< Back to Current Version

Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs: FY2019 Budget and Appropriations

Changes from June 8, 2018 to August 9, 2018

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

Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs: FY2019 Budget and Appropriations

June 8August 9, 2018 (R45168)
Jump to Main Text of Report

Contents

Summary

The Trump Administration submitted to Congress its FY2019 budget request on February 12, 2018. The proposal includes $41.86 billion for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS). Of that amount, $13.26 billion would be for State Department operations, international broadcasting, and related agencies, and $28.60 billion for foreign operations. With the enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA; P.L. 115-123, February 9, 2018), which raised discretionary spending limits set by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25), the Administration's FY2019 foreign affairs funding request is entirely within enduring (base) funds; no Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding is in the SFOPS request for the first time since FY2012.

Comparing the request with the FY2018-enacted funding levels, the FY2019 request represents a 22.7% decrease in SFOPS funding. The proposed State and related agency funding would be 18.232% below FY2018 enacted and the foreign operations funding would be reduced by 24.7%. In the State and related programs budget, cuts are proposed for the diplomatic security accounts (the Worldwide Security Protection programmatic allocation within the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account and, separately, the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance account), contributions to international organizations, and contributions for international peacekeeping activities. In the foreign operations budget, cuts would be applied across all accounts, with disproportionately large cuts proposed for humanitarian assistance, multilateral assistance, and funding for bilateral development programs focused on agriculture, education, and democracy promotion.

This report provides an account-by-account comparison of the FY2019 SFOPS requestBoth the House and Senate appropriations committees have approved FY2019 SFOPS bills that include funding at higher levels than the Administration requested and equal to or greater than FY2018 enacted funding. H.R. 6385, approved by committee on June 20, 2018, would fund SFOPS accounts at $54.177 billion. S. 3108, approved by the full committee on June 21, 2018, would provide $54.602 billion for SFOPS accounts. Both bills await floor consideration in their respective chamber. This report provides an account-by-account comparison of the FY2019 SFOPS request and pending House and Senate SFOPS legislation (H.R. 6385 and S. 3108) to the FY2018-enacted funding in Appendix A. The International Affairs (function 150) budget in Appendix B provides a similar comparison.

This report will be updated to reflect congressional activity on FY2019 appropriations.

Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs: FY2019 Budget and Appropriations

Overview

On February 12, 2018, the Trump Administration submitted to Congress its FY2019 budget request, which includes $41.86 billion of base (or enduring) funds for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS).1 Of that amount, $13.26 billion would be for State operations, international broadcasting, and relatedrelated agencies and $28.60 billion for foreign operations.2 Comparing the request with the FY2018-enacted SFOPS funding levels, the FY2019 request represents a 22.7% decrease in SFOPS funding. The proposed State and related agency funding would be 18.232% below FY2018 enacted, and the foreign operations funding would be reduced by 24.7%. An account-by-account comparison of the SFOPS request with the FY2018-enacted funding levels is provided in Appendix A. International Affairs 150 function funding levels are detailed in Appendix B. A chart depicting the components of the SFOPS appropriations bill is in Appendix C. A glossary is provided in Appendix D.

Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018

The appropriations process for the coming FY2019 is shaped by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA, H.R. 1892, P.L. 115-123), which Congress passed on February 9, 2018. The act raises the overall revised discretionary spending limits set by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25) from $1.069 trillion for FY2017 to $1.208 trillion for FY2018 and to $1.244 trillion for FY2019. The BBA increases FY2019 defense funding levels by $85 billion, from $562 billion to $647 billion, and nondefense funding (including SFOPS) by $68 billion, from $529 billion to $597 billion.3 It also extends direct spending reductions from FY2021 in the original BCA through FY2027, as amended.4

Enduring vs. Overseas Contingency Operations Request

Every year since FY2012, the Administration distinguished SFOPS spending as either enduring (base) funds or those to support overseas contingency operations (OCO). The OCO designation gained increased significance with enactment of the BCA that specified emergency or OCO funds do not count toward the spending limits established by the act. In early years of requesting OCO funds, the Obama Administration described OCO requests for "extraordinary, but temporary, costs of the Department of State and USAID in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan."5 Syria and other countries were added in later years, and the Trump Administration expanded OCO use in its first budget request in FY2018 to be available for longer-term, core activities and more countries. For FY2019, because the BBA raised spending limits, the Administration is not seeking foreign affairs OCO funds, but is requesting the entire SFOPS budget within base funds. For funding trends, see Table 1.

Table 1. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, by Enduring and OCOFY2010-FY2019 Request

(in billions of current U.S. dollars)

 

FY10

FY11

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY15

FY16

FY17

FY18 enacted

FY19 request

Enduring 

49.44

48.80

41.80

39.75

42.91

41.01

37.97

36.93

42.16

41.86

OCO/Supp

2.34

0.00

11.20

10.82

6.52

11.89

16.07

20.79

12.02

00.00

Total

51.78

48.80

53.00

50.57

49.43

52.90

54.04

57.72

54.18

41.86

Sources: Congressional Budget Justification Department of State and Foreign Operations, various years, including FY2019; FY2019 Addendum, P.L. 115-141, and CRS appropriations reports; CRS calculations.

Note: Supp=supplemental appropriations that includes funds for Iraq and Afghanistan prior to when OCO was first requested and appropriated in FY2012. FY2015 OCO/Supp includes $9.36 billion for OCO and $2.53 billion for emergency Ebola funds; FY2016 includes $14.89 billion for OCO (including for Zika funds) and $1.18 billion to address the emergency refugee crisis in the Middle East; and FY2017 includes $16.49 billion for OCO and $4.3 billion for security assistance.

Congressional Action

Table 2. Status of State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2019

(funding in billions of current U.S. dollars)

 

302(b) Allocations

Committee Action

Floor Action

Conference/Agreement

Public Law

 

Chamber

House

Senate

House

Senate

House

Senate

House

Senate

Agreement

  

Public Law

Date

5/23

5/24

  

 

6/20

6/21

 		 

  

  

  

  

  

Total $

46.16

54.42

  

 

54.18

54.60

 		 

  

  

  

  

  

Notes: The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as amended, includes a requirement that the House and Senate approve a budget resolution that becomes the basis for the allocation of funds to the Appropriations Committee that are then divided among the 12 subcommittees, as required by Section 302(b). Neither the House nor the Senate has passed a budget resolution for FY2019. However, in May the House and Senate provided interim suballocations for appropriations subcommittees. Committee-recommended total budget authority in the House is $46.159 billion, with no specified OCO allocation. The Senate recommended level includes $46.418 billion for enduring programs and $8.0 billion for OCO.

Key Issues for Congress

Department of State and Related Agency Funding6

Overview

The State Department seeks to cut funding for the Department of State and Related Agency category by 18% in FY2019 from FY2018-enacted levels, to $13.26 billion.7 The entirety of this category would be funded through base (or enduring) funding. Following passage of the BBA and the resulting increase in discretionary spending cap levels for FY2018 and FY2019, the State Department moved the $3.69 billion request for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) in this category into the base budget request.

Areas where the FY2019 SFOPS legislation has been introduced and approved by the full appropriations committee in each chamber. The House legislation, H.R. 6385, includes total SFOPS funding of $54.18 billion, level with FY2018 funding and 29% more than requested. The Senate proposal, S. 3108, would provide $54.602 billion for SFOPS accounts, which is about 1% more than current year funding and 30% more than requested. Neither bill has yet received floor consideration. Key Issues for Congress Department of State and Related Agency Funding6 Overview

The State Department seeks to cut funding for the Department of State and Related Agency category by 18% in FY2019 from FY2018-enacted levels, to $13.26 billion.7 Conversely, both the House and Senate committee bills seek to maintain funding near previous fiscal year levels. The House committee bill would increase funding in this category to $16.38 billion, or 1% above the FY2018-enacted level. The Senate committee bill would raise funding to $16.34 billion, around $40 million less than the House bill and approximately 0.75% more than the FY2018-enacted figure.

The State Department's request seeks to fund the entirety of this category through base (or enduring) funding. Following passage of the BBA and the resulting increase in discretionary spending cap levels for FY2018 and FY2019, the State Department moved the $3.69 billion request for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) in this category into the base budget request. Both the House and Senate committee bills seek to retain OCO funding within the Department of State and Related Agency category. The House committee bill provides $3.03 billion for OCO, or around 28% less than the FY2018-enacted figure of $4.18 billion. The Senate committee bill appropriates $4.11 billion, which constitutes about 2% less than FY2018-enacted level. While the House committee bill would afford approximately $1.08 billion less for OCO than the Senate committee bill, the House committee bill provides around $1.12 billion more in enduring funding ($13.35 billion) than the Senate committee bill ($12.23 billion).

Areas where the State Department's proposed cuts are focused include the diplomatic security accounts (the Worldwide Security Protection programmatic allocation within the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account and, separately, the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance account), contributions to international organizations, and contributions for international peacekeeping activities.

In most cases, the House and Senate committee bills seek to increase spending within these accounts at varying degrees above FY2018-enacted levels (see following sections for more detailed analysis).

The State Department has also requested $246.2 million to implement the Leadership and Modernization Impact Initiative, which serves as the implementation phase of the department's "Redesign" efforts. While neither the House nor the Senate committee bill directly addresses the Impact Initiative, both include provisions enabling Congress to conduct oversight of any broader reorganization efforts at the department. Table 3 provides an overview of proposed changes. Table 3 provides an overview of the proposed cuts to selected accounts within the State Department and Related Agency category.

