< Back to Current Version

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

Changes from March 12, 2019 to March 25, 2019

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 Appropriations Updated March 12, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45168 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Summary The Trump Administration submitted to Congress its FY2019 budget request on February 12, 2018. The proposal included $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 25, 2019 (R45168) Jump to Main Text of Report

Contents

Tables

Summary

The Trump Administration submitted to Congress its FY2019 budget request on February 12, 2018. The proposal included $41.86 billion for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS). Of that amount, $13.26 billion was 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 was entirely within enduring (base) funds; no Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding was included the SFOPS request for the first time since FY2012. The FY2019 request would have represented a 22.723.3% decrease in SFOPS funding compared with FY2018-enacted FY2018 actual funding levels. The proposed State and related agency funding would have been 18.27% below FY2018 enactedfunding and the foreign operations funding would have been reduced by 24.7 25.2%. In the State and related programs budget, cuts were proposed for several accounts, including the diplomatic security accounts, contributions to international organizations, and contributions for international peacekeeping activities. In the foreign operations budget, cuts would have 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 approved FY2019 SFOPS bills that included funding at higher levels than the Administration requested and equal to or greater than FY2018 enactedcloser to FY2018 funding. H.R. 6385, approved by the House appropriations committee on June 20, 2018, would have funded SFOPS accounts at $54.177 billion. S. 3108, approved by the Senate appropriations committee on June 21, 2018, would have provided $54.602 billion for 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 $54.376377 billion for SFOPS accounts in FY2019, a 0.3% increase overdecrease from 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 FY2018 funding in Appendix A. The International Affairs (function 150) budget in Appendix B provides a similar comparison. This report will not be further updated unless there is further congressional activity on FY2019 appropriations. 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

This report will not be further updated unless there is further congressional activity on FY2019 appropriations.

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).11 Of that amount, $13.26 billion would have been for State operations, international broadcasting, and related agencies and $28.60 billion for foreign operations.22 Comparing the request with the FY2018-enacted actual SFOPS funding levels, the FY2019 request represented a 22.723.3% decrease in SFOPS funding. The proposed State and related agency funding would have been 18.27% below FY2018 enactedfunding levels, and the foreign operations funding would have been reduced by 24.725.2%. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6), signed into law on February 15, included a total of $54.376377 billion for SFOPS accounts, a 0.3% increase 0.3% decrease over the FY2018 funding level and about 30% more than the Administration’s 's request. An account-by-account comparison of the SFOPS request with the FY2018 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 FY2019 was 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 raised 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 increased 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 extended 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, 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, 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 "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 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. . Table 1. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, by Enduring and OCO FY2010-FY2019 Enacted (in billions of current U.S. dollars) Enduring OCO/Supp Total FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 enacted FY19 request FY19 enacted 49.44 48.80 41.80 39.75 42.91 41.01 37.97 36.93 42.16 41.86 46.40 2.34 0.00 11.20 10.82 6.52 11.89 16.07 20.79 12.02 00.00 8.00 51.78 48.80 53.00 50.57 49.43 52.90 54.04 57.72 54.18 41.86 54.38 Sources: Congressional Budget Justification Department of State and Foreign Operations, various years,

(in billions of current U.S. dollars)

 

FY10

FY11

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY15

FY16

FY17

FY18 actual

FY19 request

FY19 enacted

Enduring

49.44

48.80

41.80

39.75

42.91

41.01

37.97

36.93

42.52

41.86

46.40

OCO/Supp

2.34

0.00

11.20

10.82

6.52

11.89

16.07

20.79

12.02

00.00

8.00

Total

51.78

48.80

53.00

50.57

49.43

52.90

54.04

57.72

54.54

41.86

54.38

Sources: Congressional Budget Justification Department of State and Foreign Operations, various years, including FY2019; FY2019 Addendum, P.L. 115-141; ; P.L. 116-6, and CRS appropriations reports and 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 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 House Senate Public Law 116-6 6/21/18 2/14/19 2/14/19 2/15/19 54.60 54.38 54.38 54.38 Chamber House Senate House Senate Date 5/23/18 5/24/18 6/20/18 Total $ 46.16 54.42 54.18 House Senate 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 2018 the House and Senate provided interim suballocations for appropriations subcommittees. Committee-recommended total budget authority in the House was $46.159 billion, with no specified OCO allocation. The Senate recommended level included $46.418 billion for enduring programs and $8.0 billion for OCO.

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

 

302(b) Allocations

Committee Action

Floor Action

Conference/Agreement

 

Chamber

House

Senate

House

Senate

House

Senate

House

Senate

P.L. 116-6

Date

5/23/18

5/24/18

6/20/18

6/21/18

   

2/14/19

2/14/19

2/15/19

Total $

46.16

54.42

54.18

54.60

   

54.38

54.38

54.38

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 2018 the House and Senate provided interim suballocations for appropriations subcommittees. Committee-recommended total budget authority in the House was $46.159 billion, with no specified OCO allocation. The Senate recommended level included $46.418 billion for enduring programs and $8.0 billion for OCO.

