Figure 1. Aid by Region, FY2018 Request

Notes: WH = Western Hemisphere; SCA = South Central Asia; EE = Europe and Eurasia; EAP = East Asia and Pacific; SS Africa = Sub-Saharan Africa.

The FY2018 budget request would continuehave continued to emphasize strategic allies in the Middle East (Israel, Egypt, and Jordan) and major global health and development partners in Africa. Ukraine and Pakistan, both among the top 10 recipients in FY2016, would not be among the top 10 aid recipients under the FY2018 request. Iraq would rejoin; ongoing U.S. military, development, and reconstruction activities in Afghanistan; and major global health and development partners in Africa. Iraq would have rejoined the top-10 list, even while receiving less assistance than in FY2016FY2017. Among top aid recipients, most would receivehave received less assistance than they were allocated in FY2016FY2017. A few countries would receivehave received more aid under the FY2018 proposal than in FY2016, including Botswana, Cote D'Ivoire, Lesotho, Namibia, Swaziland, Libya, and Syriathe FY2017 allocation, including Chad, Lesotho, Swaziland, Malaysia, Turkey, Libya, Syria, and Yemen.

Table 5 compares country allocations for the top 10 aid recipients in FY2016FY2017 to those whothat would behave been top recipients under the FY2018 request.

The House committee bill doesdid not provide comprehensive information on regional and country allocations, but doesdid provide specific allocations for certain countries, including Israel ($3.10 billion), Egypt ($1.457 billion), Jordan ($1.28 billion), and Colombia ($336 million). The bill also providesprovided $615 million for the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America.

The Senate committee bill and report specifyspecified assistance levels for many countries and regional funds, and country allocation for many accounts. Top recipients would includehave included Israel ($3.10 billion), Afghanistan ($2.22 billion), Jordan ($1.50 billion), Pakistan ($1.41 billion), Egypt ($1.082 billion), Ukraine ($421 million), Colombia ($391 million), and West Bank/Gaza ($258 million). The Senate bill also includesincluded $600 million for the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America and $500 million for the ISIS Relief and Recovery Fund to assist ISIS-liberated communities in the Middle East and North Africa. The final FY2018 appropriation did not specify country and regional allocations for the most part, but did include funding directives for some countries, including Israel ($3,100 million), Jordan (not less than $1,525 million), Egypt (up to $1,412.5 million), Colombia (not less than $391.3 million), and Ukraine (not less than $420.7 million). The law also included up to $615 million for the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America.

Key Foreign Operations Issues

The Trump Administration is seekingsought several changes within the context of the FY2018 Foreign Operations budget. They includeincluded consolidating some bilateral foreign assistance programs, eliminating some programs/entities, and zeroing out funding for the P.L. 480 and McGovern-Dole foreign food aid programs.

Economic Support and Development Fund

Under bilateral economic assistance, the Administration has proposed to eliminate the Development Assistance (DA), Economic Support Fund (ESF), Assistance to Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia (AEECA), and Democracy Fund (DF)³⁵ accounts and replace them with a new Economic Support and Development Fund (ESDF) account. The Administration citescited "improved ability to assess, prioritize and target development-related activities in the context of broader U.S. strategic objectives"³⁶ as the reason for consolidation. Authorization language to clarify the authorities under which the new account would operate was not requested.

The proposed funding level for ESDF, $4.938 billion, iswas more than 40% below the FY2017 funding for the accounts it would replacehave replaced. Thirty-eight countries that received DA, ESF, or AEECA in FY2016 would have no longer receivereceived funding from these accounts or from ESDF under the FY2018 request.

The International Organizations & Programs (IO&P) account, which funds U.S. voluntary contributions to many U.N. entities, including UNICEF, U.N. Development Program, and U.N. Women, would also behave been zeroed out. Budget documents suggestsuggested that some unspecified activities currently funded through IO&P could receivehave received funding through the ESDF.

The House committee bill maintainsmaintained the ESF, DA, AEECA, and DF accounts, rejecting the proposed merger into an ESDF account and noting that the management review currentlythen underway within the State Department and USAID should inform future account changes. The bill doesdid not include funding for the IO&P account, but the committee notesnoted that a contribution to UNICEF maycould be made through the Global Health Programs account.