Table 3. State Department and Related Agency: Selected Accounts

(in billions of current U.S. dollars)

to FY19) House(H.R. 6385) Senate(S. 3108)

8.92

1.92

 

FY2016 Actual

FY2017 Actual

FY2018 Enacted

FY2019 Request

% change
(FY18 to FY19)

Diplomatic & Consular Programs

8.18

9.68

8.72

7.81

-10%

8.80

Embassy Security, Construction & Maintenance

2.22

3.01

2.31

1.66

-28%

2.31

Intl. Orgs / Peacekeeping

3.91

27

3.27

2.85

2.85

29

-20%

2.29

95

-20%

3.12

Intl. Broadcasting

0.75

79

0.79

81

0.81

66

-19%

0.66

81

-19%

0.81

Educational and Cultural Exchanges

0.59

63

0.63

65

0.65

16

-75%

0.16

65

-75%

0.69

Related Programs

0.24

0.24

0.24

09

-63%

0.09

23

-63%

0.24

Source: CRS calculations based on Department of State, FY2018 and FY2019 Congressional Budget Justification, and the FY2019 Addendum.

Diplomatic and Consular Programs

Under the State Department's budget request, the Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP) account, which is the State Department's principal operating appropriation, would decline by 10% from the FY2018-enacted level, to $7.81 billion. According to the State Department, this account provides funding for "core people, infrastructure, security, and programs that facilitate productive and peaceful U.S. relations" with foreign governments and international organizations.8

In Section 7081 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31), Congress authorized the establishment of a new "Consular and Border Security Programs" (CBSP) account into which consular fees shall be deposited for the purposes of administering consular and border security programs. As a result, consular fees retained by the State Department to fund consular services will be credited to this new account.9 The State Department is therefore requesting that Congress rename thisthe D&CP account "Diplomatic Programs." However, because many consular fees are generated and retained by the State Department to administer consular programs, they do not comprise part of the department's annual appropriations and therefore do not count against overall funds appropriated annually for D&CP.10

Both the House and Senate committee bills, if enacted, would authorize the renaming of D&CP to "Diplomatic Programs." The House committee bill seeks to increase funding within this account by 1% relative to the FY2018-enacted level and 13% above the department's request, while the Senate bill seeks to increase funding by approximately 2% more than the FY2018-enacted level and 14% above the department's request.
Personnel

The D&CP account provides funds for a large share of U.S. direct hire positions.11 Although the Trump Administration lifted the federal hiring freeze upon issuance of OMB M-17-22 on April 12, 2017, the State Department has elected to keep its own hiring freeze in place.12 Some Members of Congress have called on the State Department to rescind the hiring freeze.13 In addition, the State Department's efforts to cut personnel by approximately 2,000 positions (as detailed in the FY2018 budget request) are ongoing; the department says the cuts are intended to help implement the Trump Administration's efforts to reform the federal government and reduce the federal civilian workforce. While the FY2019 request supports hiring at the lower, re-baselined staffing level of 24,703 U.S. direct hire funded positions, the department has not ruled out additional personnel cuts in the future.14

Diversity

Former Secretary Tillerson prioritized efforts to promote diversity in the Foreign Service. On August 18, 2017, he said that "as the arm of the U.S. Government representing America around the world, the U.S. State Department should be a clear display of America's values and our people, not just in our mission but in the composition of our workforce." He added that "we have a great diversity gap in the State Department.... [T]he State Department must redouble our efforts to increase diversity at the highest ranks of the department, including at the ambassador level." Former Secretary Tillerson's remarks included goals of broadening the geographic scope of the department's recruiting efforts, increasing the number of academic institutions from which the department recruits, and strengthening the training of qualified minority personnel for future senior leadership positions.15 Secretary of State-designate Mike Pompeo, whose nomination was received in the Senate on March 20, 2018, has commented that "the State Department's work force must be diverse ... in every sense of the word" and indicated that he would be engaged on diversity matters if confirmed.16elected to keep its own hiring freeze in place.12 The Department of State released guidance in May 2018 lifting the hiring freeze and allowing the department to increase staffing to December 31, 2017, levels. Subsequent press reports indicate that the department intends to hire 454 new employees beyond end of year 2017 levels but also suggest that hiring must be circumscribed by previous commitments former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made to reduce its workforce by 8%.13

Section 7069 of the House committee bill, if enacted, would mandate that no funds appropriated for SFOPS may be used to expand or reduce the size of the Civil Service, the Foreign Service, or the eligible family member and locally employed staff workforces from December 31, 2017, onboard levels without consultation with the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Affairs of the House. This section would also require that the Secretary of State submit current on-board personnel levels to these committees not later than 60 days after enactment of the act and at 60-day intervals thereafter until September 30, 2020. The committee report accompanying the bill notes that, in support of department efforts to hire personnel to current funding levels, it recommends $77 million in human resources funding above the FY2018-enacted level.14

If enacted, Section 7075 of the Senate committee bill would require that the on-board, full-time career/permanent personnel levels of the Foreign Service and Civil Service shall not be less than 12,900 and 8,400, respectively. This section would further provide that funds made available by the act shall be made available to "fund the full cost of the personnel requirements necessary to carry out the diplomatic, development, and national security missions of the Department of State." The committee report accompanying the Senate bill states that the committee does not support the proposed cuts to the staffing levels for the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) and directs that FY2019 staffing levels for DS shall be maintained at "the highest on-board level previously justified and funded in a prior fiscal year."15

Diversity
Former Secretary Tillerson prioritized efforts to promote diversity in the Foreign Service.16 Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who replaced Tillerson in April 2018, has commented that "the State Department's work force must be diverse ... in every sense of the word" and indicated that he will be engaged on diversity matters.17

The Human Resources funding category within D&CP provides funding for the Charles B. Rangel International Affairs and Thomas R. Pickering Foreign Affairs fellowship programs to promote greater diversity in the Foreign Service, as authorized by Section 47 of the Department of State Basic Authorities Act (P.L. 84-885). While Congress required the State Department to expand the number of fellows participating in the Rangel and Pickering programs by 10 apiece pursuant to Section 706 of the Department of State Authorities Act, 2017 (P.L. 114-323), it has provided the department the discretion to fund these programs at levels it deems appropriate from monies appropriated for Human Resources.

The House and Senate committee bills would continue to provide such discretion. The House committee report indicates support for department efforts to increase diversity in hiring, including through the Rangel and Pickering programs. It also encourages the Secretary of State to explore more opportunities to further the goal of increasing workforce diversity.18 The Senate committee report recommends the continued expansion of the department's workforce diversity programs and directs that qualified graduates of the Rangel and Pickering programs shall be inducted into the Foreign Service.19
Overseas Programs

The D&CP account also provides funding for a number of overseas programs. These include programs carried out by the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations and the department's regional bureaus. Activities of the department's Bureau of Medical Services, which is responsible for providing healthcarehealth care services to U.S. government employees and their families assigned to overseas posts, are also funded through this account.1720

Public diplomacy programs are among the overseas programs funded through D&CP, which include the Global Engagement Center's (GEC's) countering state disinformation (CSD) and countering violent extremism (CVE) programsprogram. According to the State Department, planned CSD activities, for which $20 million is requested, include "coordinating U.S. government efforts in specific sub-regions; enhancing the capacity of local actors to build resilience against disinformation, including thwarting attacks on their IT systems; providing attribution of adversarial disinformation; and convening anti-disinformation practitioners, journalists, and other influencers to exchange best practices, build networks, and generate support for U.S. efforts against disinformation."18

Separately, the $32 million requested for the GEC's CVE programs was among those funds originally requested for OCO but later rolled into the base budget request after the BBA was enacted.19 These programs help enable the GEC to deliver on its efforts to play "a key role in the U.S. government's strategy to defeat terrorist organizations and disrupt their ability to recruit new followers" through programs intended to undermine terrorist organization ideologies across multiple platforms, including social media, satellite television, radio, film, and print.20

21 The House committee report registers concern regarding "foreign propaganda and disinformation that threatens United States national security, especially as carried out by China, Russia, and extremists groups" and asserts that the GEC "is expected to use a wide range of technologies and techniques to counter these campaigns," consistent with its statutory mandate.22 The Senate committee report recommends up to $75.4 million for the GEC, including up to $40 million for countering foreign state propaganda and disinformation.23

Diplomatic Security

The State Department's FY2019 budget request seeks to provide approximately $5.36 billion for the department's key embassy security accounts: $3.70 billion for the Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) programmatic allocation within the D&CP account and $1.66 billion for the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account. If enacted, this would mark a decline of 2% for WSP and 28% for ESCM relative to the FY2018-enacted figuresThe House committee bill would provide $3.76 billion for WSP and $2.31 billion for ESCM, for a total funding level of $6.07 billion for these accounts. While the House bill would fund the ESCM account exclusively through the base budget, it would provide approximately $2.38 billion of overall funding for WSP through OCO. The Senate committee bill would provide $3.82 billion for WSP and $1.92 billion for ESCM, for a total funding level of $5.74 billion. As with the House committee measure, the Senate committee bill would fund the ESCM account with base budget funds only. For WSP, the Senate committee measure, like the House committee bill, would provide $2.38 billion of total account funds through OCO. If the department's request were enacted, it would mark a decline of 2% for WSP and 28% for ESCM relative to the FY2018-enacted figures of approximately $3.76 billion and $2.31 billion, respectively. The House committee bill would provide 0.08% more for WSP and 0.13% less for ESCM than was enacted for FY2018. In contrast, the Senate committee bill would provide 2% more for WSP and 17% less for ESCM. Over the past several years, Congress has provided no-year appropriations for both accounts, thereby authorizing the State Department to indefinitely retain appropriated funds beyond the fiscal year for which they were appropriated. As a result, the department has carried over large balances of unexpired, unobligated funds each year that it is authorized to obligate for programs within both accounts when it deems appropriate to do so.

