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 was entirely within enduring (base) funds; no Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding is inwas included the SFOPS request for the first time since FY2012.

Comparing the request with the FY2018-enacted funding levels, the FY2019 request represents The FY2019 request would have represented a 22.7% decrease in SFOPS funding compared with FY2018-enacted funding levels. The proposed State and related agency funding would be have been 18.2% below FY2018 enacted and the foreign operations funding would behave been reduced by 24.7%. In the State and related programs budget, cuts arewere 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) accounts, contributions to international organizations, and contributions for international peacekeeping activities. In the foreign operations budget, cuts would behave been 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.

Both the House and Senate appropriations committees have approved FY2019 SFOPS bills that include included funding at higher levels than the Administration requested and equal to or greater than FY2018 enacted funding. H.R. 6385, approved by the House appropriations committee on June 20, 2018, would fundhave funded SFOPS accounts at $54.177 billion. S. 3108, approved by the full Senate appropriations committee on June 21, 2018, would providehave provided $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 SFOPS accounts. FY2019 began with seven appropriations bills, including SFOPS, unfinished. Congress and the President approved continuing resolutions to fund the affected federal agencies through December 21, 2018, at the FY2018 level (P.L. 115-245, Division C and P.L. 115-298). After December 21, a partial shutdown of the government, including SFOPS-funded agencies, occurred. On January 25, 2019, an agreement was reached to continue funding for SFOPS and other appropriations that had lapsed through February 15, at the FY2018 level (P.L. 116-5). On February 14, Congress passed, and the President later signed into law, a full-year omnibus appropriation that included SFOPS funding (P.L.116-6, Division F). P.L. 116-6 included a total of $54.376 billion for SFOPS accounts in FY2019, a 0.3% increase over the FY2018 funding level and about 30% more than the Administration’s request. Of that enacted total, $8.0 billion, or 14.7%, was designated as OCO. This report provides an account-by-account comparison of the FY2019 SFOPS request, House and Senate SFOPS legislation, and the final FY2019 SFOPS appropriation 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 reflectnot be further updated unless there is further congressional activity on FY2019 appropriations.

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, Congressional Research Service Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Contents Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 .................................................................................................. 1 Enduring vs. Overseas Contingency Operations Request ......................................................... 1 Congressional Action ...................................................................................................................... 2 Key Issues for Congress .................................................................................................................. 3 Department of State and Related Agency Funding ................................................................... 3 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 3 Diplomatic Programs .......................................................................................................... 5 Diplomatic Security ............................................................................................................ 7 International Organizations ............................................................................................... 10 Leadership and Modernization Impact Initiative .............................................................. 12 Foreign Assistance .................................................................................................................. 13 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 13 Top Foreign Assistance Recipients.................................................................................... 15 Budget Highlights ............................................................................................................. 16 Figures Figure 1. FY2019 Foreign Operations Request, by Region .......................................................... 16 Figure 2. Humanitarian Assistance, FY2013-FY2019 Enacted..................................................... 18 Tables Table 1. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, by Enduring and OCO FY2010FY2019 Enacted ........................................................................................................................... 2 Table 2. Status of State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2019 ............................................ 2 Table 3. State Department and Related Agency: Selected Accounts ............................................... 4 Table 4. FY2019 Capital Security Cost Sharing and Maintenance Cost Sharing Project List................................................................................................................................................ 9 Table 5. Impact Initiative Focus Areas and Keystone Projects ..................................................... 12 Table 6. Foreign Aid by Appropriations Type, FY2017, FY2018 Enacted, and FY2019 Request and Committee-approved Legislation .......................................................................... 14 Table 7. Top 15 Recipients of U.S. Foreign Assistance, FY2019 Request .................................... 16 Table A-1. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2018 Enacted and FY2019 Request, House and Senate Committee Reported bill, and Enacted. ............................................................................................................................... 21 Table B-1. International Affairs Budget FY2017 Actual, FY2018 Actual, and FY2019 Request and Enacted .................................................................................................................. 26 Congressional Research Service Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appendixes Appendix A. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Account ....................................................................................................... 21 Appendix B. International Affairs Budget ..................................................................................... 26 Appendix C. SFOPS Organizational Chart ................................................................................... 27 Appendix D. Glossary ................................................................................................................... 28 Contacts Author Information........................................................................................................................ 29 Congressional Research Service Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Overview On February 12, 2018, the Trump Administration submitted to Congress its FY2019 budget request, which included $41.86 billion of base (or enduring) funds for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS).1Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS).¹ Of that amount, $13.26 billion would behave been for State operations, international broadcasting, and related agencies and $28.60 billion for foreign operations.²2 Comparing the request with the FY2018-enacted SFOPS funding levels, the FY2019 request representsrepresented a 22.7% decrease in SFOPS funding. The proposed State and related agency funding would behave been 18.2% below FY2018 enacted, and the foreign operations funding would be reduced by 24.7%. have been reduced by 24.7%. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6), signed into law on February 15, included a total of $54.376 billion for SFOPS accounts, a 0.3% increase over the FY2018 funding level and about 30% more than the Administration’s request. An account-by-account comparison of the SFOPS request with the FY2018-enacted funding levels actual funding and FY2019-enacted appropriation 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 iswas 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 raisesraised 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 increasesincreased 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.³3 It also extendsextended direct spending reductions from FY2021 in the original BCA through FY2027, as amended.⁴