The Senate committee rejectsrejected the requested account mergers entirely, noting in their report that "the establishment of the ESDF account has not been justified," and usesused the same foreign operations accounts as were used for FY2017. Funding for the IO&P account would increasehave increased by 7% under the Senate proposal compared to FY2017 funding.

P.L. 115-141 also rejected the proposed account mergers and eliminations. The FY2018 enacted appropriation used the same Foreign Operations accounts as the FY2017-enacted appropriation.

Proposed Agency Eliminations

The FY2018 request proposed the elimination of the following entities funded through foreign operations line items:

• Inter-America Foundation (IAF)
• U.S.-Africa Development Foundation (USADF)
• Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)
• Trade and Development Agency (TDA)

The Administration justifiesjustified the proposed eliminations on the basis of fiscal responsibility and prioritizing security investments. In each of these cases, funds arewere requested only for the orderly close-out of activities in FY2018.

Neither the House nor the Senate committee bills proposeproposed the elimination of any of these agencies, though the House bill proposesproposed large reductions for IAF and USADF (-50% compared to FY2017 funding).

The final FY2018 appropriation funded all of these entities at levels similar to FY2017.

Possible Impact on Key Sectors

Unlike previous administrationsAdministrations, the Trump Administration did not identify sector-specific initiatives in its foreign assistance budget request. Rather, the request cited "priority areas" around which the budget request was formulated, including advancing U.S. national security, asserting U.S. leadership, fostering U.S. economic interests, and ensuring accountability to U.S. taxpayers. Despite this stated priority framework, aid sectors that have long made up the bulk of U.S. foreign assistance would continue to do sohave continued to do so under the request. Foreign assistance in the global health, humanitarian, and security sectors together would comprisehave comprised about 70% of the foreign aid budget request for FY2018, compared to 67% of FY2017 enacted funding.

Global Health

The Administration requested $6.48 billion for global health programs in FY2018, a 26% reduction from the FY2017 funding level of $8.72 billion, and authority to redirect $322.5 million in prior year Ebola emergency funds to malaria and health security activities in FY2018. Every health subcategory would behave been reduced from the FY2017 enacted level:

HIV/AIDS ($4,975 million, -17%). The request would eliminatehave eliminated funding implemented by USAID and provideprovided $1.1 billion to the Global Fund.

Maternal & Child Health ($749.6 million, -8%). The request was level with FY2016 funding.

Malaria ($424 million, -44%). The requested reprogramming of prior year Ebola funding would bringhave brought malaria funding to FY2016 levels.

Tuberculosis ($178.4 million, -26%).

Family Planning and Reproductive Health ($0, -100%). The request would eliminatehave eliminated assistance for family planning and reproductive health services ($524 million in FY2017).

Nutrition ($78.5 million, -37%).

Other. The request specifiesspecified no funding allocation for vulnerable children ($23 million in FY2017) or for neglected tropical diseases ($100 million in FY2017), and would reducehave reduced funding for pandemic/emerging health threats by 47% from the FY2017 enacted level (though seeking to use $72.5 million in previously authorized Ebola funds for unspecified health security activities).

Overall, the Administration explainsexplained the reduction in global health aid as reflecting an effort to realign all foreign assistance with U.S. national security goals and to encourage other donors and partner countries to devote greater resources and political commitment to global health efforts.³⁷

The House committee bill includesincluded $8.321 billion for global health, which iswas 4.6% less than the FY2017 enacted funding level and 28.4% higher than the Administration's request. It would continuehave continued funding for most health subsectors at a level similar to FY2017. The primary exception iswas reproductive health and family planning, for which the bill doesdid not specify a GHP allocation but specifiesspecified in general provisions that no more than $461 million in the bill (including from other accounts) may behave been used for reproductive health and family planning, about 20% less than funding for this purpose in FY2017. The House committee bill would also reducehave reduced funding for global health security, compared to FY2017, and doesdid not specify a funding level for neglected tropical diseases. The bill authorizesauthorized the requested reprogramming of previously appropriated Ebola emergency funds for malaria and global health security programs.