Both the House and Senate committee bills would continue this practice with respect to WSP, and the Senate committee bill would continue this practice with respect to ESCM, as well. The House committee bill, if enacted, would provide that all funds appropriated for ESCM would remain available until September 30, 2023, rather than indefinitely.
Worldwide Security Protection

The Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) allocation within the D&CP account supports the Bureau of Diplomatic Security's (DS's) implementation of security programs located at over 275 overseas posts and 125 domestic offices of the State Department, including a worldwide guard force protecting overseas diplomatic posts, residences, and domestic offices. The account further funds DS-provided protective services for the Secretary of State, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, U.S. diplomatic personnel abroad, and foreign dignitaries visiting the United States. Among other programs, the WSP allocation supports security and emergency response programs in the department's seven regional bureaus and also in 10 functional bureaus.21 The State Department maintains that this request will continue to support DS programs at high-risk, high-threat posts, including in Iraq, where the request will support costs in several areas, including with respect to "diplomatic couriers, static/local guards, Embassy Air overseas support costs, premium pay, TDY [Temporary Duty]-related costs, armored vehicle replacements, training, and physical and technical security."22

24

The President's budget request estimates that in addition to the $3.70 billion requested for WSP in FY2019, the State Department will bring forward an unexpired, unobligated balance of $4.64 billion for D&CP in 2019.2325 The State Department maintains that keeping access to no-year funding "provides DS and Partner Bureaus with the flexibility needed to meet vital and increasingly unpredictable security requirements worldwide."2426 The President's budget projects that obligations for WSP within this account will decline from $1.96 billion in 2018 to $1.59 billion in 2019. WSP program obligations totaled $2.03 billion in 2017.2527 Of the $3.69 billion in the State Department and Related Agency category that the Administration is now seeking to move from OCO into the base budget following passage of the BBA, $2.33 billion of these funds (or approximately 63%) are for WSP.26

28 As previously noted, both the House and Senate committee bills would provide the department continued access to no-year funding for WSP.

The State Department has revisited previous assumptions for funding for the U.S. security presence, which prompted it to ask for a rescission of $301.20 million for WSP provided through the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 114-254).2729 State Department officials have noted in information provided to CRS that this funding was "intended to support diplomatic reengagements in Syria, Libya, and Yemen that were predicated on different security and political conditions." They add that "DS will retain a portion of the supplemental carryover balances ... in the event of future re-entry into these countries or other contingencies." The department maintains that this proposed cancellation is based on evolving security and political conditions, and will not affect DS operations.28

30 Neither the House nor the Senate committee bill would provide this requested rescission, if enacted.
Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance

The Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account funds the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations (OBO), which is responsible for providing U.S. diplomatic and consular missions overseas with secure, safe, and functional facilities. The State Department notes that, in having access to no-year funds in this account, it maintains the capacity to complete critical overseas projects without interruption over the span of several fiscal years and realign cost savings toward emerging priorities.29

In addition to new capital construction projects, this account provides funding for projects intended to maintain and extend the useful life of existing facilities. 31 While the Senate committee bill would continue to provide no-year appropriations for ESCM, all funds appropriated for ESCM for FY2019 in the House committee bill would be available only until September 30, 2023. The State Department's request includes $869.54 million to provide its share of what it maintains is the $2.20 billion in annual funding that the Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB) recommended for the Capital Security Cost Sharing (CSCS) and Maintenance Cost Sharing (MCS) programs (the remainder of the funding is provided through consular fee revenues and contributions from other agencies).3032 These programs are used to fund the planning, design, and construction of new overseas posts and the maintenance of existing diplomatic facilities.

The House committee report maintains that funds made available for ESCM would allow for the State Department's CSCS and MCS contributions, when combined with those from other agencies and consular fees, to exceed the ARB's annual recommended funding and support "the accelerated multi-year program to construct new secure replacement facilities for the most vulnerable embassies and consulates."33 The Senate committee bill stipulates that of funds made available for ESCM by it and prior acts making appropriations for SFOPS, "not less than $1,025,304,000 shall be made available" for the department's FY2019 CSCS and MCS contributions.

According to the President's budget request, total direct program obligations for program activities within the ESCM account will decline from $3.03 billion in 2018 to $2.74 billion in 2019. Total direct program obligations in 2017 totaled $3.61 billion.3134 In FY2019, OBO intends to fund four CSCS projects and one MCS project (see Table 4).32

With regard to OBO's Repair and Construction program, there are no State-only major rehabilitation projects planned for FY2019, while the FY2019 request for minor construction and improvement projects provides funding for approximately 10% of repairs and improvements currently identified at the department's overseas facilities.33

35 The House committee report notes concern with the cost of new embassy and consulate compound projects, including ongoing projects in Beirut, Lebanon; Mexico City, Mexico; New Delhi, India; Erbil, Iraq; and Jakarta, Indonesia, and Section 7004(h) of the House bill would oblige the State Department to provide more detailed reports regarding the costs of these projects than previously required.36

Table 4. FY2019 Capital Security Cost Sharing and Maintenance Cost Sharing Project List

(in thousands of U.S. dollars)

Capital Security Cost Sharing

1,852,000

Bangkok, Thailand New Office Annex

610,000

Jerusalem

TBD

Podgorica, Montenegro New Embassy Compound

261,000

Nassau, Bahamas New Embassy Compound

257,000

Site Acquisition, Project Development, and Design

300,000

Maintenance Cost Sharing

353,000

Moscow, Russia

163,000

Project Development and Design

40,000

Maintenance and Repair

150,000

CSCS-MCS Reimbursements (other agency contributions and consular fee revenues)

(1,335,463)

Total State Department share

869,537

Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Budget and Planning, Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, Fiscal Year 2019, p. 253.

Note: TBD = to be determined.

The State Department maintains that the "construction of a new U.S. Embassy facility in Jerusalem is a high priority for the Administration ... planning and interagency coordination for the Jerusalem Embassy move is ongoing and the department intends to realign CSCS project funding, as necessary, to execute this project."3437 It later attached a timeframe to its intent, announcing thatand the United States was planning to openopened a new U.S. embassy in Jerusalem in May 2018. According to the department, the embassy will initially beThis new embassy is located in a building that is currently housinghouses consular operations of the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem. Department efforts to locate a site for a permanent U.S. embassy toin Israel are ongoing.3538 The department could choose to draw upon the unexpired, unobligated funds previously appropriated by Congress to the ESCM account for any construction expenses related to interim and permanent embassy facilities in Jerusalem.3639 The Senate committee report requires the Secretary of State to "regularly inform the Committee" on the status of plans for a permanent New Embassy Compound in Jerusalem.40

International Organizations

The State Department's FY2019 budget request includes a combined request of $2.29 billion for the Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) and Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) accounts, a 20% reduction from the FY2018-enacted figures for these accounts. The CIO account is the source for funding for annual U.S. assessed contributions to 45 international organizations, including the United Nations and its affiliated organizations and other international organizations, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).3741 The State Department's FY2019 request for CIO totals approximately $1.10 billion. Following passage of the BBA, the department increased its request for CIO by approximately $100 million to fund a higher U.S. contribution to the U.N. regular budget at a rate of 20% of the overall U.N. budget (the U.S. assessment is 22%).

When announcing this increase, the department noted that the U.N. regular budget "supports activities that are important to the United States, such as drug control, transnational crime and terrorism prevention, and trade promotion" and that the U.S. contribution acknowledges "the U.N.'s recent efforts to begin to reduce its budget" while continuing to set the Administration's "expectation for fairer burden sharing and continued budgetary reforms."3842 According to the department, U.N. assessments of U.S. contributions to the United Nations and its affiliated agencies exceed the request for funds to pay these contributions.3943 Therefore, if the department's request were enacted, the United States might accumulate arrears to some organizations. In addition, the request takes into account withholding the U.S. share of costs of U.N. activities providing benefits to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and associated entities from the U.N. regular budget.40

44

The Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account provides U.S. funding for U.N. peacekeeping missions around the world that the State Department maintainssays "seek to maintain or restore international peace and security."4145 If enacted, the request would fund "the U.S. share of assessed expenses for U.N. peacekeeping operations for 12 ongoing missions, two war crimes tribunals, assessments arising from the U.N. logistical support package for the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) in Somalia, and $100,000 for State personnel to review in person the work of each mission and assess overall effectiveness."4246 The State Department's FY2019 request for CIPA totals $1.20 billion. According to the department, this request "reflects the Administration's commitment to seek reduced costs by reevaluating the mandates, design, and implementation of peacekeeping missions and sharing the funding burden more fairly among U.N. members."4347 Under this request, no U.S. contribution would exceed 25% of all assessed contributions for a single operation, which is the cap established in Section 404(b) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (P.L. 103-236).