House and Senate SFOPS Legislation. FY2019 SFOPS legislation was introduced and approved by the full appropriations committee in each chamber. The House legislation, H.R. 6385H.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 0.6% lower than FY2018 funding and 29% more than requested. The Senate proposal, S. 3108, would have provided $54.602 billion for SFOPS accounts, which is about 0.1% more than current yearFY2018 funding and 30% more than requested. Neither bill received floor consideration in its respective chamber. Continuing Resolutions. On September 28, 2018, the President signed into law P.L. 115-245, , legislation which included 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 continued 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 14Congress14 Congress 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 overdecrease from the FY2018 funding level and about 30% more than the Administration’ 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 Department of State and Related Agency Funding6 Overview Funding6 Overview The State Department sought to cut funding for the Department of State and Related Agency category by 1819% in FY2019 from FY2018-enacted funding levels, to $13.26 billion.77 Conversely, both the House and Senate committee bills sought to maintain funding near previous fiscal year levels. The House committee bill would have increased funding in this category to $16.38 billion, or 1% 0.4% above the FY2018-enacted funding level. The Senate committee bill would have raised funding to $16.34 billion, around $40 million less than the House committee bill and approximately 0.751% more than the FY2018-enacted figure. funding level. 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 FY2018 funding level. It provided $16.46 billion for this category, or 1.50.9% more than the F2018-enacted level. F2018 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 sought to retain OCO funding within the 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 figureFY2018 funding level. 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 FY2018enactedFY2018 funding 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”'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 8 Table 3 provides an overview of proposed changes 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) FY2017 Actual FY2018 Enacted FY2019 Enacted % change (FY18 to FY19) Diplomatic Programs 9.68 8.72 9.17 5% 8.80 8.92 Embassy Security, Construction & Maintenance 3.01 2.31 1.98 -14% 2.31 1.92 Intl. Orgs / Peacekeeping 3.27 2.85 2.91 2% 2.95 3.12 Intl. Broadcasting 0.79 0.81 0.81 0% 0.81 0.81 Educational and Cultural Exchanges 0.63 0.65 0.70 8% 0.65 0.69 Related Programs 0.24 0.24 0.25 4% 0.23 0.24 House Senate (H.R. 6385) (S. 3108) Source: CRS calculations based on Department of State, FY2018 and FY2019 Congressional Budget Justification, the FY2019 Addendum, and the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2019 (P.L. 116-6). 8 For example, see Section 7073 of Division F, Title VII of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6). Congressional Research Service 4 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Diplomatic Programs Under the State Department’s budget request, the Diplomatic Programs account, which is the State Department’s principal operating appropriation, would have declined by 10% from the FY2018-enacted level of $8.72 billion, 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.9 The House and Senate committee bills would have provided $8.80 billion and $8.92 billion, respectively, for Diplomatic Programs. For FY2019-enacted, P.L. 116-6 provided $9.17 billion, or 5% more than the FY2018-enacted figure and 17% more than the State Department’s request.

 

FY2017 Actual

FY2018 Actual

FY2019 Enacted

% change(FY18 to FY19) House(H.R. 6385) Senate(S. 3108)

Diplomatic Programs

9.68

8.82

9.17

4%

8.80

8.92

Embassy Security, Construction & Maintenance

3.01

2.31

1.98

-14%

2.31

1.92

Intl. Orgs / Peacekeeping

3.27

2.85

2.91

2%

2.95

3.12

Intl. Broadcasting

0.79

0.81

0.81

0%

0.81

0.81

Educational and Cultural Exchanges

0.63

0.65

0.70

8%

0.65

0.69

Source: CRS calculations based on Department of State, FY2018 and FY2019 Congressional Budget Justification, the FY2019 Addendum, and the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2019 (P.L. 116-6).

Diplomatic Programs

Under the State Department's budget request, the Diplomatic Programs account, which is the State Department's principal operating appropriation, would have declined by 11% from the FY2018 funding level of $8.82 billion, 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.9 The House and Senate committee bills would have provided $8.80 billion and $8.92 billion, respectively, for Diplomatic Programs. For FY2019 enacted, P.L. 116-6 provided $9.17 billion, or 4% more than the FY2018 funding level and 17% more than the State Department's request.