The Senate committee bill includesincluded $8.59 billion for global health, which iswas 1.5% less than the FY2017 enacted funding level, 32.6% higher than the Administration's request, and 3.2% higher than the House proposal. It also proposesproposed to reprogram $120 million in prior year funds to support malaria and tuberculosis programs. With these reprogrammed funds included, the bill would continuehave continued funding for HIV/AIDS, nutrition, and malaria programs at the FY2017 funding level and slightly boostboosted allocations for maternal and child health, family planning and reproductive health, and tuberculosis programs compared to FY2017.

P.L. 115-141 included $8.69 billion for global health programs in FY2018, a decrease from FY2017 funding of 0.8% and 34% more than the Administration request. The allocations specified in the statement of conferees were identical to the FY2017 allocations, with the exceptions of an increase of 1.8% for maternal and child health programs, an 8.3% increase for tuberculosis programs, and a 49% decrease for global health security/emerging threats.

Humanitarian Assistance

The Trump Administration's FY2018 budget request for humanitarian assistance totalstotaled $5.25 billion, which iswas roughly 44% less than the FY2017 appropriated amount ($9.3044 billion—a record high) and about 20% of the total FY2018 foreign aid request. Humanitarian responseresponses to the Syria and Iraq crises and the threat of famines in Yemen, East Africa, and Nigeria would bewere cited as priorities.

The request includesincluded humanitarian assistance in only two accounts: $2.746 billion for the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account and $2.508 billion for the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account. It providesprovided zero funding for the Food for Peace (P.L. 480, Title II) and Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) accounts. The request also includesincluded broad OCO transfer authority (see Table 6).

Compared to the FY2017 appropriated amounts, the FY2018 request would decreasehave decreased MRA by 18% and IDA by about 43% (39% when39% (accounting for a required transfer of funds from IDA to P.L. 480, Title II is accounted for). State Department officials have indicated that they expectexpected significant carry-over of previously appropriated funds into FY2018 due to the increased allocations and late enactment of the FY2017 appropriations. They have also suggested that the proposed funding reduction assumesassumed that other donors willwould shoulder an increased share of the overall humanitarian assistance burden worldwide. The request continuescontinued a trend of annual humanitarian assistance requests being consistently and significantly lower than prior year appropriations.

P.L. 480, Title II. The FY2018 request providesprovided no funding for the P.L. 480 Title II (Food for Peace) account funded through the Agriculture appropriation, which provides in-kind food aid from U.S. farmers. Instead, the request allocatesallocated $1.1 billion within the IDA account for emergency food assistance. Funding food aid entirely through IDA, many believe, could improve program efficiency and flexibility by avoiding the commodity purchase and cargo preference requirements applied to P.L. 480. However, with P.L. 480 Title II funded at $1.766 billion in FY2017 (including the $300 million transfer from IDA), the $1.1 billion earmark for emergency food assistance within IDA for FY2018 would behave been a cut of about 38%.

The House committee bill includesincluded $5.931 billion in humanitarian accounts, 24% less than the FY2017 enacted level and 13% more than the Administration's request. Like the request, the House committee bill did not include funding for the ERMA account. However, the House agriculture appropriations committee bill, H.R. 3268, disregarded the requested eliminateelimination of the P.L. 480 Title II account, proposing a funding level of $1.4 billion for FY2018. Including P.L. 480, House committee legislation providesprovided $7.33 billion for humanitarian aid, which iswas 21% less than FY2017 funding and almost 40% more than the Administration's request requested.

The Senate SFOPS committee bill includesincluded $6.294 billion in humanitarian accounts, which iswas about 20% less than the FY2017 enacted level, 20% more than the Administration's request, and 6% more than the House proposal. The Senate committee bill doesdid not zero out the ERMA account, and instead providingprovided $50 million, level with FY2017 funding. The Senate agriculture appropriations committee bill, S. 1603, also disregarded the requested elimination of the P.L. 480 Title II account, providing $1.60 billion for the program for FY2018. Including P.L. 480, Senate committee legislation providesprovided $7.89 billion for humanitarian aid, which is 15% less than FY2017 funding, 50% more than the Administration's request, and about 7% more than the House committee bill.