The State Department maintains that it expects that the "unfunded portion of U.S. assessed expenses will be met through a combination of a reduction in the U.S. assessed rate of contributions, reductions in the number of U.N. peacekeeping missions, and significant reductions in the budgets of peacekeeping missions across the board."4448 The department has also requested that Congress provide two-year funds for CIPA (in other words, that Congress make funds available for both the fiscal year for which the funds were appropriated and the subsequent fiscal year) "due to the demonstrated unpredictability of the requirements in this account from year to year and the nature of multi-year operations that have mandates overlapping U.S. fiscal years."4549 Congress has provided some two-year appropriations for CIPA in the past.46

50 Both the House and Senate committee bills would continue this practice, if enacted.

The House committee bill would provide $1.36 billion for CIO and $1.59 billion for CIPA, for a combined total of $2.95 billion for these accounts, which is 29% higher than the department's request and 4% higher than the FY2018-enacted figure. Section 7048 of the House committee bill, if enacted, would expand the scope of organizations to which a portion of appropriated funds would be withheld until the Secretary of State determined and reported to Congress that they were fulfilling certain transparency and accountability requirements. The Senate committee bill would provide $1.44 billion for CIO and $1.68 billion for CIPA, for a combined total of $3.12 billion. This figure is 36% higher than the department's request and 9% higher than the FY2018- enacted number. The Senate committee bill includes a provision not present in recent appropriations laws mandating that funds appropriated for CIO "are made available to pay not less than the full fiscal year 2019 United States assessment for each respective international organization." With regard to CIPA, both the House and Senate committee reports note that appropriated monies are intended to support an assessed peacekeeping cost at the statutory level of 25% rather than the U.N. assessed rate for the United States of 28.4%.51 Both committee reports call on the department to review peacekeeping missions for cost savings and work to renegotiate rates of assessment.52

Leadership and Modernization Impact Initiative

The State Department is requesting $246.2 million for FY2019 to implement the Leadership and Modernization Impact Initiative (hereinafter, the Impact Initiative). The Impact Initiative constitutes the implementation phase of the State Department's "Redesign" project. Former Secretary Tillerson initiated the redesign in 2017 to implement Executive Order 13781 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-17-22, which aim to "improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch."47 The Impact Initiative seeks to forward Tillerson's vision "to reaffirm the United States' position as a world leader for decades to come by modernizing the processes, procedures, and technology of the Department of State ... and fostering a culture of continuous improvement, accountability, and strong leadership at every level."4853

The Impact Initiative constitutes 16 keystone modernization projects in three focus areas: Modernizing Information Technology and Human Resources Operations; Modernizing Global Presence, and Creating and Implementing Policy; and Improving Operational Efficiencies (see Table 5). According to the State Department, these focus areas and modernization projects are derived from the results of the listening tour that former Secretary Tillerson launched in May 2017, which included interviews conducted with approximately 300 individuals that the department said comprised a representative cross-section of its broader workforce, and a survey completed by 35,000 department personnel that asked them to discuss the means they use to help complete the department's mission and obstacles they encounter in the process. While Secretary of State-designate Pompeo has discussed how he would approach the management of the State Department if confirmed, he has not specifically addressed the redesign or the Impact Initiative.49 Therefore, it is not yet clear how, if at all, a transition to a new Secretary of State may affect the Impact Initiative and the State Department's budget request to implement it.

Table 5. Impact Initiative Focus Areas and Keystone Projects

Modernizing IT and HR Operations

Modernizing Global Presence, and Creating and Implementing Policy

Improving Operational Efficiencies

Workforce Readiness

Improve U.S. Government Global Presence Governance

Assess Human Resources Service Delivery

Improve Performance Management

Develop and Implement a National Interest Global Presence Model

Real Property—Moving to One Real Property Function and Implementing Internal and External Process Improvements

Real-Time Collaboration and Work Anytime, Anywhere

Expand Post Archetype Options

Acquisition—Assessing Service Delivery and Expanding Strategic Sourcing Opportunities

Information Technology

Improve Efficiency and Results of State and USAID Internal Policy and Decision-Making Processes and Interagency Engagement

  

Improve Enterprise-wide Data Availability

Define and Improve Budget Processes for Foreign Assistance

  

Build Capacity and Data Literacy

  

  

Broaden and Enhance Access to Data and Analytics

  

  

Increase Global Awareness of Data Assets

  

  

Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Budget and Planning, Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, Fiscal Year 2019, pp. 7-16.

Of the $246.2 million requested, $150.0 million is requested from the IT Central Fund (which is funded through funds appropriated by Congress to the Capital Investment Fund account and, separately, expedited passport fees) and $96.2 million from the D&CP account to implement modernization projects. Proceeds from the IT Central Fund are intended to implement projects focused on IT, including modernizing existing IT infrastructure, systems, and applications based on a roadmap to be created in FY2018 and centralizing management of all WiFi networks. Funds from the D&CP account are intended to implement modernization projects focusing on Human Resources issues, including leadership development, management services consolidation, data analytics, and workforce readiness initiatives. Given the multiyear timeframe of some of the Impact Initiative modernization projects, the Administration is likely to request additional funds for implementation in forthcoming fiscal years.

Neither the House nor the Senate committee bills or reports specifically mention the Impact Initiative by name. However, both the House and Senate committee bills include provisions that, if enacted, would prohibit the Department of State from using appropriated funds to implement a reorganization without prior consultation, notification, and reporting to Congress.54 The Senate committee bill explicitly provides that no funds appropriated for SFOPs may be used to "downsize, downgrade, consolidate, close, move, or relocate" the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration.55

Foreign Assistance56Foreign Assistance50

Overview

Foreign operations accounts, together with food aid appropriated through the Agriculture appropriations bill, constitute the foreign aid component of the international affairs budget. These accounts fund bilateral economic aid, humanitarian assistance, security assistance, multilateral aid, and export promotion programs. For FY2019, the Administration is requesting $28.60 billion for foreign aid programs within the international affairs (function 150) budget, about 28% less than the FY2018 funding level. None of the requested funds are designated as OCO. Table 6 shows foreign aid funding by type for FY2017, FY2018 enacted, and the FY2019 request and committee-approved legislation.

Table 6. Foreign Aid by Appropriations Type, FY2017, FY2018 Enacted, and FY2019 Request

and Committee-approved Legislation

(in billions of current U.S. dollars)

House(H.R. 6385) Senate(S. 3108)
 

FY2017 actual

FY2018 enacted

FY2019 request

% change, FY18 to FY19 request

USAID Administration

1.63

1.62

1.38

-15%
1.62

1.76

Bilateral Economic Assistance
(includes Treasury technical assistance, McGovern-Dole, excludes independent agencies)

18.01

16.99

11.88

-30%

16.68

17.16

Humanitarian Assistance
(includes P.L. 480 food aid)

9.44

9.36

6.36

-32%

9.15

9.53

Independent Agencies

1.37

1.38

1.20

-13%

1.37

1.37

Security Assistance

9.31

9.03

7.30

-19%

9.27

8.79

Multilateral Assistance

2.08

1.86

1.42

-24%

1.73

1.88

Export Promotion

-0.17

-0.31

-0.95

206%

-0.35

-0.33

Foreign Aid Total, Function 150

41.66

39.91

28.60

-28%
39.50

40.19

Source: FY2018 and FY2019 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Congressional Budget Justification and FY2019 Addendum; P.L. 115-141; CRS calculations. Note that P.L. 480 and McGovern-Dole are part of the 150 function, but are not within SFOPS appropriations.

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Account Mergers and Eliminations. The Administration aims to simplify the foreign operations budget in part by channeling funds through fewer accounts and eliminating certain programs. These account mergers and eliminations were also proposed in the FY2018 budget request:

  • Under bilateral economic assistance, the Development Assistance (DA), Economic Support Fund (ESF), Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia (AEECA) and Democracy Fund (DF) accounts are zero funded in the FY2019 request. Programs currently funded through these accounts would be funded through a new Economic Support and Development Fund (ESDF) account. The proposed funding level for ESDF, $5.063 billion, is more than 36% below the FY2018 funding for the accounts it would replace. Fifteen countries that received DA, ESF, or AEECA in FY2017 would no longer receive funding from these accounts or from ESDF under the FY2019 request.
  • Within multilateral assistance, 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 UN Women, would also be zeroed out. Budget documents suggest that some unspecified activities currently funded through IO&P could receive funding through the ESDF or other accounts.
  • Related to humanitarian assistance, the P.L. 480 Title II food aid account in the Agriculture appropriation would be zero-funded and all food assistance would be funded through the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account, which would nevertheless decline by about 17% from FY2018-enacted funding (see "Humanitarian Assistance" section below). The Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) account would be subsumed into the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account.

Closeout of Inter-American Foundation and U.S.-Africa Development Foundation. The FY2019 request proposes to terminate the Inter-American Foundation (IAF) and the U.S.-Africa Development Foundation (ADF), independent entities that implement small U.S. assistance grants, often in remote communities. The Administration proposes to consolidate all small grant programs aimed at reaching the poor under USAID, as a means of improving their integration with larger development programs and U.S. foreign policy objectives, as well as improving efficiency. Funds are requested for IAF and ADF only for the purposes of an orderly closeout.

Development Finance Institution. The Administration is requesting, for the first time in FY2019, the consolidation of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and USAID's Development Credit Authority (DCA) into a new standalone Development Finance Institution (DFI). The request calls for $96 million for administrative expenses and $38 million for credit subsidies for DFI, but assumes that these expenses will be more than offset by collections, resulting in a net income of $460 million (based on OPIC's projected offsetting collections). In addition, $56 million in ESDF funds would be used to support DFI activities. The Administration seeks congressional authority for the new standalone entity, which it describes as a means of incentivizing private sector investment in development and improving the efficiency of U.S. development finance programs. Both the House and Senate committee bills reject these account changes, with the exception of the elimination of the ERMA account, which the House bill eliminates and the Senate bill funds with $1 million. Both bills use the traditional bilateral account structure, not a new ESDF, and both would fund IAF and ADF at the FY2018 levels while explicitly disapproving of their consolidation within USAID. Both bills also channel export promotion funds through OPIC rather than the proposed new DFI, noting that they will consider changes in conformance with enacted laws.

Top Foreign Assistance Recipients

Top Country Recipients. Under the FY2019 request, top foreign assistance recipients would not change significantly, continuing to include strategic allies in the Middle East (Israel, Egypt, Jordan) and major global health and development partners in Africa (see Table 7). Israel would see an increase of $200 million from FY2017, reflecting a new 10-year security assistance Memorandum of Understanding. Zambia and Uganda would both see an 11% increase. All other top recipients would see reduced aid in FY2019 compared with FY2017 (comprehensive FY2018 country allocations are not yet available), though currently unallocated global health and humanitarian funds (added to the request after passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018) may change these totals.

Figure 1 and Table 7 show the proposed FY2019 foreign operations budget allocations by region and country.