4 Enduring vs. Overseas Contingency Operations Request

Every year since FY2012, the Administration has 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, which specified that 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. 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 Grant A. Driessen and Marc Labonte. Congressional Research Service 1 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs 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 did not seek foreign affairs OCO funds, but requested the entire SFOPS budget within base funds. The final legislation, P.L. 116-6, included $8.0 billion designated as OCO, or about 15% of enacted SFOPS funding. For funding trends, see Table 1.

Congressional Action

$46.418 billion for enduring programs and $8.0 billion for OCO. House and Senate SFOPS Legislation. FY2019 SFOPS legislation has beenwas introduced and approved by the full appropriations committee in each chamber. The House legislation, H.R. 6385, includesH.R. 6385, included total SFOPS funding of $54.18 billion, level with FY2018 funding and 29% more 5 Executive Budget Summary, Function 150 and other International Programs, Fiscal Year 2013, p. 137. Congressional Research Service 2 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs than requested. The Senate proposal, S. 3108, would providehave provided $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.

in its respective chamber. Continuing Resolutions. On September 28, 2018, the President signed into law P.L. 115-245, legislation which includesincluded the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 (CR) to continue funding for SFOPS accounts (among seven other appropriations that were not completed by the start of FY2019) at a prorated 2018 funding level through December 7, 2018. Funds designated as OCO in 2018 appropriations would continuecontinued to be so designated for SFOPS in the CR.

On December 3, 2018, Congress and the Administration extended funding through December 21, 2018, by enacting P.L. 115-298. After December 21, funding lapsed and a partial shutdown of the government occurred. On January 25, an agreement was reached to continue funding for SFOPS and other appropriations that had lapsed through February 15, at the FY2018 level (P.L. 116-5). Enacted Legislation. On February 14Congress passed, and the President later signed into law, a full year appropriation (P.L.116-6, Division F) that included $54.38 billion in total SFOPS funding, a 0.3% increase over the FY2018 funding level and about 30% more than the Administration’s request. Of that total, $16.46 billion was for State Department operations and related agencies; $37.92 billion for foreign operations accounts. About 14.7%, or $8.0 billion, was designated as OCO. Key Issues for Congress Key Issues for Congress

Department of State and Related Agency Funding⁶

Overview

Funding6 Overview The State Department seekssought to cut funding for the Department of State and Related Agency category by 18% in FY2019 from FY2018-enacted levels, to $13.26 billion.⁷7 Conversely, both the House and Senate committee bills seeksought to maintain funding near previous fiscal year levels. The House committee bill would increasehave increased funding in this category to $16.38 billion, or 1% above the FY2018-enacted level. The Senate committee bill would raisehave raised funding to $16.34 billion, around $40 million less than the House committee bill and approximately 0.75% more than the FY2018-enacted figure.

The State Department's request seeks Similar to the House and Senate committee bills, the FY2019-enacted appropriation (P.L. 116-6) maintained funding for the State Department and Related Agency category slightly above FY2018-enacted levels. It provided $16.46 billion for this category, or 1.5% more than the F2018-enacted level. The State Department’s request sought 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 seeksought 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).