P.L. 115-141 included a total of $9.405 billion of humanitarian assistance, a 0.9% reduction from FY2017 funding and 78% more than requested (Table 6). The legislation increased IDA funding by about 4%, and P.L. 480 Title II by 20%, compared to FY2017. MRA funding is slightly lower than the FY2017 level (-0.2%), and only $1 million was appropriated for ERMA, a 98% reduction from FY2017, with no explanation provided in the statement of conferees. Security Assistance

The FY2018 security assistance request totalstotaled $7.093 billion, a 24% reduction from the FY2017 enacted funding level and about 26% of the total foreign aid request. The International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account would behave been reduced by 33%; Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related (NADR) by 30%; and International Military Education and Training (IMET) by about 9%. In each of these cases, the Administration describesdescribed the proposed reductions as concentrating resources where they offeroffered the most value and U.S. national security impact.

The Foreign Military Financing (FMF) account would behave been reduced by 19% compared to FY2017 enacted funding, with 95% of the request allocated to four countries: Israel ($3.1 billion), Egypt ($1.3 billion), Jordan ($350 million), and Pakistan ($100 million). These countries comprised 85% of FMF funding in FY2016. The remaining $200.7 million would behave been for a global account to be allocated as necessary, on a grant or loan basis, to meet pressing security challenges. It is unclear what the terms of any FMF loans would behave been. This approach provideswas justified as providing the department with additional flexibility and could have potentially greatly reducereduced the number of countries receiving FMF assistance (from 56 in FY2016).

The Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account, which is primarily used to support a U.N. logistical support operation in Somalia as well as U.S. training and equipment for African militaries, would seehave seen the biggest reduction under the request, down 54% from FY2017 enacted funding, though the figure is distorted by funds for the U.N. Support Office in Somalia ($474 million in FY2017) being requested through the Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) rather than PKO account, which happens every year. No funds were requested for the African Peacekeeping Rapid Response Partnership and the Security Governance Initiative (which totaled $114 million in FY2017), but PKO-funded counterterrorism assistance to African countries would nonetheless increasehave increased under the proposal.

The House committee bill would providehave provided $8.756 billion in security assistance accounts, which iswas about 7% less than the FY2017 appropriation and 23% more than the Administration's request. Every account would seehave seen cuts from the FY2017 funding level. In contrast with the Administration's request, which specified FMF allocations to four countries, the House committee bill specifiesspecified the allocation of FMF funding to 21 countries and three regional funds, and doesdid not include the requested authority for FMF loan assistance on a global basis.

The Senate committee bill includesincluded $8.293 billion for security assistance, about 12% less than the FY2017 funding. Cuts would behave been applied to all accounts except for International Military Education and Training (IMET), which would behave been level funded. Total security assistance in the Senate committee bill iswas 17% more than the Administration request and about 5% less than the House committee level. The bill rejectsrejected the proposed Global Fund within the FMF account, as well as the proposed shift of FMF assistance from grants to loans. The accompanying report detailsdetailed FMF allocations to 54 countries and several regional funds.

P.L. 115-141 appropriated $9.025 billion for security assistance in FY2018, about 3% less than the FY2017 funding. Compared to FY2017, INCLE funding increased by 9%, IMET funding was almost level, and NADRE (-10%), FMF (-13%) and PKO (-18%) funding declined. Neither the appropriations bill nor the statement of conferees mentioned an FMF global fund or the use of FMF for loans, but FMF allocations for FY2018 were specified for at least 23 countries.

Proposed Funding Changes by Selected Objectives and Program Areas

Foreign assistance is categorized in the Congressional Budget Justification by the objectives and program areas of the Foreign Assistance Framework, which identifies funding by purpose across multiple foreign aid accounts. Funding for most of these program areas would beall program areas (except Program Design and Learning, which would have been level funded at $1 million) would have been cut under the FY2018 budget proposal compared to the FY2016FY2017 funding. Select examples of possible interest to Congress, listed in the order they appear in the Framework, includeframework, included the following:

• Counterterrorism, $315.4 million (-2836%)
• Counternarcotics, $373.9 million (-2125%)
• Rule of Law & Human Rights, $429.9 million (-4648%)
• Basic Education, $377.9509.1 million (-4650%)
• Trade & Investment, $113.7 million (-2916%)
• Agriculture, $499.8 million (-5141%)
• Environment, $185.3 million (-8971%)
• Disaster Readiness, $120.3 million (-62%)