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.10 10 The State Department thus requested that Congress rename 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 this account.11 The FY2019-11 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
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 12 Although the Trump Administration lifted the federal hiring freeze upon issuance of OMB M-172217-22 on April 12, 2017, the State Department elected to keep its own hiring freeze in place.1313 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. 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 14 Both the House and Senate committee bills, and the committee reports accompanying those bills, included oversight provisions pertaining to State Department personnel levels.1515 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’ 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 personnelrelatedpersonnel-related 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 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. 114323114-323), it has provided the department the discretion to fund these programs at levels it deems appropriate from monies appropriated for Human Resources. P.L. 116-6, like the House and Senate committee bills, continued to provide such discretion to the State Department. In addition, the House committee report indicated support for department efforts to increase diversity in hiring, including through the Rangel and Pickering programs. It also encouraged the Secretary of State to explore more opportunities to further the goal of increasing workforce diversity.1717 The Senate committee report recommended the continued expansion of the department’'s workforce diversity programs and directed that qualified graduates of the Rangel and Pickering programs shall be inducted into the Foreign Service.1818 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
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 's Bureau of Medical Services, 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.19 19 Public diplomacy programs are among the overseas programs funded through Diplomatic 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 was requested, included “"coordinating U.S. government efforts in specific subregionssub-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.”20"20 The House committee report registered concern regarding “"foreign propaganda and disinformation that threatens United States national security, especially as carried out by China, Russia, and extremists groups”" and asserted that the GEC “"is expected to use a wide range of technologies and techniques to counter these campaigns,”" consistent with its statutory mandate.2121 The Senate committee report recommended up to $75.4 million for the GEC, including up to $40 million for countering foreign state propaganda and disinformation.2222 The joint explanatory statement accompanying for the FY2019-enacted legislation (P.L. 116-6) ) included up to $55.4 million for the GEC and up to $20 million for CSD, a funding level for CSD identical to the department’'s request.2323 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 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 have 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 have funded the ESCM account exclusively through the base budget, it would have provided approximately $2.38 billion of overall funding for WSP through OCO. The Senate committee bill would have 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 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 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 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 (SAAA) (P.L. 114-254).26).26 State Department officials noted 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 maintained that this proposed cancellation was based on evolving security and political conditions, and would not affect DS operations.2727 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 generally for OCO.28 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 contributions from other agencies).2929 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 maintained 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.”30"30 The Senate committee bill stipulated that of funds made available for ESCM by it and prior acts making appropriations for SFOPS, not less than $1.02 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 31 In FY2019, OBO intended to fund four CSCS projects and one MCS project (see Table 4).32).32 The House committee report noted 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. Like Section 7004(h) of the House bill, 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.33 33 Table 4. FY2019 Capital Security Cost Sharing and Maintenance Cost Sharing Project List (in thousands of U.S. dollars) Capital Security Cost Sharing Bangkok, Thailand New Office Annex Jerusalem 1,852,000 610,000 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 Moscow, Russia Project Development and Design 353,000 163,000 40,000 29 This portion of the ESCM request is detailed in Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 253. 30 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, p. 22. 31 U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, pp. 829-830. 32 Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 253. 33 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, p. 23; U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, p. 850. Congressional Research Service 9 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Maintenance and Repair CSCS-MCS Reimbursements (other agency contributions and consular fee revenues) Total State Department share 150,000 (1,335,463) 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 maintained 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.”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 housed consular operations of the former U.S. Consulate General in 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.36 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.37 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).38 The State Department’s FY2019 request for CIO totaled 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

(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 maintained 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."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 housed consular operations of the former U.S. Consulate General in 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.36 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.37 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 funding levels 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).38 The State Department's FY2019 request for CIO totaled 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.

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 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (P.L. 103-236). ). The State Department maintained that it expected 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.”42"42 The department 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 "43 The House committee bill would have provided $1.36 billion for CIO and $1.59 billion for CIPA, for a combined total of $2.95 billion for these accounts, which was 29% higher than the department’ department's request and 4% higher than the FY2018-enacted figure funding levels. The 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 was 36% higher than the department’'s request and 9% higher than the FY2018-enacted number FY2018 level. The Senate committee bill included 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 noted that appropriated monies were 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%.4444 Both committee reports called on the department to review peacekeeping missions for cost savings and work to renegotiate rates of assessment.45 45 For FY2019, P.L. 116-6 provided $1.36 billion for CIO and $1.5655 billion for CIPA, for a total of $2.92 $2.91 billion, —slightly less than both the House and Senate committee bills. This figure was still 2% higher than the FY2018-enacted figure and 2827% 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%.4646 The enacted legislation, like the House and Senate committee bills, provided a share of CIPA funds as twoyeartwo-year funds, as requested by the department. Leadership and Modernization Impact Initiative The State Department requested $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.”47 "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. Table 5. Impact Initiative Focus Areas and Keystone Projects Modernizing IT and HR Operations

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 46 U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, p. 831. 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-theexecutive-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. 47 Executive Congressional Research Service 12 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Modernizing IT and HR Operations Improve Enterprise-wide Data Availability Modernizing Global Presence, and Creating and Implementing Policy Improving Operational Efficiencies 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 was 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 were 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 were intended to implement modernization projects focusing on Human Resources issues, including leadership development, management services consolidation, data analytics, and workforce readiness initiatives.

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 was 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 were 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 were intended to implement modernization projects focusing on Human Resources issues, including leadership development, management services consolidation, data analytics, and workforce readiness initiatives.