Figure 1. FY2019 Foreign Operations Request, by Region

Table 7. Top 15 Recipients of U.S. Foreign Assistance, FY2019 Request

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

1. Israel

3,300

  

9. Nigeria

352

2. Egypt

1,381

  

10. Pakistan

336

3. Jordan

1,275

  

11. Colombia

265

4. Afghanistan

633

  

12. Mozambique

252

5. Kenya

624

  

13. West Bank/Gaza

251

6. Tanzania

553

  

14. Ethiopia

227

7. Uganda

461

  

15. South Africa

226

8. Zambia

440

  

  

  

Source: Data for both figures is from FY2019 budget roll-out documents provided by the State Department. Does not include administrative funds, Millennium Challenge Corporation, humanitarian assistance, or food aid.

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

Under the FY2019 request, the proportional allocation of foreign assistance funds (Figure 2) would appear to decline from FY2017 (most recent data available) in every region by 1% to 3% except for the MENA region, whose portion of aid funds would increase from 36% to 45%. Foreign assistance funding levels would decline in every region, with proposed cuts ranging from 63% in Europe and Eurasia to 18% in the MENA. Sub-Saharan Africa, which was slightly surpassed by MENA in FY2017 as the top regional recipient of foreign assistance, would decline by 37%. Aid to East Asia and Pacific regions would be cut nearly in half (47%) from FY2017 estimates, while South and Central Asia would be cut by about 38% and Western Hemisphere by 35%.

The House bill and accompanying report do not provide comprehensive country and regional allocations, but do specify aid levels for some countries and regional programs, including Israel ($3.300 billion), Egypt ($1.457 billion), Jordan ($1.525 billion), Ukraine ($441 million), the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America ($595 million), and the Countering Russian Influence Funds ($250 million).

The Senate bill and report specify aid allocations for several countries and regional programs, including Israel ($3.300 billion), Egypt ($1.082 billion), Jordan ($1.525 billion), Iraq ($429 million), West Bank & Gaza ($286 million), Afghanistan ($698 million), Pakistan ($271 million), Colombia ($391 million), Ukraine $426 million), U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America ($515 million) and the Countering Russian Influence Fund ($300 million).

Budget Highlights

The budget submission does not identify any new foreign assistance initiatives. The FY2019 request, while calling for decreases in foreign aid funding generally, continues to prioritize the aid sectors that have long made up the bulk of U.S. foreign assistance: global health, humanitarian, and security assistance.

Global Health

The Administration has requested $6.70 billion for global health programs in FY2019.5157 This is a 23% reduction from the FY2018 funding level, yet global health programs would increase slightly as a proportion of the foreign aid budget, from 22% of total aid in FY2018 to 23% in the FY2019 request, due to deeper proposed cuts elsewhere. HIV/AIDS programs, for which funding would be cut about 27% from FY2018-enacted levels, would continue to make up the bulk (69%) of global health funding, as it has since the creation of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 2004. Family planning and reproductive health services (for which the Administration proposed no funding for FY2018) would receive $302 million, a 42% reduction from FY2018 funding. Assistance levels would be reduced for every health sector compared to FY2018, including maternal and child health (-25%), tuberculosis (-31%), malaria (-11%), neglected tropical diseases (-25%), global health security (-0.1%, funded through a proposed repurposing of FY2015 Ebola emergency funds), and nutrition (-37%).

The House committee bill includes $8.69 billion for global health programs, the same as current year funding. While total funding would remain the same, the House proposal would reduce funding for family planning and reproductive health by about 12% compared to FY2018 while slightly increasing funding for polio, nutrition and maternal and child health, and more than doubling funding for global health security and emerging threats. The Senate committee bill would fund global health programs $8.792 billion, 1.2% above the FY2018 level. No subsectors would receive reduced funding and allocations for tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, family planning, nutrition, neglected tropical diseases and vulnerable children would all increase slightly. While both bills include long-standing language preventing the use of appropriated funds to pay for abortions, the House bill, but not the Senate bill, also includes a provision prohibiting aid to any foreign nongovernmental organizations that "promotes or performs" voluntary abortion, with some exceptions, regardless of the source of funding for such activities.58

Humanitarian Assistance

The Trump Administration's FY2019 budget request for humanitarian assistance totals $6.358 billion, which is roughly 32% less than FY2018-enacted funding ($9.361 billion) and about 22% of the total FY2019 foreign aid request. The request includes $2,800.4 million for the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account (-17% from FY2018) and $3,557.4 million for the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account (-17%) (Figure 2).5259 As in its FY2018 request, the Administration proposes in FY2019 to eliminate the Food for Peace (P.L. 480, Title II) and Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) accounts, asserting that the activities supported through these accounts can be more efficiently and effectively funded through the IDA and MRA accounts, respectively. (Congress did not adopt the proposed changes to P.L. 480 Title II for FY2018, appropriating $1.716 billion, but did appropriate only $1 million for ERMA, a 98% reduction from FY2017 funding.) The Administration also seeks authority to transfer and merge IDA and MRA base funds (current authority only applies to OCO-designated funds).

Figure 2. Humanitarian Assistance, FY2013-FY2019 Request

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

Source: Annual international affairs Congressional Budget Justifications.

Notes: FFP = P.L. 480, Title II; IDA = International Disaster Assistance; ERMA = Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance; MRA = Migration and Refugee Assistance.

The Administration describes its IDA request as focused "on crises at the forefront of U.S. security interests, such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan."5360 The MRA request focuses on "conflict displacement in Afghanistan, Burma, Iraq, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen," as well as strengthening bilateral relationships with "key refugee hosting countries such as Kenya, Turkey, Jordan, Ethiopia and Bangladesh."5461 Consistent with last year, the request suggests that the proposed funding reduction assumes that other donors will shoulder an increased share of the overall humanitarian assistance burden worldwide.

The House committee bill proposes $9.145 billion for humanitarian assistance accounts, about 2% less than FY2018 funding. The total includes $1.5 billion for P.L. 480, Title II but would not fund the ERMA account. The Senate committee bill proposes $9.534 billion for humanitarian assistance, about 2% more than FY2018 funding. The total includes $1.716 billion for P.L. 480, Title II and $1 million for the ERMA account. Neither bill includes language authorizing broad transfers and mergers between the IDA and MRA base funding account, though both bills include provisions allowing for the transfer and merger of funds from several accounts, including IDA and MRA, as an extraordinary measure in response to a severe international infectious disease outbreak.62

Security Assistance

The FY2019 security assistance request within foreign operations accounts totals $7.304 billion, a 19% reduction from the FY2018-enacted funding level and about 26% of the total foreign aid request. Consistent with recent years, 63% of the entire security assistance request is for FMF aid to Israel and Egypt. However, six countries are identified in the request as joint Department of Defense (DOD) and State Department security sector assistance priorities: Philippines, Vietnam, Ukraine, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Colombia.

The International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account would be reduced by about 36% from FY2018-enacted levels, Non-proliferationNonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related (NADR) by 21%, and International Military Education and Training (IMET) by about 14%. In each of these cases, the Administration describes the proposed reductions as concentrating resources where they offer the most value and U.S. national security impact. As in the FY2018 request, the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account, which supports most non-U.N. multilateral peacekeeping and regional stability operations, including U.S. training and equipment for African militaries and funding for the U.N. Support Office in Somalia (UNSOS), would see the biggest reduction (-46%) under the FY2019 request. This is because Administrations generally request UNSOS funds through the CIPA account, while Congress usually funds the office through the PKO account.

The Foreign Military Financing (FMF) account would be reduced by 13% compared to FY2018, with specific allocations for 11 countries and a proposed $75 million Global Fund to be allocated flexibly. This is a notable change from the FY2018 FMF request, in which funds were allocated to four countries and a larger global fund, and from FY2018-enacted funding, for which allocations were specified for more than 20 countries.

The House committee bill would provide $9.274 billion for security assistance, a 3% increase over FY2018 funding, with funding increases proposed for the INCLE (+7%) and FMF (+4%) accounts and a reduction proposed for the PKO account (-9%). Consistent with the request, and in contrast to recent year appropriations, no security assistance funding in the House committee bill would be designated as OCO.

The Senate committee bill includes $8.789 billion for security assistance programs, a 2.6% total decrease from FY2018 funding. The INCLE account would increase by 2.6% while the FMF and PKO accounts would be reduced by 3% and 11%, respectively. About 16% of the security assistance funding in the Senate bill would be designated as OCO.

Economic Development Assistance

Bilateral economic development assistance is the broad category that includes programs focused on education, agricultural development and food security, good governance and democracy promotion, microfinance, environmental management, and other sectors. While the majority of this aid is implemented by USAID, it also includes the programs carried out by the independent Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), Peace Corps, Inter-American Foundation and the U.S.-Africa Development Foundation. Excluding global health assistance, bilateral economic development assistance in the Administration's FY2019 request totals $6.354 billion, a 33% reduction from FY2018 funding levels. Proposed FY2019 allocations for key sectors, compared with FY2018 levels prescribed in legislation, include the following:

  • food security, $518 million (-48% from FY2018);
  • democracy promotion programs, $1,235 million (-47% from FY2018); and
  • education, $512 million (-51% from FY2018).

The Administration requests $800 million for MCC and $396 million for Peace Corps, representing cuts of 12% and 3%, respectively. As discussed above, the budget request proposes to merge I-AF and USADF into USAID, and requests only small amounts of funding to close out their independent activities.