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 6 This section was prepared by Cory Gill, Analyst in Foreign Affairs. 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. 7 Congressional Research Service 3 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Department of State and Related Agency category. The House committee bill would have provided $3.03 billion for OCO, or around 28% less than the FY2018-enacted figure of $4.18 billion. The Senate committee bill would have provided $4.11 billion, which constituted about 2% less than FY2018-enacted level. While the House committee bill would have afforded approximately $1.08 billion less for OCO than the Senate committee bill, the House committee bill provided around $1.12 billion more in enduring funding ($13.35 billion) than the Senate committee bill ($12.23 billion). As with the House and Senate committee bills, P.L. 116-6 retained OCO funding for the Department of State and Related Agency category. The law provided a total of $4.37 billion for OCO, or 4.5% more than the FY 2018-enacted figure. While the law provided more for OCO than either the Senate or House committee bills, it provided less in enduring funding ($12.09 billion). Areas where the State Department’s proposed cuts were focused included the diplomatic security accounts (the Worldwide Security Protection programmatic allocation within the Diplomatic Programs account and, separately, the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance account), Contributions to International Organizations, and Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities. In most cases, P.L. 116-6, in a manner similar to the House and Senate committee bills, maintained annual budget authority for these accounts closer to the FY2018enacted levels than the Administration requested (see following sections for more detailed analysis). The State Department 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 addressed the Impact Initiative, both included provisions enabling Congress to conduct oversight of any broader reorganization efforts at the department. The enacted legislation, P.L. 116-6, took the same approach.8 Table 3 provides an overview of proposed changes to selected accounts within the State Department and Related Agency category.

Diplomatic and Consular Programs

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 10 The State Department is therefore requestingthus requested that Congress rename the D&CP account " the former Diplomatic and Consular Programs 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.

The D&CP account provides funds for a large share of U.S. direct hire positions.¹¹ this account.11 The FY2019-enacted legislation, P.L. 116-6, authorized the renaming of Diplomatic and Consular Programs to Diplomatic Programs, as did the House and Senate committee bills. Personnel The Diplomatic Programs account provides funds for a large share of U.S. direct hire positions, including but not limited to State Department Foreign Service and Civil Service officers.12 Although the Trump Administration lifted the federal hiring freeze upon issuance of OMB M-17-221722 on April 12, 2017, the State Department elected to keep its own hiring freeze in place.¹²13 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

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 levels. Some Members of Congress expressed concern with the hiring freeze and the continued impacts of perceived personnel shortages at the Department of State.14 Both the House and Senate 9 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. 10 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. 11 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. 12 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. 13 See U.S. Department of State, “Hiring Freeze Information,” https://www.state.gov/m/dghr/flo/c75985.htm, accessed March 7, 2018. 14 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2018, report to accompany S. 1780, 115th Congress, 1st Session, S.Rept. 115-152, p. 6. Congressional Research Service 5 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs committee bills, and the committee reports accompanying those bills, included oversight provisions pertaining to State Department personnel levels.15 In this vein, Section 7073 of P.L. 116-6 required that no appropriated funds may be used to expand or reduce the size of the State Department and USAID’s Civil Service, Foreign Service, eligible family member, and locally employed staff workforce from the on-board levels as of December 31, 2017, without consultation with the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives. Section 7073 also required the Secretary of State to submit reports to Congress, beginning 60 days after enactment of the law, and every 60 days thereafter until September 30, 2020, regarding the State Department’s on-board personnel levels, hiring, and attrition of the Civil Service, Foreign Service, eligible family member, and locally employed staff workforce. These reports were also required to include a hiring plan for maintaining Foreign Service and Civil Service personnel numbers at not less than December 31, 2017, levels through FY2019. Among other personnelrelated provisions, the joint explanatory statement accompanying this law noted that keeping personnel at these levels reflected “minimum necessary hiring” and encouraged the Secretary of State to work with Congress to increase hiring above such levels as appropriate.16 Diversity The Human Resources funding category within Diplomatic Programs 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 State Department 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. 114-323114323), it has provided the department the discretion to fund these programs at levels it deems appropriate from monies appropriated for Human Resources. TheP.L. 116-6, like the House and Senate committee bills would continue, continued to provide such discretion. The to the State Department. In addition, the House committee report indicatesindicated support for department efforts to increase diversity in hiring, including through the Rangel and Pickering programs. It also encouragesencouraged the Secretary of State to explore more opportunities to further the goal of increasing workforce diversity.¹⁸17 The Senate committee report recommendsrecommended the continued expansion of the department'’s workforce diversity programs and directsdirected that qualified graduates of the Rangel and Pickering programs shall be inducted into the Foreign Service.¹⁹