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 (for example, see Section 7073 of P.L. 116-6) .48).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.49 Foreign Assistance50 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 requested $28.60 billion for foreign aid programs within the international affairs (function 150) budget, about 28% less than the FY2018 actual funding level. None of the requested funds were designated as OCO. The FY2019enactedFY2019 enacted appropriation provided $37.92 billion for foreign operations account, including $3.63 billion designated as OCO. Together with food aid accounts in the Agriculture appropriation, total enacted foreign aid within the international affairs budget was $39.85 billion, or 0.2% below the 48 For example, see Sections 7015, 7075, and 7076 of the S. 3108 and Sections 7015 and 7069 of H.R. 6385. See Section 7073(b)(3) of Division F, Title VII of P.L. 116-6. 50 This section prepared by Marian Lawson, Specialist in Foreign Assistance. 49 Congressional Research Service 13 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs FY2018-enacted7% below the FY2018 actual funding level and 39% above the FY2019 request. Table 6 shows foreign aid funding by type for FY2017, and FY2018 enactedactual, and the FY2019 request, committee-approved legislation, and enacted legislation. Table 6. Foreign Aid by Appropriations Type, FY2017, FY2018 EnactedActual, and FY2019 Request and Committee-approved Legislation (in billions of current U.S. dollars) FY2017 actual FY2018 enacted FY2019 request % change, FY18 to FY19 request Senate (S. 3108) FY2019 enacted (P.L. 116-6) % change, FY18 to FY19 enacted 1.63 1.62 1.38 -15% 1.62 1.76 1.67 +3.4% 18.01 16.99 11.88 -30% 16.68 17.16 16.92 -0.4% (includes P.L. 480 food aid) 9.44 9.36 6.36 -32% 9.15 9.53 9.53 -0.5% Independent Agencies 1.37 1.38 1.20 -13% 1.37 1.37 1.37 +0.0% Security Assistance 9.31 9.03 7.30 -19% 9.27 8.79 9.15 +1.4% Multilateral Assistance 2.08 1.86 1.42 -24% 1.73 1.88 1.86 0.0% Export Promotion -0.17 -0.31 -0.95 206% -0.35 -0.33 -0.34 +8.2% Foreign Aid Total, Function 150 41.66 39.91 28.60 -28% 39.50 40.19 39.85 -0.2% USAID Administration House (H.R. 6385) Bilateral Economic Assistance (includes Treasury technical assistance, McGovern-Dole, excludes independent agencies) Humanitarian Assistance Source: FY2018 and FY2019 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Congressional  

FY2017 actual

FY2018 actual

FY2019 request

% change, FY18 to FY19 request

House(H.R. 6385) Senate(S. 3108) FY2019 enacted(P.L. 116-6)

% change, FY18 to FY19 enacted

USAID Administration

1.63

1.62

1.38

-15%

1.62

1.76

1.67

+3.4%
Bilateral Economic Assistance (includes Treasury technical assistance, McGovern-Dole, excludes independent agencies)

18.01

16.99

11.88

-30%

16.68

17.16

16.92

-0.4%
Humanitarian Assistance (includes P.L. 480 food aid)

9.44

9.37

6.36

-32%

9.15

9.53

9.53

-0.5%

Independent Agencies

1.37

1.38

1.20

-13%

1.37

1.37

1.37

+0.0%

Security Assistance

9.31

9.03

7.30

-19%

9.27

8.79

9.15

+1.4%

Multilateral Assistance

2.08

1.83

1.42

-22%

1.73

1.88

1.86

0.0%

Export Promotion

-0.17

-0.08

-0.95

1,187%

-0.35

-0.33

-0.34

+8.2%

Foreign Aid Total, Function 150

41.66

40.14

28.60

-28%

39.50

40.19

39.85

-0.2%
Source: FY2019 and FY2020 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Congressional Budget Justification and FY2019 Addendum; P.L. 115-141; ; P.L. 116-6; 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 aimed 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   requestUnder bilateral economic assistance, the Development Assistance (DA), Economic Support Fund (ESF), Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia (AEECA) and Democracy Fund (DF) accounts were zero funded in the FY2019 request. Programs currently funded through these accounts would have been funded through a new Economic Support and Development Fund (ESDF) account. The proposed funding level for ESDF, $5.063 billion, was more than 36% below the FY2018 funding for the accounts it would have replaced. Fifteen countries that received DA, ESF, or AEECA in FY2017 would no longer have 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 have been zeroed out. Budget documents suggested that some unspecified activities currently funded through IO&P could have 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 have been zero-funded and all food assistance would have been funded through the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account, which would have nevertheless declined by about 17% from FY2018enactedFY2018 actual funding (see “"Humanitarian Assistance”" section below). The Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) account would have 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 were requested for IAF and ADF only for the purposes of an orderly closeout. Development Finance Institution. . The Administration requested, 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 called for $96 million for administrative expenses and $38 million for credit subsidies for DFI, but assumed that these expenses would 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 have been used to support DFI activities. The Administration sought congressional authority for the new standalone entity, which it 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, 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 eliminated and the Senate and final bill funded with $1 million. All the FY2019 SFOPS legislation, including P.L. 116-6, used the same bilateral account structure used for FY2018, not a new ESDF, and 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 Country Recipients. Under the FY2019 request, top foreign assistance recipients would not 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 have seen an increase of $200 million from FY2017, reflecting a new 10-year security assistance Memorandum of Understanding. Zambia and Uganda would both have seen an 11% increase. All other top recipients would have seen reduced aid in FY2019 compared with FY2017 (comprehensive FY2018 country allocations were not yet available), though unallocated global health and humanitarian funds (added to the request after passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018) may have changed these totals. Congressional Research Service 15 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Figure 1 and Table 7 show the requested 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, 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%