For three program areas, requested FY2018 funding would exceed FY2016 levels:

• Conflict Mitigation & Reconciliation, $631.7 million (+46%)
• Maternal and Child Health, $839.6 million (+5%)³⁸
• Program Design & Learning, $1.0 million (+10045%)

The House committee bill doesdid not detail its foreign assistance proposal in accordance with the Foreign Assistance Framework categories, but specifiesspecified funding levels for several aid categories that are comparable to categories in the framework, including Democracy Programs ($2,308.5309 million), Counterterrorism ($358.5359 million), Basic Education ($800.0 million), Higher Education ($235 million), Food Security and Agricultural Development ($1,000.6001 million), Water and Sanitation ($400.0 million), Biodiversity Conservation ($265 million), and Microenterprise and Microfinance ($265.0 million).

Major sector allocations in the Senate committee bill includeincluded Democracy Programs ($2,309 million), Food Security and Agricultural Development ($1,000.6001 million), Basic Education ($500 million), Environment Programs ($893 million), Water and Sanitation ($400 million), Microenterprise and Microfinance ($265 million), and Higher Education ($235 million).

P.L. 115-141 specified funding levels for a number of assistance sectors and objectives, including Education ($1,035 million, including $800 million for basic education), Environmental Conservation ($483 million), Food Security and Agricultural Development ($1,001 million), Microenterprise ($265 million), Water and Sanitation ($400 million), and Democracy Promotion ($2,309 million).

Appendix A. SFOPS Appropriations, FY2017

Appendix A. SFOPS Appropriations, FY2016-FY2018

Appendix B. International Affairs Budget

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 Title II Food for Peace and McGovern-Dole 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 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.

Appendix C. Glossary

Author Contact Information

Footnotes

14. U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification: Fiscal Year 2018: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, May 23, 2017, p. 181.

Explanatory Statement accompanying Division K of P.L. 115-141, http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180319/DIV%20K%20SFROPSSOM%20FY18-OMNI.OCR.pdf, p. 14.