The D&CP18 While neither P.L. 116-6 nor the accompanying joint explanatory statement addressed the Rangel and Pickering programs specifically or Foreign Service diversity more generally, the joint explanatory statement did not negate any of the language in the House and Senate committee reports. Overseas Programs The Diplomatic Programs 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, 15 For example, see Section 7069 of H.R. 6385 and Section 7075 of S. 3108. U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, Making Further Continuing Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for Fiscal Year 2019, for Other Purposes, conference report to accompany H.J.Res.31, 116th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 116-9 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2019), p. 875. 17 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, p. 18. 18 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, p. 19. 16 Congressional Research Service 6 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs which is responsible for providing health care services to U.S. government employees and their families assigned to overseas posts, are also funded through this account.²⁰

19 Public diplomacy programs are among the overseas programs funded through D&CPDiplomatic Programs, which include the Global Engagement Center'’s (GEC'’s) countering state disinformation (CSD) program. According to the State Department, planned CSD activities, for which $20 million iswas requested, include "included “coordinating U.S. government efforts in specific sub-regionssubregions; 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."²¹”20 The House committee report registersregistered concern regarding "“foreign propaganda and disinformation that threatens United States national security, especially as carried out by China, Russia, and extremists groups"” and assertsasserted that the GEC "“is expected to use a wide range of technologies and techniques to counter these campaigns,"” consistent with its statutory mandate.²²21 The Senate committee report recommendsrecommended 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 22 The joint explanatory statement accompanying for the FY2019-enacted legislation (P.L. 116-6) included up to $55.4 million for the GEC up to $20 million for CSD, a funding level for CSD identical to the department’s request.23 Section 1284 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (P.L. 115-232) authorized the Department of Defense (DOD) to transfer not more than $60 million to the GEC for each of FY2019 and FY2020; DOD has previously transferred funds to the GEC under similar authorities.24 Diplomatic Security The State Department’s FY2019 budget request sought 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 Diplomatic Programs account and $1.66 billion for the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account. The House committee bill would providehave provided $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 have funded the ESCM account exclusively through the base budget, it would providehave provided approximately $2.38 billion of overall funding for WSP through OCO. The Senate committee bill would providehave provided $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 have funded 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.

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 The FY2019-enacted appropriations provided a total of $4.10 billion for WSP and $1.98 billion for ESCM, for a total funding level of $6.08 billion in budget authority for these accounts. Like 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. 2930. 20 Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, p. 30. 21 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, p. 16. 22 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, p. 20. 23 U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, p. 827. Funding for similar programs is provided elsewhere in the SFOPS budget, including the Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs account. 24 These authorities were provided under Section 1287(e) of P.L. 114-328. Congressional Research Service 7 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs the House and Senate committee bills, P.L. 116-6 funded ESCM exclusively through the base budget. Of the $4.10 billion provided for WSP in the law, $2.63 billion was done so through OCO. Had the Administration’s request been enacted, it would have marked 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 enacted legislation provided 9% more funding for WSP and 15% less for ESCM relative to FY2018 levels. Over the past several years, Congress has provided no-year appropriations for both WSP and ESCM, 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. For example, for FY2018, the State Department carried over more than $7.6 billion in previously appropriated funds for ESCM.25 Both the House and Senate committee bills would have continued this practice with respect to WSP, and the Senate committee bill would have continued with respect to ESCM, as well. The House committee bill, if enacted, would have provided that all funds appropriated for ESCM remained available until September 30, 2023, rather than indefinitely. P.L. 116-6 provided no-year appropriations for WSP. For ESCM, the law stipulated that while funds for worldwide security upgrades and for purposes of acquisition and construction would remain available until expended, all other monies within this account (such as funds for preserving, maintaining, repairing, and planning for real property that State Department owns) would remain available only until September 30, 2023. Worldwide Security Protection The Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) allocation within the Diplomatic Programs 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 State Department 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 OCO funds provided through the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. SAAA) (P.L. 114-254).²⁹).26 State Department officials have noted in information provided to CRSnoted that this funding was "“intended to support diplomatic reengagements in Syria, Libya, and Yemen that were predicated on different security and political conditions."” The department maintainsmaintained that this proposed cancellation iswas based on evolving security and political conditions, and willwould not affect DS operations.³⁰ Neither27 While neither the House nor the Senate committee bill included a rescission, P.L. 116-6 provided for a rescission of $301.2 million of SAAA funds appropriated for Diplomatic Programs and designated them more generally for OCO.28 25 The White House, Office of Management and Budget, An American Budget: Efficient, Effective, Accountable, Fiscal Year 2019, Appendix, p. 777. 26 Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, pp. 3132. 27 Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 2. 28 See Division F, Title VIII, Section 8004 of P.L. 116-6. Congressional Research Service 8 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs 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’s request included $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 nor the Senate committee bill would provide this requested rescission, if enacted.