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, foreign assistance for every region would have been reduced compared to FY2018 funding. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and Sub-Saharan 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 Pacific by approximately half (51%), aid to South and Central Asia by about 4%, and aid to 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, 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. 3108S.3108) and report specified 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). 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 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
Global Health
The Administration requested $6.70 billion for global health programs in FY2019.5151 This was a 23% reduction from the FY2018 funding level, yet global health programs would 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 have been cut about 27% from FY2018-enacted actual levels, would have continued to make up the bulk (69%) of global health funding, as it hasthey have 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 have received $302 million, a 42% reduction from FY2018 funding. Assistance levels would have 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 included $8.69 billion for global health programs, the same as FY2018 funding. While total funding would remain the same, the House proposal would 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 have funded global health programs $8.792 billion, 1.2% above the FY2018 level. No subsectors would have received reduced funding and allocations for tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, family planning, nutrition, neglected tropical diseases and vulnerable children would all have increased slightly. While both bills included long-standing language preventing the use of appropriated funds to pay for abortions, the House bill, but not the Senate bill, also 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.52 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 FY2018. Humanitarian Assistance The Trump Administration’'s FY2019 budget request for humanitarian assistance totaled $6.358 billion, which was roughly 32% less than FY2018-enacted actual funding ($9.36137 billion) and about 22% of the total FY2019 foreign aid request. The request included $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 Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account (-17% from FY2018) and $3,557.4 million for the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account (-17%) (Figure 2).53).53 As in its FY2018 request, the Administration proposed 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 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 sought authority to transfer and merge IDA and MRA base funds (current authority only applies to OCO-designated funds).