The House committee bill would provide $9.383 billion for economic development assistance and specifies allocations for several development sectors, including education ($1.035 billion), conservation programs ($360 million), food security and agricultural development ($1.001 million), microenterprise and microfinance ($265 million), water and sanitation ($400 million) and democracy programs ($2.4 billion).The Senate committee bill would provide $9.764 billion for economic development activities and specifies allocations for education ($750 million), environment and renewable energy ($943 million), food security and agricultural development ($1.001 billion), small and micro credit ($265 million), water and sanitation ($435 million), and democracy programs ($2.4 billion), among others. Both the House and Senate bills would fund the I-AF, USADF, Peace Corp and MCC at the FY2018 funding level, and both bills explicitly reject the Administration's proposal to merge I-AF and USADF into USAID.

Appendix A. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations, by AccountAppendix A. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2017 Actual, FY2018 Enacted, and FY2019 Request

Table A-1. State Department, Foreign Operations, and
Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2017 Actual, FY2018 Enacted, and FY2019 Request

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

   
 

FY2017 Actual

FY2018 Enacted—Div. K, FY2018 Enacted(P.L. 115-141

)

FY2019 Enduring Request

% change
FY2019 Request vs. FY2018 Enacted

 

Total

 FY2019 House(H.R. 6385) FY2019 Senate(S. 3108)  

Enduring

OCO

Total

Enduring

OCO

Total

  

Enduring

OCO

 		 

Total

Title I. State, Broadcasting & Related Agencies, TOTAL

12,039
18,166.57.85

4,179
12,039.85.55

16,219
4,179.55.40

16,219.40

13,262

13,262.41.41
-18.23%

13,351.82

3,030.87

16,382.69

-18.23%

Administration of Foreign Affairs, Subtotal

12,233

13,730.07.01
4,107.77

16,340.78

Administration of Foreign Affairs, Subtotal

9,054.01

3,115.85

12,169.86

10,092.28

-17.07%

213
9,054.01.00

030
3,115.85.87

243
12,169.86.87

8,961
10,092.28.54

3,044

-17.07%.07 12,005.61

Diplomatic & Consular Program

5,744

9,688.04.44
2,975.97

8,720.41

7,812.74

-10.41%

5,744821.44

2,975.97

8,720797.41

5,944

7,812.74.44 2,975.97

8,920
-10.41%.41

(of which Worldwide Security Protection)

[4,641.881,380.75]
[2,376.12]

[3,756.87]

[3,698.12]

[-1.56%]

[1,380383.75]

[2,376.12]

[3,756759.87]

.12]
[3,6981,441.78] [2,376

[-1.56%3,817.90]

Capital Investment Fund

103

12.60.40
—

103.40

92.77

-10.28%

103.40

—

103.40

92.77

—

-10.28%92.77

Embassy Security, Construction & Maintenance

2,242

3,011.07.69 71.78

314
2,242.69.47

71.78

2,3141,657.54
-28.38%

2,311.47

—

2,311.47

916

1,657.54.40 —

1,916
-28.38%.40

(of which Worldwide Security Upgrades)

[2,221.421,477.24]

—
[1,477.24]

[919.54]

-37.08%

[1,546.02][1,477.24]

—

[1,477.24546.02]

[919.541,126.30]

—

-37.08%[1,126.30]

Ed. & Cultural Exchanges

646

634.14.14
—

646.14

159.00

-76.94%

646.14

—

646.14

690
159.00.59

—

-76.94%690.59

Office of Inspector General

77

144.47.63
68.1

145.73

142.20

-2.42%

90
77.63.83

54
68.1.90

145.73

77

142.20.63 68.10

145
-2.42%.73

Representation Expenses

8.03

—
8.03

7.00

-12.83%

8.03

—

8.03

8
7.00.03

—

-12.83%8.03

Protection of Foreign Missions & Officials

89

30.34
—

30.89

25.89

-16.19%

30.89

—

30.89

2530.89

—

-16.19%30.89

Emergency-Diplomatic & Consular Services

89

7.90
—

7.89

7.89

0.00%

7.89

—

7.89

7.89

—

0.00%7.89

Repatriation Loans

1.30

—
1.30

1.30

0.00%

1.30

—

1.30

1.30

—

0.00%1.30

Payment American Institute Taiwan

31.96

31
— .96

26

—.31 -17.11%

31.96

—

26.31
31.96

31.96

—

31
-17.11%.96

International Chancery Center

0

1.32.74
—

0.74

.74

0.00%

0.74

—

0.74

.74
0

0
— 0.74.00%

Foreign Service Retirement (mandatory)a

158.90

158
— .90

158

—.90 0.00%

158.90

158
— .90

158
0.00%.90

International Orgs, Subtotal

—

158
3,266.67.90

International Orgs, Subtotal

1,785.79

1,063.70

2,849.49

2,291.16

-19.60%

Contributions to Int'l Orgs

2,953.91

—

2,953.91

2,060.56

063
1,359.21.70

3,124.27

Contributions to Int'l Orgs

1,371.17

96.24

1,467.41

1,095.05

-25.38%

Contributions, International Peacekeeping

1,364.42

—

1,364.42

1,344.14

96.24

440
1,907.46.38

Contributions, International Peacekeeping

414.62

967.46

1,382.08

1,196.11

-13.46%

International Commission subtotal (Function 300)

127.29
1,589.50

—

1,589.50

716.43

967.46

1,683.88

International Commission subtotal (Function 300)

137.15

—

137.15

117.30

-14.47%

137.15

—

137.15

141

117.30.44 —

141
-14.47%.44

Int'l Boundary/U.S.-Mexico

77.53

—
77.53

71.21

-8.15

77.53

—

77.53

77
71.21.53

—

-8.1577.53

American Sections

1213.26

13
— .26

12
—.18

-8
13.26.14%

73
12.18

-8.14%

International Fisheries

—

12.73

13.26

—

13
37.50.26

International Fisheries

46.36

—

46.36

33.91

-26.86%
46.88

—

46.88

50.65

—

50.65

International Broadcast, Subtotal 

807

786.61.69
—

807.69

661.13

-18.15%

807.69

—

807.69

814

661.13.19 —

814
-18.15%.19

Broadcasting Operations

797

776.91.99
—

797.99

656.34

-17.75%

797.99

—

797.99

804
656.34.49

—

-17.75%804.49

Capital Improvements

9.70

—
9.70

4.79

-50.62%

9.70

—

9.70

9

4.79.70 —

9
-50.62%.70

Related Approps, Subtotal 

241

243.46.95 —

241.95

87.28
-63.93%

225.33

—

225
241.95.33

242
87.28.03

—

-63.93%242.03

Asia Foundation

17.00

17
— .00

—

17
-100.00% .00

—

17

-100.00%.00
17.00

—

17.00

U.S. Institute of Peace

37

39.38.88
—

37.88

20.00

-47.20

37.88

—

37.88

37
20.00.88

—

-47.2037.88

Center for Middle East-West Dialogue-Trust & Program

14

0.16—

0.14
0.19

+35.71%

0.19

—

19
0.14

0.19

—

+35.71%0.19

Eisenhower Exchange Programs

0.16

—
0.16

0.19

+18.75%

0.190.16

—

19
0.16

0.19

—

+18.75%0.19

Israeli Arab Scholarship Program

07

0.06
—

0.07

0.07

—

0.07

—

0.07

0.07

—

0.07

East-West Center

16.70

16
— .70

—

-100.00%
—

—

—

16.70

—

16
-100.00%.70

National Endowment for Democracy

170.00

—
170.00

67.28

-60.42%

170.00

—

170.00

170
67.28.00

—

-60.42%170.00

Other Commissions, Subtotal 

13

12.47.26
—

13.26

13.26

0.00%
14.75

—

14
13.26.75

25

13.26—

13
0.00%.25

Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad

68

0.89
—

0.68

.68

0.00%

0.68

—

0.68

.68
0

0
— 0.68.00%

International Religious Freedom

34.50
—

4.50

4.50

0.00%
4.50

—

4.50

4.50

—

0.00%4.50

Security & Cooperation in Europe

2.58
—

2.58

2.58

0.00%

2.58

—

2.58

2.58

—

0.00%2.58

Congressional-Exec Commission on People's Republic of China

2.00

—
2.00

2.00

0.00%

2.00

—

2.00

2.00

—

0.00%2.00

U.S.-China Economic and Security Review

3.50

3.50

—

3.50

3.50

0.00%

FOREIGN OPERATION, TOTAL

39,561.74

—

3.50

3.50

0.00%

3.50

—

3.50

3.50

—

3.50

Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission
—

—

—

—

0.00%

1.50

—

1.50

—

—

—

FOREIGN OPERATION, TOTAL

30,152.82

7,838.45

37,991.27

28,595.67

-24.73%

32,807.08

4,987.13

37,794.21

34,368.89

3,892.23

38,261.12

Title II. Admin of Foreign Assistance

459

1,633.27.51 160.57

620
1,459.51.08

160.57

1,377

1,620.08.32
-14.98%

1,465.61

158.07

1,623.68

596
1,377.32.91

160

-14.98%.57 1,757.48

USAID Operating Expenses

189

1,363.19.61
158.07

1,347.68

1,114.92

-17.27%

1,189.61

158.07

1,347.68

298

1,114.92.91 158.07

1,456
-17.27%.98

USAID Capital Investment Fund

197

199.99.10 —

197.10

190
—.90

-3
197.10.15%

200

190.90.00 —

200
-3.15%.00

225.00

—

USAID Inspector General

225
70.10.00

USAID Inspector General

72.80

2.50

75.30

71.50

-5.05%

Title III. Bilateral Economic Assistance

76.00

—

76.00

73.00

2.50

75
26,713.99.50

Title III. Bilateral Economic Assistance

19,545.40

6,254.14

25,799.54

18,210.56

-29.42%

20,681.75

4,829.06

25,510.81

23,856.61

2,307.92

26,164.53

Global Health Programs (GHP), State + USAID

690

8,757.45.00
—

8,690.00

6,702.60

-22.87%

8,690.00

—

8,690.00

8,792
6,702.60.00

—

-22.87%8,792.00

GHP (State Dept.)