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).³²contributions from other agencies).29 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 maintainsmaintained that funds the House bill 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”30 The Senate committee bill stipulatesstipulated that of funds made available for ESCM by it and prior acts making appropriations for SFOPS, "not less than $1,025,304,000.02 billion shall be made available" for the department'’s FY2019 CSCS and MCS contributions; the joint explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 116-6 indicated that Congress provided the same amount for this purpose for FY2019.31 In FY2019, OBO intendeds 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.³⁴ In FY2019, OBO intends to fund four CSCS projects and one MCS project (see Table 4).³⁵).32 The House committee report notesnoted 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. Like Section 7004(h) of the House bill would oblige the State Department to , as noted in the joint explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 116-6, Congress mandated that the State Department provide more detailed reports regarding the costs of these projects than previously required.³⁶

The State Department maintainsmaintained 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."³⁷”34 It later attached a timeframe to its intent, and the United States opened a new U.S. embassy in Jerusalem in May 2018. This new embassy is located in a building that houseshoused consular operations of the former U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem. Department efforts to locate a site for a permanent U.S. embassy in Israel are ongoing.³⁸ Jerusalem. The State Department has said that one of its next steps would be to construct an embassy annex to the current building, while also considering options for a permanent embassy over the long term.35 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.³⁹36 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 includes37 Neither P.L. 116-6 nor its joint explanatory statement addresses this issue or negates the Senate committee report language. International Organizations The State Department’s FY2019 budget request included 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).⁴¹38 The State Department'’s FY2019 request for CIO totalstotaled 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%). According to the department, U.N. assessments of U.S. contributions to the United Nations and its affiliated agencies exceeded the request for funds to pay these contributions.39 Therefore, if the department’s request was enacted, the United States may have accumulated arrears to some organizations. 34 Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 253. In July 2018, the State Department contracted with a U.S. firm for approximately $21.2 million to build a 700 square-meter expansion of the current embassy building—with half of the expansion to occur below ground and half of it to enlarge the existing second floor. The contract lasts until April 2020. For more detail, see CRS Report R44245, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations in Brief, by Jim Zanotti. 36 For more information, see CRS Insight IN10838, Jerusalem: U.S. Recognition as Israel’s Capital and Planned Embassy Move, by Jim Zanotti 37 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, p. 26. 38 Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 280. 39 Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, p. 55. 35 Congressional Research Service 10 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs The Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account provides U.S. funding for U.N. peacekeeping missions around the world that the State Department says “seek to maintain or restore international peace and security.”40 The State Department’s FY2019 request for CIPA totaled $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.”41 Under this request, no U.S. contribution would have exceeded 25% of all assessed contributions for a single operation, which is the cap established in Section 404(b) of the budget (the U.S. assessment is 22%).

The Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account provides U.S. funding for U.N. peacekeeping missions around the world that the State Department says "seek to maintain or restore international peace and security."⁴⁵ 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."⁴⁶ 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."⁴⁷ 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 maintainsmaintained that it expectsexpected 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."⁴⁸”42 The department has also 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.”43 The House committee bill would have providedyears."⁴⁹ Congress has provided some two-year appropriations for CIPA in the past.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 iswas 29% higher than the department' 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 provideThe Senate committee bill would have provided $1.44 billion for CIO and $1.68 billion for CIPA, for a combined total of $3.12 billion. This figure iswas 36% higher than the department'’s request and 9% higher than the FY2018- enacted number. The Senate committee bill includesincluded 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 notenoted that appropriated monies arewere 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%.⁵¹44 Both committee reports callcalled on the department to review peacekeeping missions for cost savings and work to renegotiate rates of assessment.⁵²