Figure 2. Humanitarian Assistance, FY2013-FY2019 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 described 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.”54"54 The MRA request 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.”55"55 Consistent with last year, the request suggested that the proposed funding reduction assumes that other donors will shoulder an increased share of the overall humanitarian assistance burden worldwide. The House committee bills proposed $9.145 billion for humanitarian assistance accounts, about 2% less than FY2018 funding. The total included $1.5 billion for Food for Peace from the Agriculture appropriation but would not have funded the ERMA account. The Senate committee bills proposed $9.534 billion for humanitarian assistance, about 2% more than FY2018 funding. The total included $1.716 billion for Food for Peace and $1 million for the ERMA account. Neither bill included 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.56 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
Security Assistance
The FY2019 security assistance request within foreign operations accounts totaled $7.304 billion, a 19% reduction from the FY2018-enacted actual funding level and about 26% of the total foreign aid request. Consistent with recent years, 63% of the entire security assistance request was for FMF aid to Israel and Egypt. However, six countries were 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 have been reduced by about 36% from FY2018-enacted actual 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 described 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 have 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 have 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 was 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 have 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 was designated as OCO. The Senate committee bill included $8.789 billion for security assistance programs, a 2.6% total decrease from FY2018 funding. The INCLE account would have 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 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 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 totaled $6.354 billion, a 33% reduction from FY2018 funding levels. Proposed FY2019 allocations for key sectors, compared with FY2018 levels prescribed in legislation, included 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 requested $800 million for MCC and $396 million for Peace Corps, representing cuts of 12% and 3%, respectively. As discussed above, the budget request also proposed to merge I-AF and USADF into USAID, and requested only small amounts of funding to close out their independent activities. The House committee bill would have provided $9.383 billion for economic development assistance and specified 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 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 have funded the I-AF, USADF, Peace Corp, and MCC at the FY2018 funding level, and both bills explicitly rejected the Administration’'s proposal to merge I-AF and USADF into 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 Table A-1. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2018 Enacted andActual Comparted to FY2019 Request, House and Senate Committee Reported bill, and Enacted. (P.L. 116-6). (in millions of current U.S. dollars; numbers in parenthesis are the portion of the account totals designated as OCO) FY2018 Actual % change FY2019 Req. vs. FY2018 Actual FY2019 Request FY2019 House (H.R. 6385) FY2019 Senate (S. 3108) FY2019 Enacted (P.L. 116-6) % change FY2019 Enacted vs. FY2018 Enacted Title I. State, Broadcasting & Related Agencies, TOTAL 16,219.41 (4,179.55) 13,262.41 -18.23% 16,382.69 (3,030.87) 16,340.78 (4,107.77) 16,456.67 (4,365.77) 1.46% Administration of Foreign Affairs, Subtotal 12,169.87 (3,115.85) 10,092.28 -17.07% 12,243.87 (3,030.87) 12,005.61 (3,044.07) 12,328.53 (3,280.87) 1.30% Diplomatic & Consular Program 8,720.41 (2,975.97) 7,812.74 -10.41% 8,797.41 (2,975.97) 8,920.41 (2,975.97) 9,173.92 (3,225.97) 5.20% (of which Worldwide Security Protection) [3,756.87] (2,376.12) [3,698.12] [-1.56%] [3,759.87] (2,376.12) [3,817.90] (2,376.12) [4,095.90] (2,626.12) [9.02%] 103.40 92.77 -10.28% 103.40 92.77 92.77 -10.28% 2,314.47 (71.78) 1,657.54 -28.38% 2,311.47 1,916.40 1,975.45 -14.65% [1,477.24] [919.54] -37.08% [1,546.02] [1,126.30] [777.20] -47.39% Ed. & Cultural Exchanges 646.14 159.00 -76.94% 646.14 690.59 700.95 8.48% Office of Inspector General 145.73 (68.1) 142.20 -2.42% 145.73 (54.90) 145.73 (68.10) 145.73 (54.90) 0% 8.03 7.00 -12.83% 8.03 8.03 8.03 0% 30.89 25.89 -16.19% 30.89 30.89 30.89 0% Emergency-Diplomatic & Consular Services 7.89 7.89 0.00% 7.89 7.89 7.89 0% Repatriation Loans 1.30 1.30 0.00% 1.30 1.30 1.30 0% 31.96 26.31 -17.11% 31.96 31.96 31.96 0% 0.74 .74 0.00% 0.74 0.74 0.74 0% 158.90 158.90 0.00% 158.90 158.90 158.90 0% Capital Investment Fund Embassy Security, Construction & Maintenance (of which Worldwide Security Upgrades) Representation Expenses Protection of Foreign Missions & Officials Payment American Institute Taiwan International Chancery Center Foreign Service Retirement CRS-21 (mandatory)a FY2018 Actual % change FY2019 Req. vs. FY2018 Actual FY2019 Request FY2019 House (H.R. 6385) FY2019 Senate (S. 3108) FY2019 Enacted (P.L. 116-6) % change FY2019 Enacted vs. FY2018 Enacted International Orgs, Subtotal 2,849.49 (1,063.70) 2,291.16 -19.60% 2,953.91 3,124.27 (1,063.70) 2,911.27 (1,084.90) 2.17% Contributions to Int’l Orgs 1,467.41 (96.24) 1,095.05 -25.38% 1,364.42 1,440.38 (96.24) 1,360.27 (96.24) -7.30% Contributions, International Peacekeeping 1,382.08 (967.46) 1,196.11 -13.46% 1,589.50 1,683.88 (967.46) 1,551.00 (988.66) 12.22% 137.15 117.30 -14.47% 137.15 141.44 141.44 3.13% Int’l Boundary/U.S.