[5,670.00]
—

[5,670.00]

[4,775.10]

[-15.78%]

[5,670.00]

—

[5,670.00]

[4,775.105,720.00]

.00]
[-15.78%—

[5,720

GHP (USAID)

[3,087.45020.00]
—

[3,020.00]

[1,927.50]

[-36.18%]

[3,020.00]

—

[3,020.00]

[1,927.503,072.00]

.00]
[-36.18%—

[3,072

Development Assistance

3,000

2,995.47.00 —

3,000.00

—

3,000
-100.00% .00

—

3,000
-100.00%.00

International Disaster Assistance (IDA)

3,000.00

—

3,000
4,126.29.00

International Disaster Assistance (IDA)

2,696.53

1,588.78

4,285.31

3,557.41

-16.99%

Transition Initiatives

2,997.73

1,287.58

4,285.31

3,801

122.83.03
584.28

4,385.31

Transition Initiatives

30.00

62.04

92.04

87.04

-5.43%

96.15

—

96.15

30.00

62.04

92.04

Complex Crises Fund

.00
3010.00 20

1030.00

—

20.00
-100.00%

—

—

—

30.00

—

-10030.00%

Development Credit Authority—Admin

10.00

10
— .00

—

-100.00%
9.12

—

9.12

10.00

—

-10010.00%

Development Credit Authority Subsidy

[5055.00]

[55
— .00]

—

.00]
[55-100.00% [40

—

]
-100[40.00%

[55.00]

—

Economic Support Fund

[55
4,673.06.00]

Economic Support Fund

1,816.73

2,152.12

3,968.85

—

-100.00%

Economic Support and Development Fund

—

—

—

—

5,063.13
2,518.65

1,178.25

3,696.90

2,853.93

1,167.62

4,021.55

Economic Support and Development Fund

—

—

—

5,063.13

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Democracy Fund

210215.50

215
— .50

—

-100

215.50.00% 225.00

—

-100225.00
232.80

—

232.80

Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia

750.33

—

750.33

—

-100.00%.00%

Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia

974.90

750.33

—

.33
750.33 770

—

770
-100.00%.33

Migration & Refugee Assistance

927.80
2,431.20

3,3593,366.00

2,800

927.80.38
-16.63%

996.77

363
2,431.20.23

3,359360.00

938
2,800.38.02

493

-16.63%.98 3,432.00

Emergency Refugee and Migration

501.00

1
— .00

—

-100.00%
—

—

—

1.00

—

-1001.00%

Independent Agencies subtotal

1,367.50

1,367
— .50

1,204.30
-11.93%

1,368.00

—

368
1,367.50.00

367
1,204.30.50

—

-11.93%1,367.50

Inter-American Foundation

22.50

—
22.50

3.48

-84.53%

22.50

—

22.50

22
3.48.50

—

-84.53%22.50

African Development Foundation

30.00

—
30.00

4.62

-84.60%

30.00

—

30.00

30

4.62.00 —

30
-84.60%.00

Peace Corps

410.00

410
— .00

396.20
-3.37%

410.50

—

50
410.00

410
396.20.00

—

-3.37%410.00

Millennium Challenge Corporation

905.00

—
905.00

800.00

-11.60%

905.00

—

905.00

800905.00

—

-11.60%905.00

Department of the Treasury, subtotal

30.00

—
30.00

30.00

0.00%

30.00

—

30.00

30.00

—

0.00%30.00

Treasury DepartmentDepartment of the Treasury Technical Assistance

30.00

—
30.00

30.00

0.00%

30.00

—

30.00

30.00

—

0.00%30.00

Title IV. Int'l Security Assistance

7,601.51
1,423.74

9,025.259,307.04

304
7,601.51.06

-19

1,423.74.07%
9,273.82

—

273
9,025.25.82

365
7,304.06.53

1,423

-19.07%.75 8,789.28

International Narcotics Control & Law Enforcement

950

1,255.66.85
417.95

1,368.80

880.35

-35
950.85.68%

417.95

1,435

1,368.80.15
—

1,435.15

986.95

417
880.35.95

1,404
-35.68%.90

Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining

655

970.45.47
220.58

876.05

690
655.47.31

-21
220.58.20%

876.05

—

690.31876.05

640

-21.20%.08
220.58

860.66

International Military Education & Training

88

110.30—

110.88

95

—.00 -14.32%

110.88

—

95.00110.88

110
-14.32%.68

Foreign Military Financing

—

110
6,311.61.68

Foreign Military Financing

5,671.61

460.00

6,131.61

5,347.00

-12.80%

Peacekeeping Operations

6,361.34

—

6,361.34

5,475
659.01.61

460.00
5,935.61

Peacekeeping Operations

212.71

325.21

537.92

291.40

-45.83%

490.40

—

490.40

152.21

325.21

477.42

Title V. Multilateral Assistance

1,856

2,077.08.70 —

1,856.70

1,416.43
-23.71%

1,731.50

—

731
1,856.70.50

875

1,416.43.44 —

1,875
-23.71%.44

World Bank: Global Environment Facility

139

146.56.58
—

139.58

68.30

-51.07%

139.58

—

139.58

136
68.30.56

—

-51.07%136.56

International Clean Technology Fund

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Strategic Climate Fund

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Green Climate Fund

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

North American Development Bank

—

—

—

—

—

—

World Bank: Int'l. Development Association

1,197.13
—

—

—

—

—

World Bank: Int'l. Development Association

1,097.01

—

1,097.01

1,097.01

0
—.00%

1,097.01

1,097
— .01

0.00%

Int. Bank Recon & Dev

1,099

5.96.01
—

1,099.01

Int. Bank Recon & Dev

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Inter-Amer. Dev. Bank - capital

—

21.94—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

IADB: Enterprise for Americas MIF

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Asian Development Fund

47

99.23.40
—

47.40

47.40

0.00%

47.40

—

47.40

47.40

—

0.00%47.40

Asian Development Bank—capital

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

African Development Fund

171.30

—

171.30

171.30

0.00%

African Development Fund

214.33

171.30

—

171.30

171.30

—

0.00%171.30

African Development Bank - capital

32.42

—
32.42

32.42

0.00%

32.42

—

32.42

32.42

—

0.00%32.42

International Fund for Agricultural Development

30.00

30
— .00

—

30
-100.00% .00

—

-10030.00%
30.00

—

30.00

Global Agriculture and Food Security Program

—

23.00—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

International Organizations & Programs

339

306.50.00 —

339.00

—

.00
339-100.00% 213.80

—

213

-100.00%.80
358.75

—

358.75

Central American and Caribbean Catastrophic Risk Insurance Facility

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Global Infrastructure Facility

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Title VI. Export Assistance

(169.64310.30)

(310
— .30)

—

(310.30(946.99)
—

(345.60)

—

(345.60)

(946.99325.60)

—

(325.60)

Export-Import Bank (net)

(139

7.36.00) —

(139.00)

—
(633.10)

(139.0099.30)

.30)
(633.10—

(99.30)

(89

—

(89.30)

Development Finance Institute

—

—

—

—

(326

(326.00).00)
—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Transfer of ESDF to Dev. Finance Institution (DFI)

—

—

—

—

[56

[56.00].00]
—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Overseas Private Investment Corporation

(252.00250.80)

(250
— .80)

—

.80)
(250—

(325

—

—

Trade & Development Agency

(325

75.00.80)
(315.80)

—

(315.80)

Trade & Development Agency

79.50

—

79.50

12.11

-84.77%

79.50

—

79.50

79
12.11.50

—

-84.77%79.50

State, Foreign Ops & related Programs, TOTAL

42,192

57,728.31.67, 12,018.00

42,192.67,

12,018.00

54,210

54,210.67.67
41,858.08

-22.79%

46,158.90

8,018.00

54,176.90

46,601.90

8,000
41,858.08.00

54,601
-22.79%.90

Add Ons/ Rescissions, netb

(6.0033.77)

(33.77)

 

 —

(33.77)

—

—

—

—

—

(33.7725.00)

—

(25
—.00)

State-Foreign Ops Total, Net of Rescissions

42,158

57,722.31.90 12,018.00

4254,176.90
41,858.08

-22.74%

46,158.90

128,018.00

54,176.90

46,576
41,858.08.90

8,000

-22.74%.00 54,576.90

Source: FY2017 Actuals and the FY2019 request are from the Congressional Budget Justification, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, Fiscal Year 2019; FY2019 Addendum, P.L. 115-141, and CRS calculations.

Notes: 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. n.a.= not available.

a. This account is mandatory spending, so State Operations and SFOPS totals in this table differ from budget totals in the International Affairs Congressional Budget Justification that include only discretionary spending.

b. RescissionsFY2018 rescissions include $23.76 million from Development Assistance and $10 million of unobligated balances of Export-Import carryover receipts.

S. 3108 rescissions are $14 million from prior year International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement aid and $11 million from prior year Foreign Military Sales funding.

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.

Table B-1. International Affairs Budget FY2017 Actual,
FY2018 Enacted, and FY2019 Request

(in millions of current U.S. dollars)

 

FY2017
Actual

FY2018 Enacted
P.L. 115-141

FY2019
Request

% change FY19 vs FY18 Enacted

State-Foreign Operations, excluding commissionsa

57,582.55

54,026.49

41,727.52

-22.76%

Commerce-Justice-Science

  

  

  

  

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

2.37

2.41

2.41

0.00%

Int'l Trade Commission

91.50

93.70

97.50

+4.06%

Agriculture

  

  

  

  

P.L. 480

1,900.00

1,716.00

0.00

-100.00%

McGovern-Dole

201.63

207.63

0.00

-100.00%

Local/Regional Procurement

—

—

—

—

Total International Affairs (150)

59,778.05

56,046.23

41,827.43

-25.37%

Source: Congressional Budget Justification, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, Fiscal Years 2017, 2018, and FY2019, and the FY2019 addendum; P.L. 114-254; P.L. 115-31; H.R. 3362; H.R. 3268; S. 1780, P.L. 115-141, U.S. International Trade Commission FY2019 Budget Justification, and CRS calculations.

a. Includes mandatory spending from the Foreign Service retirement account, and does not align with budget justification figures that only count discretionary spending. Funding for certain international commissions appropriated in the State-Foreign Operations bill are excluded here because they fall under function 300 of the budget, not function 150 (International Affairs).