1.	The FY2017 OCO funding level includes $4.3 billion from P.L. 114-254 that Congress appropriated December 10, 2016. The FY2017 OCO funding level represents a record high, compared with all other years beginning in FY2012 when the Department of State first requested these contingency funds.
2.	Information provided on page 10 of the Department of State briefing material May 23, 2017.
3.	S.Rept. 115-152—Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2018, September 7, 2017, pp. 6, 13, and 15.
4.	This figure is calculated from $48.8 billion in new budget authority minus rescissions of $1.3 billion from funds appropriated in prior years.
5.	H.Rept. 115-253—State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2018, July 24, 2017, p. 4.
6.	The Department of State and Related Programs appropriation includes State Operations, Contributions to International Organizations and International Peacekeeping Operations, Function 300 International Commissions, International Broadcasting, State-related Commissions, and Other Commissions. It also includes mandatory payments to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund, which the Department of State excluded from its FY2018 request calculation.
7.	The Department of State's FY2018 Congressional Budget Justification uses FY2017 estimate calculations that are based on the annualized continuing resolution calculation for FY2017 (P.L. 114-223). In contrast, CRS's FY2017 enacted calculations reflect the appropriations provided through the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, (P.L. 114-254); and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2017 (P.L. 115-31).
8.	The Government Accountability Office notes that the Capital Security Construction Program began in fiscal year 1999 to fund the replacement of embassies that did not meet security standards. The Capital Security Construction Program is funded through direct appropriations to State and contributions from other U.S. agencies with overseas staff—received under the Capital Security Cost-Sharing Program. Congress established this cost-sharing program in FY2005 to provide additional funding for the Capital Security Construction Program. In FY2012, the Capital Security Construction Program was expanded to include the Maintenance Cost Sharing (MCS) program. According to the Department of State, the intended use of MSC is to "protect the investment made in existing facilities and properly maintain and extend the useful life of existing facilities that contain an overseas presence" and fund "the salary and support costs for the Department's cadre of professional facility managers at posts." For more information, see Government Accountability Office, Embassy Construction: State Needs to Better Measure Performance of Its New Approach, GAO-17-296, March 16, 2017; and U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification: Fiscal Year 2012: Department of State Operations, Vol. 1, February 18, 2011, p. 436.
9.	Briefing conducted by the Department of State for the United States House of Representatives, May 23, 2017.
10.	U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification: Fiscal Year 2018: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, May 23, 2017, pp. 18-19.
1110.	U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2018, report to accompany H.R. 3362, 115th Cong., 1st session, H.Rept. 115-253, p. 10.
1211.	U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2018, report to accompany S. 1780, 115th Congress, 1st Session, S.Rept. 115-152, p. 12.
1312.	U.S. Department of State, "About Diplomatic Security," https://www.state.gov/m/ds/about/overview/index.htm.
	13.	Excluding supplemental funding, FY2017 WSP funding totaled 3.71 billion.	U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification: Fiscal Year 2018: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, May 23, 2017, pp. 149-151; Briefing conducted by the Department of State for the United States House of Representatives, May 23, 2017.
15.	Ibid.
16.	U.S. Department of State, "About OBO," https://overseasbuildings.state.gov/about.
17.	Office of Management and Budget, A New Foundation for American Greatness – President's Budget FY2018, May 23, 2017, Appendix: Department of State and Other International Program, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/sta.pdf, p. 771.
18.	Briefing conducted by the Department of State for the United States House of Representatives, May 23, 2017; U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification: Fiscal Year 2018: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, May 23, 2017, pp. 155-156.
19.	U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2018, report to accompany H.R. 3362, 115th Cong., 1st session, H.Rept. 115-253, pp.  21-23.
20.	U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2018, report to accompany S. 1780, 115th Congress, 1st Session, S.Rept. 115-152, p. 23.
21.	Ibid.
22.	Explanatory Statement accompanying Division K of P.L. 115-141, http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180319/DIV%20K%20SFROPSSOM%20FY18-OMNI.OCR.pdf, p. 12.	23.
2324.	U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2018, report to accompany H.R. 3362, 115th Cong., 1st session, H.Rept. 115-253, p. 25.
24.	See §7048 (c) of H.R. 3362.
25.	U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2018, report to accompany S. 1780, 115th Congress, 1st Session, S.Rept. 115-152, p. 25.
26.	These reports are submitted to Congress pursuant to Section 4(b) of the United Nations Participation Act (22 U.S.C. 287b(b).
27.	U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2018, report to accompany S. 1780, 115th Congress, 1st Session, S.Rept. 115-152, pp. 25-26.
28.	See §7048 (c) of S. 1780
29.	Assessed contributions are required dues, the payment of which is a legal obligation accepted by a country when it becomes a U.N. member. In the early 1990s, the U.S. rate of assessment was over 30%—a level that many U.S. policymakers found to be too high. Accordingly, in 1995 Congress set a limit of 25% on the funds authorized for any fiscal year after 1995. The 25% cap remains U.S. law; however, between FY2002 and FY2016, Congress enacted legislation to raise the cap temporarily so that U.S. contributions were closer to U.N. assessment levels. Congress did not enact a cap adjustment for FY2017 peacekeeping funding, and the U.S. cap returned to 25%. The Department of State's FY2018 budget request says that the United States would not contribute more than 25% to U.N. peacekeeping costs.
3029.	U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification: Fiscal Year 2018: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, May 23, 2017, p. 184.
3130.	U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2018, report to accompany H.R. 3362, 115th Cong., 1st session, H.Rept. 115-253, pp.  28-29.
3231.	U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2018, report to accompany S. 1780, 115th Congress, 1st Session, S.Rept. 115-152, p. 26.	32.
33.	U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification: Fiscal Year 2018: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, May 23, 2017, pp. 165-166.
34.	See P.L. 115-31, P.L. 114-113, and P.L. 113-235.
35.	Administrations typically do not request funding for the Democracy Fund, explaining that democracy promotion activities are authorized under the DA and ESF accounts and an additional account is not needed.
36.	Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ), Department of State, Foreign Operations & Related Programs, FY2018, p. 273.
37.	CBJ, p. 243.
38.	This differs slightly from the Maternal & Child Health allocations discussed in the global health section of this memo because the objective includes some funding outside of the Global Health Programs account.