45 For FY2019, P.L. 116-6 provided $1.36 billion for CIO and $1.56 billion for CIPA, for a total of $2.92 billion, slightly less than both the House and Senate committee bills. This figure was still 2% higher than the FY2018-enacted figure and 28% higher than the department’s request. While the law did not include the aforementioned Senate committee bill provision regarding payment of full U.S. assessments for organizations funded through the CIO account, the law’s joint explanatory statement noted that it assumed the payment of the full United States assessment for each relevant organization (with some exceptions, including organizations from which the United 40 Ibid., p. 311. Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, p. 58. 42 Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 311. 43 Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, p. 59. 44 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 Luisa Blanchfield. 45 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, p. 29; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, p. 29. 41 Congressional Research Service 11 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs States has withdrawn) and required the Secretary of State to consult with the Committees on Appropriations with respect to any decision not to provide the full assessment for any such organization. With respect to CIPA, the joint explanatory statement noted that sufficient funds are provided for contributions to peacekeeping missions at the statutory level of 25%.46 The enacted legislation, like the House and Senate committee bills, provided a share of CIPA funds as twoyear funds, as requested by the department. Leadership and Modernization Impact Initiative Leadership and Modernization Impact Initiative

The State Department is requestingrequested $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"’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."⁵³

”47 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.

Of the $246.2 million requested, $150.0 million iswas 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 arewere 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 arewere 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 Like the House and the Senate committee bills and reports, neither P.L.116-6 nor the joint explanatory statement accompanying the law specifically mentioned the Impact Initiative by name. However, both the law and the joint explanatory statement included provisions explicitly prohibiting 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 (for example, see Section 7073 of P.L. 116-6) .48 Like the Senate committee bill, P.L. 116-6 stated that no funds appropriated for SFOPs may be used to "“downsize, downgrade, consolidate, close, move, or relocate"” the State Department' Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration.⁵⁵

Foreign Assistance⁵⁶

Overview

49 Foreign 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 requestingrequested $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 arewere designated as OCO. Table 6 shows foreign aid funding by type for FY2017, FY2018 enacted, and the FY2019 request and committee-approved legislation.

Account Mergers and Eliminations. The Administration aimsaimed 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

• 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 arewere zero funded in the FY2019 request. Programs currently funded through these accounts would be have been funded through a new Economic Support and Development Fund (ESDF) account. The proposed funding level for ESDF, $5.063 billion, iswas more than 36% below the FY2018 funding for the accounts it would replacehave replaced. Fifteen countries that received DA, ESF, or AEECA in FY2017 would no longer receivehave received 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 have been zeroed out. Budget documents suggestsuggested that some unspecified activities currently funded through IO&P could receivehave received funding through the ESDF or other accounts.
• Congressional Research Service 14 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs  Related to humanitarian assistance, the P.L. 480 Title II food aid account in the Agriculture appropriation would behave been zero-funded and all food assistance would be would have been funded through the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account, which would have nevertheless declinedeclined by about 17% from FY2018-enactedFY2018enacted funding (see "“Humanitarian Assistance"” section below). The Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) account would behave been subsumed into the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account.

Closeout of Inter-American Foundation and U.S.-Africa Development Foundation. The . The FY2019 request proposesproposed 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 proposesproposed 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 arewere requested for IAF and ADF only for the purposes of an orderly closeout.

Development Finance Institution. . The Administration is requestingrequested, for the first time in FY2019, the consolidation of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and USAID's ’s Development Credit Authority (DCA) into a new standalone Development Finance Institution (DFI). The request callscalled for $96 million for administrative expenses and $38 million for credit subsidies for DFI, but assumesassumed that these expenses willwould 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 behave been used to support DFI activities. The Administration seekssought congressional authority for the new standalone entity, which it describes described 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, as well as the enacted FY2019 appropriation, rejected these account changes, with the exception of the elimination of the ERMA account, which the House bill eliminateseliminated and the Senate and final bill fundedbill funds with $1 million. Both bills use the traditionalAll the FY2019 SFOPS legislation, including P.L. 116-6, used the same bilateral account structure used for FY2018, 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.