Appendix C. SFOPS Organizational Chart

Source: Congressional Research Service, "International Affairs Budget Request for FY2019," PowerPoint Presentation Slides, February 2018. Slide Number CRS-13.

Appendix D. Glossary

AEECA

Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia

BBA

Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, P.L. 114-74

BCA

Budget Control Act of 2011, P.L. 112-25

CIO

Contributions to International Organizations

CIPA

Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities

CSCS

Capital Security Cost Sharing

D&CP

Diplomatic and Consular Programs

DA

Development Assistance

DS

State Department Bureau of Diplomatic Security

ERMA

Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance

ESCM

Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance

ESDF

Economic Support and Development Fund

ESF

Economic Support Fund

FMF

Foreign Military Financing

IDA

International Disaster Assistance

IMET

International Military Education and Training

INCLE

International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement

IO&P

International Organizations and Programs

MCS

Maintenance Cost Sharing

MRA

Migration and Refugee Assistance

NADR

Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related

OBO

State Department Bureau of Overseas Building Operations

OCO

Overseas Contingency Operations

OPIC

Overseas Private Investment Corporation

PKO

Peacekeeping Operations

SFOPS

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations

TDA

Trade and Development Agency

USAID

U.S. Agency for International Development

WSP

Worldwide Security Protection

WSU

Worldwide Security Upgrade

Author Contact Information

[author name scrubbed], Specialist in Foreign Policy ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
[author name scrubbed], Specialist in Foreign Assistance Policy ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
[author name scrubbed], Analyst in Foreign Affairs ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])

Footnotes

16. 20. 34. 41. 53. 56. 59. 99.

1.

While the FY2017 actual funding and the FY2018 included some OCO funding, the FY2019 request is entirely base (enduring) funding.
2.

This includes $158.9 million for the Foreign Service Retirement account that is mandatory spending and, therefore, is not included in State Operations data that only reflects discretionary spending, such as the State Department Congressional Budget Justification of Fiscal Year 2019.
3.

Section 30101(a) of the BBA 2018 (P.L. 115-123) establishes amended spending limits for the "revised security" and "revised nonsecurity" categories for FY2018 and FY2019. The "revised security category" is defined in Section 251A(1)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, as "discretionary appropriations in budget function 050" and is generally referred to as the "defense" category. The "revised nonsecurity category" is defined in Section 251A(1)(B) as "discretionary appropriations other than in budget function 050" and is generally referred to as the "nondefense" category.
4.

For more information, see CRS Insight IN10861, Discretionary Spending Levels Under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
5.

Executive Budget Summary, Function 150 &and other International Programs, Fiscal Year 2013, p. 137.
6.

This section was prepared by Cory Gill, Analyst in Foreign Affairs.
7.

The Department of State and Related Agency Appropriation includes State Operations, Contributions to International Organizations and International Peacekeeping Operations, Function 300 International Commissions, International Broadcasting, State-related Commissions, and other related organizations. It also includes mandatory payments to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund, which the State Department does not include in its FY2019 calculation. This figure ($13.26 billion for the FY2019 request) is reflected above.

8.

U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Budget and Planning, Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, Fiscal Year 2019, February 12, 2018, p. 28.

9.

The Department of State notes that Expedited Passport Fees will not be deposited into the CBSP account and will instead continue to be deposited in the Diplomatic Programs account and support information technology programs. The department also notes that the portion of Fraud Prevention and Detection (H&L) fees that are made available to the department will continue to be deposited in the existing H&L account.
10.

For an overview of the statutory authorities governing Department of State fee consular collections, see U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Budget and Planning, Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, Fiscal Year 2019, March 1, 2018, pp. 17-21.

11.

In FY2017, the D&CP account provided funding for 18,105 Foreign Service and Civil Service employees out of the 26,966 funded through the FY2017 budget. See Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 13.

12.

See U.S. Department of State, "Hiring Freeze Information," https://www.state.gov/m/dghr/flo/c75985.htm, accessed March 7, 2018.

13.

For example, see Letter from Senator Benjamin L. Cardin and Senator Todd Young, to John Sullivan, Deputy Secretary of State, December 5, 2017, https://www.cardin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/in-letter-to-state-dept-cardin-and-young-express-concerns-about-reorganization-effort.

14.

Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, p. 13. The 24,703 number reflects an additional reduction of 127 positions within the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs intended for FY2019, the re-baselined staffing level absent these new FY2019 intended position reductions is 24,830.

15Robbie Gramer, "Pompeo's Pledge to Lift Hiring Freeze at State Department Hits Big Snag," Foreign Policy, June 7, 2018, at https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/06/07/pompeos-pledge-to-lift-hiring-freeze-at-state-department-hits-big-snag-diplomacy-tillerson-congress/; Nahal Toosi, "Pompeo Gives U.S. Diplomats 'Dose of Reality' After Early High Hopes," Politico, June 25, 2018, at https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/25/pompeo-state-department-honeymoon-667507.
14.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, report to accompany H.R. 6385, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 115-289 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2018), p. 12.

15.

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, report to accompany S. 3108, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 115-282 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2018), p. 17.

U.S. Department of State, Secretary of State's Remarks, "Remarks Addressing State Department Student Programs and Fellowships Participants," August 18, 2017, https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2017/08/273527.htm, accessed October 25, 2017.

1617.

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Nomination, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., April 12, 2018, https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5297768?3.
1718.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, p. 18.
19.

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, p. 19.

For additional information regarding the scope of overseas programs funded through the D&CP account, see Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, pp. 29-30.
1821.

Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, p. 30.
1922.

Ibid., pp. 31, 34U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, p. 16.
2023.

U.S. Department of State, Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Global Engagement Center, https://www.state.gov/r/gec/, accessed March 7, 2018Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, p. 20.

2124.

Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, p. 31.
22.

Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 244.

2325.

The White House, Office of Management and Budget, President's FY2019 Budget, p. 772.

2426.

Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 243.

2527.

The White House, Office of Management and Budget, President's FY2019 Budget, p. 772.

2628.

Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 2.
2729.

Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, pp. 31-32.
2830.

Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 2.
2931.

Ibid., p. 252.

3032.

This portion of the ESCM request is detailed in Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 253.
3133.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, p. 22.

The White House, Office of Management and Budget, President's FY2019 Budget, p. 777.

3235.

Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 253.

3336.

Ibid., p. 254.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, p. 23.
3437.

Ibid.

Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 253.
3538.

U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs, "Opening of U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem," February 23, 2018, https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/02/278825.htm.
3639.

For more information, see CRS Insight IN10838, Jerusalem: U.S. Recognition as Israel's Capital and Planned Embassy Move, by [author name scrubbed].

3740.

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, p. 26.

Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 280.
3842.

U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Budget and Planning, Addendum to the FY 2019 President's Budget to Account for the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Congressional Budget Justification, February 12, 2018; Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 281.
3943.

Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, p. 55.
4044.

Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 284.

4145.

Ibid., p. 311.
4246.

Ibid.
4347.

Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, p. 58.

4448.

Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 311.
4549.

Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, p. 59.
4650.

For example, pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 20172018 (P.L. 115-31141), 15% of the Title I appropriation for CIPA was a two-year appropriation. In addition, the entire Title VIII (Overseas Contingency Operations) CIPA appropriation was made available as a two-year appropriation.

4751.

The 25% cap was enacted in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (P.L. 103-236), April 30, 1994. For more information, see CRS Report R45206, U.S. Funding to the United Nations System: Overview and Selected Policy Issues, by [author name scrubbed].
52.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, p. 29; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, p. 29.

Executive Order 13781 of March 13, 2017, "Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch," 82 F.R. 13959, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/16/2017-05399/comprehensive-plan-for-reorganizing-the-executive-branch; Office of Management and Budget, "M-17-22, Comprehensive Plan for Reforming the Federal Government and Reducing the Federal Civilian Workforce," April 12, 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2017/M-17-22.pdf.

4854.

Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, p. 7.

49.

Secretary of State-designate Pompeo's priorities include setting the mission and empowering the diplomatic corps, and strengthening workforce culture and communication. For more information, see U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Nomination, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., April 12, 2018, https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5297768?3.
50For example, see Sections 7015, 7075, and 7076 of the S. 3108 and Sections 7015 and 7069 of H.R. 6385.
55.

See Section 7075 of S. 3108.

This section prepared by Marian Lawson, Specialist in Foreign Assistance.
5157.

This includes $400 million noted in the addendum of the budget following enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 but not reflected in all of the budget materials.
5258.

Section 7056(b) of H.R. 6385. This controversial policy, commonly called the "Mexico City Policy" but referred to by the Trump Administration as the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) plan, has a long history. Despite not being included in the FY2018 SFOPS appropriation, this policy is currently in effect as a result of a presidential memorandum. For more on this issue, see CRS Report R41360, Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law and Policy, by [author name scrubbed].

This IDA total includes $1.0 billion noted in the addendum to the budget request, reflecting additional budget authority made available by enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018.
5360.

Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, p. 87.
5461.

Ibid., p. 99.

62.

S. 3108, Section 7058(c)(1); House committee bill Section 7058(d)(1).