-Mexico 77.53 71.21 -8.15 77.53 77.53 77.53 0% American Sections 13.26 12.18 -8.14% 12.73 13.26 13.26 0% International Fisheries 46.36 33.91 -26.86% 46.88 50.65 50.65 9.25% International Broadcast, Subtotal 807.69 661.13 -18.15% 807.69 814.19 807.90 .02% Broadcasting Operations 797.99 656.34 -17.75% 797.99 804.49 798.20 .02% 9.70 4.79 -50.62% 9.70 9.70 9.70 0% 241.95 87.28 -63.93% 225.33 242.03 252.78 4.48% Asia Foundation 17.00 — -100.00% 17.00 17.00 17.00 0% U.S. Institute of Peace 37.88 20.00 -47.20 37.88 37.88 38.63 1.98% Center for Middle East-West DialogueTrust & Program 0.14 0.19 35.71% 0.19 0.19 0.19 35.71% Eisenhower Exchange Programs 0.16 0.19 18.75% 0.19 0.19 0.19 18.75% Israeli Arab Scholarship Program 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 0.07 0% 16.70 — -100.00% — 16.70 16.70 0% 170.00 67.28 -60.42% 170.00 170.00 180.00 5.88% 13.26 13.26 0.00% 14.75 13.25 14.75 11.24% Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad 0.68 .68 0.00% 0.68 0.68 0.68 0% International Religious Freedom 4.50 4.50 0.00% 4.50 4.50 4.50 0% Security & Cooperation in Europe 2.58 2.58 0.00% 2.58 2.58 2.58 0% International Commission subtotal (Function 300) Capital Improvements Related Approps, Subtotal East-West Center National Endowment for Democracy Other Commissions, Subtotal CRS-22 FY2018 Actual % change FY2019 Req. vs. FY2018 Actual FY2019 Request FY2019 House (H.R. 6385) FY2019 Senate (S. 3108) FY2019 Enacted (P.L. 116-6) % change FY2019 Enacted vs. FY2018 Enacted Congressional-Exec Commission on People’s Republic of China 2.00 2.00 0.00% 2.00 2.00 2.00 0% U.S.-China Economic and Security Review 3.50 3.50 0.00% 3.50 3.50 3.50 0% Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission — — 0.00% 1.50 — 1.50 N/A FOREIGN OPERATION, TOTAL 38,219.82 (7,838.45) 28,595.70 -25.18% 37,794.21 (4,987.13) 38,261.12 (3,892.23) 37,920.23 (3,634.23) -0.19% Title II. Admin of Foreign Assistance 1,620.08 (160.57) 1,377.32 -14.98% 1,623.68 (158.07) 1,757.48 (160.57) 1,674.48 (158.07) 3.36% USAID Operating Expenses 1,347.68 (158.07) 1,114.92 -17.27% 1,347.68 (158.07) 1,456.98 (158.07) 1,372.88 (158.07) 1.87% 197.10 190.90 -3.15% 200.00 225.00 225.00 14.16% 75.30 (2.50) 71.5 -5.05% 76.00 75.50 (2.50) 76.60 1.73% 25,799.54 (6,254.14) 19,444.88 -24.63% 25,510.81 (4,829.06) 26,164.53 (2,307.92) 25,891.20 (3,222.78) 0.36% 8,690.00 6,702.60 -22.87% 8,690.00 8,792.00 8,837.45 1.70% GHP (USAID) [3,020.00] [1,927.50] [-36.18%] [3,020.00] [3,072.00] [3,117.45] 3.23% GHP (State Dept.) [5,670.00] [4,775.10] [-15.78%] [5,670.00] [5,720.00] [5,720.00] 0.88% 3,000.00 — -100.00% 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 0.00% 4,285.31 (1,588.78) 3,557.41 -16.99% 4,285.31 (1,287.58 4,385.31 (584.28) 4,385.31 (584.28) 2.33% Transition Initiatives 92.04 (62.04) 87.04 -5.43% 96.15 92.04 (62.04) 92.04 (62.04) 0.00% Complex Crises Fund 30.00 (20.00) — -100.00% — 30.00 30.00 0.00% 10.00 — -100.00% 9.12 10.00 10.00 0.00% [55.00] — -100.00% [40.00] [55.00] [55.00] 0.00% USAID Capital Investment Fund USAID Inspector General Title III. Bilateral Economic Assistance Global Health Programs (GHP), State + USAID Development Assistance International Disaster Assistance (IDA) Development Credit Authority—Admin Development Credit Authority Subsidy CRS-23 FY2018 Actual Economic Support Fund % change FY2019 Req. vs. FY2018 Actual FY2019 Request FY2019 House (H.R. 6385) FY2019 Senate (S. 3108) FY2019 Enacted (P.L. 116-6) % change FY2019 Enacted vs. FY2018 Enacted 3,968.85 (2,152.12) — -100.00% 3,696.90 (1,178.25) 4,021.55 (1,167.62) 3,717.86 (1,172.34) -6.32% — 5,063.13 — — — — 0.00% Democracy Fund 215.50 — -100.00% 225.00 232.80 227.20 5.43% Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia 750.33 — -100.00% 750.33 770.33 760.33 1.33% 3,359.00 (2,431.20) 2,800.38 -16.63% 3,360.00 (2,363.23) 3,432.00 (493.98) 3,432.00 (1,404.12) 2.17% 1.00 — -100.00% — 1.00 1.00 0.00% -11.93% 1,368.00 1,367.50 1,368.00 0.03 Economic Support and Development Fund Migration & Refugee Assistance Emergency Refugee and Migration Independent Agencies subtotal 1,367.50 Peace Corps 410.00 396.20 -3.37% 410.50 410.00 410.50 0.12% Millennium Challenge Corporation 905.00 800.00 -11.60% 905.00 905.00 905.00 0.00% Inter-American Foundation 22.50 3.48 -84.53% 22.50 22.50 22.50 0.00% African Development Foundation 30.00 4.64 -84.60% 30.00 30.00 30.00 0.00% Department of the Treasury, subtotal 30.00 30.00 0.00% 30.00 30.00 30.00 0.00% Department of the Treasury Technical Assistance 30.00 30.00 0.00% 30.00 30.00 30.00 0.00 9,025.25 (1,423.74) 7304.06 -19.07% 9,273.82 8,789.28 (1,423.75) 9,153.08 (554.59) 1.42% International Narcotics Control & Law Enforcement 1,368.80 (417.95) 880.35 -35.68% 1,435.15 1,404.90 (417.95) 1,497.47 9.40% Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining 876.05 (220.58) 690.31 -21.20% 876.05 860.66 (220.58) 864.55 -1.31% Peacekeeping Operations 537.92 (325.21) 291.4 -45.83% 490.40 477.42 (325.21) 488.67 (325.21) -9.16% 110.88 95 -14.32% 110.88 110.68 110.78 -0.09% 6,131.61 (460.00) 5,347.00 -12.80% 6,361.34 5,935.61 (460.00) 6,191.61 (229.37) 0.98% Title IV. Int’l Security Assistance International Military Education & Training Foreign Military Financing CRS-24 FY2018 Actual Title V. Multilateral Assistance % change FY2019 Req. vs. FY2018 Actual FY2019 Request FY2019 House (H.R. 6385) FY2019 Senate (S. 3108) FY2019 Enacted (P.L. 116-6) % change FY2019 Enacted vs. FY2018 Enacted 1,856.70 1,416.43 -23.71% 1,731.50 1,875.44 1,856.70 0.00% International Organizations & Programs 339.00 — -100.00% 213.80 358.75 339.00 0.00% World Bank: Global Environment Facility 139.58 68.3 -51.07% 139.58 136.56 139.58 0.00% 1,097.01 1,097.01 0.00% 1,097.01 1,099.01 1,097.01 0.00% Asian Development Fund 47.40 47.4 0.00% 47.40 47.40 47.40 0.00% African Development Bank - capital 32.42 32.42 0.00% 32.42 32.42 32.42 0.00% 171.30 171.3 0.00% 171.30 171.30 171.30 0.00% 30.00 — -100.00% 30.00 30.00 30.00 0.00% Title VI. Export Assistance -81.75 -946.99 — -345.60 -325.60 -335.60 8.15% Export-Import Bank (net) -74.55 -633.1 — -99.30 -89.30 -99.30 -28.56% -235.80 — — -325.80 -315.80 -315.80 25.92% Development Finance Institute — -326 — — — — Trade & Development Agency 79.50 12.11 -84.77% 79.50 79.50 79.50 0.00 54,439.23 (12,018.00) 41,858.11 -23.11% 54,176.90 (8,018.00) 54,601.90 (8,000.00) 54,376.90 (8,000.00) +0.31% (-33.43%) -23.77 — — — -25.00 -319.62 54,415.46 (12,018.00) 41,858.11 -23.08% 54,176.90 (8,018.00) 54,576.90 (8,000.00) 54,376.90 (8,000.00) World Bank: Int’l. Development Association African Development Fund International Fund for Agricultural Development Overseas Private Investment Corporation State, Foreign Ops & Related Programs, TOTAL Add Ons/ Rescissions, netb State-Foreign Ops Total, Net of Rescissions +0.37% (-33.4%) 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, P.L. 116-6, Division F, 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 amount designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) and are subsumed in the larger account number above them. “Enduring” funding is also sometimes referred to as “base” or “ongoing” funding in budget documents. Numbers may not add due to rounding. 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.  