funded IAF and ADF at the FY2018 levels. Prior to enactment of the final FY2019 SFOPS appropriation, Congress passed the BUILD Act (P.L. 115-254), which authorized the establishment of a new International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC), consistent with the Administration’s DFI proposal. The IDFC is expected to become operational near the end of FY2019, and P.L. 116-6 made FY2019 appropriations for OPIC and DCA using the same account structure as in prior years, but authorized $5 million in the OPIC noncredit account to be used for transition costs. Top Foreign Assistance Recipients Top Foreign Assistance Recipients

Top Country Recipients. Under the FY2019 request, top foreign assistance recipients would not change have changed 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 have seen an increase of $200 million from FY2017, reflecting a new 10-year security assistance Memorandum of Understanding. Zambia and Uganda would both seehave seen an 11% increase. All other top recipients would seehave seen reduced aid in FY2019 compared with FY2017 (comprehensive FY2018 country allocations arewere 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 changehave changed these totals.

Congressional Research Service 15 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Figure 1 and Table 7 show the proposedrequested FY2019 foreign operations budget allocations by region and country. Figure 1. FY2019 Foreign and country.

Figure 1. FY2019 Foreign Operations Request, by Region

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. (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.

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, foreign assistance for every region would have been reduced compared to FY2018 funding. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and SubSaharan Africa would continue to be the top regional recipients, together comprising nearly 80% of aid allocated by region (Figure 2). Proposed cuts ranged from 61% in Europe and Eurasia to 2% in the MENA. Aid to Sub-Saharan Africa would have declined by 31%, aid to East Asia and Pacific cut nearly in half (51%), South and Central Asia by about 4% and Western Hemisphere by 35%. The House bill (H.R. 6385) and accompanying report did not provide comprehensive country and regional allocations, but did specify aid levels for some countries and regional programs, 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 (S.3108) and report specifyspecified 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 The enacted legislation, P.L. 116-6, and the accompanying explanatory statement, specified FY2019 aid levels for several countries, including Israel ($3.300 billion), Egypt ($1.419 billion), Jordan ($1.525 billion), Iraq ($407 million), Colombia ($418 million), Mexico ($163 million), and Ukraine ($446 million), as well as for the U.S. Strategy for engagement in Central America ($528 million) and the Countering Russian Influence Fund ($275 million). Budget Highlights The budget submission did not identify any new foreign assistance initiatives. The FY2019 request called for decreases in foreign aid funding generally while continuing to prioritize the aid Congressional Research Service 16 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs 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 FY2019.⁵⁷51 This is a was a 23% reduction from the FY2018 funding level, yet global health programs would increase have increased 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 behave been cut about 27% from FY2018-enacted levels, would continuehave continued 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 receivehave received $302 million, a 42% reduction from FY2018 funding. Assistance levels would behave been 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 includesincluded $8.69 billion for global health programs, the same as current year FY2018 funding. While total funding would remain the same, the House proposal would reduce have reduced 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 fundhave funded global health programs $8.792 billion, 1.2% above the FY2018 level. No subsectors would receivehave received reduced funding and allocations for tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, family planning, nutrition, neglected tropical diseases and vulnerable children would all increasehave increased slightly. While both bills includeincluded long-standing language preventing the use of appropriated funds to pay for abortions, the House bill, but not the Senate bill, also includes a included a provision prohibiting aid to any foreign nongovernmental organizations that "“promotes or performs" performs” voluntary abortion, with some exceptions, regardless of the source of funding for such activities.⁵⁸

Humanitarian Assistance

The Trump Administration' activities.52 P.L. 116-6 provides $8.84 billion for global health programs for FY2019, a 1.7% increase over FY2018 funding. Every health subsector was funded at the same or slightly higher level than in FY2018. Humanitarian Assistance The Trump Administration’s FY2019 budget request for humanitarian assistance totalstotaled $6.358 billion, which iswas roughly 32% less than FY2018-enacted funding ($9.361 billion) and about 22% of the total FY2019 foreign aid request. The request includesincluded $2,800.4 million for the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account (-17% from FY2018) and $3,557.4 million for 51 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. Funding levels in this section reflect the Global Health Programs appropriations account and many not include global health activities funded through other accounts. 52 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 Luisa Blanchfield. Congressional Research Service 17 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account (-17%) (Figure 2).⁵⁹).53 As in its FY2018 request, the Administration proposes in FY2019proposed 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 Food for Peace for FY2018, appropriating $1.716 billion, for the account through the Agriculture appropriation, but did appropriate only $1 million for ERMA, a 98% reduction from FY2017 funding.) The Administration also seekssought 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 Enacted (in millions of current U.S. dollars)

12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 FFP 4,000 IDA 2,000 ERMA 0 MRA Source: Annual international affairs Congressional Budget Justifications. , P.L. 116-6. Notes: FFP = P.L. 480, Title II; IDA = International Disaster Assistance; ERMA = Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance; MRA = Migration and Refugee Assistance.

The Administration describesdescribed 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."⁶⁰”54 The MRA request focuses on "focused 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."⁶¹”55 Consistent with last year, the request suggestssuggested 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 proposesbills proposed $9.145 billion for humanitarian assistance accounts, about 2% less than FY2018 funding. The total includesincluded $1.5 billion for P.L. 480, Title II but would not fundFood for Peace from the Agriculture appropriation but would not have funded the ERMA account. The Senate committee bill proposes bills proposed $9.534 billion for humanitarian assistance, about 2% more than FY2018 funding. The total includesincluded $1.716 billion for P.L. 480, Title IIFood for Peace and $1 million for the ERMA account. Neither bill includesincluded language authorizing broad transfers and mergers between the IDA and 53 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. 54 Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, p. 87. 55 Ibid., p. 99. Congressional Research Service 18 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs 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

56 As in FY2018, Congress did not adopt the significant humanitarian aid changes proposed by the Administration. P.L. 116-6 provided a total of $9.534 billion for humanitarian assistance in FY2019, almost level with FY2018 funding (-0.5%), of which about 21% was designated as OCO. This total included $3.434 billion in MRA funds, $1 million for ERMA, and $4.385 billion for IDA in the SFOPS division of the bill, as well as $1.716 billion for Food for Peace in the Agriculture division. Security Assistance The FY2019 security assistance request within foreign operations accounts totalstotaled $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 iswas for FMF aid to Israel and Egypt. However, six countries arewere 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 have been reduced by about 36% from FY2018-enacted levels, Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related (NADR) by 21%, and International Military Education and Training (IMET) by about 14%. In each of these cases, the Administration describesdescribed 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 seehave seen 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 behave been reduced by 13% compared to FY2018, with specific allocations for 11 countries and a proposed $75 million Global Fund to be allocated flexibly. This iswas 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 providehave provided $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 bewas designated as OCO.

The Senate committee bill includesincluded $8.789 billion for security assistance programs, a 2.6% total decrease from FY2018 funding. The INCLE account would increasehave increased 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.

was designated as OCO. In the final FY2019 appropriation, P.L. 116-6, security assistance funding totaled $9.153 billion, a 1.4% increase from FY2018. Of the total, $555 million within the PKO and FMF accounts (6% of 56 S. 3108, Section 7058(c)(1); House committee bill Section 7058(d)(1). Congressional Research Service 19 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs total security funding) was designated as OCO. Funding provided for most accounts was similar to FY2018 levels, with the exception of INCLE, which increased by 9.4% in part to support increased efforts to address the flow of illegal opioids, and PKO, for which funding decreased by about 9.2%. Economic Development Assistance 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 totalstotaled $6.354 billion, a 33% reduction from FY2018 funding levels. Proposed FY2019 allocations for key sectors, compared with FY2018 levels prescribed in legislation, includeincluded 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 requestsrequested $800 million for MCC and $396 million for Peace Corps, representing cuts of 12% and 3%, respectively. As discussed above, the budget request proposesalso proposed to merge I-AF and USADF into USAID, and requestsrequested only small amounts of funding to close out their independent activities.

The House committee bill would providehave provided $9.383 billion for economic development assistance and specifiesspecified 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 have provided $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 fundhave funded the I-AF, USADF, Peace Corp and MCC at the FY2018 funding level, and both bills explicitly rejectrejected the Administration'’s proposal to merge I-AF and USADF into USAID.

Appendix A. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies USAID. The enacted appropriation for FY2019, P.L. 116-6, provided about $9.239 billion for nonhealth economic development aid. Minimum allocations specified for key sectors included $1.035 billion for education (basic and higher), $285 million for biodiversity conservation, $125 million for sustainable landscapes, $1.001 billion for food security and agricultural development, $265 million to support micro and small enterprises, $67 million to combat trafficking in persons, and $435 million for water and sanitation programs. The independent agencies were all funded at the same level as in FY2018. Congressional Research Service 20 Appendix A. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Account Appropriations, by Account