FY2018 Actual

FY2019 Request

% change FY2019 Req. vs. FY2018 Actual FY2019 House(H.R. 6385) FY2019 Senate(S. 3108) FY2019 Enacted(P.L. 116-6) % change FY2019 Enacted vs. FY2018 Actual

Title I. State, Broadcasting & Related Agencies, TOTAL

16,318.98

(4,179.55)

13,262.86

-18.73%

16,382.69

(3,030.87)

16,340.78

(4,107.77)

16,456.68

(4,365.77)

0.84%

Administration of Foreign Affairs, Subtotal

12,269.54

(3,115.85)

10,092.28

-17.75%

12,243.87

(3,030.87)

12,005.61

(3,044.07)

12,328.53

(3,280.87)

0.48%

Diplomatic & Consular Program

8,820.09

(2,975.97)

7,812.74

-11.42%

8,797.41

(2,975.97)

8,920.41

(2,975.97)

9,173.92

(3,225.97)

4.01%

(of which Worldwide Security Protection)

[3,756.87]

(2,376.12)

[3,698.12]

[-1.56%]

[3,759.87]

(2,376.12)

[3,817.90]

(2,376.12)

[4,095.90]

(2,626.12)

[9.02%]

Capital Investment Fund

103.40

92.77

-10.28%

103.40

92.77

92.77

-10.28%

Embassy Security, Construction & Maintenance

2,314.47

(71.78)

1,657.54

-28.38%

2,311.47

1,916.40

1,975.45

-14.65%

(of which Worldwide Security Upgrades)

[1,549.02]

[919.54]

-40.64%

[1,546.02]

[1,126.30]

[1,198.25]

-22.64%

Ed. & Cultural Exchanges

646.14

159.00

-75.39%

646.14

690.59

700.95

8.48%

Office of Inspector General

145.73

(68.1)

142.20

-2.42%

145.73

(54.90)

145.73

(68.10)

145.73

(54.90)

0%

Representation Expenses

8.03

7.00

-12.83%

8.03

8.03

8.03

0%

Protection of Foreign Missions & Officials

30.89

25.89

-16.19%

30.89

30.89

30.89

0%

Emergency-Diplomatic & Consular Services

7.89

7.89

0.00%

7.89

7.89

7.89

0%

Repatriation Loans

1.30

1.30

0.00%

1.30

1.30

1.30

0%

Payment American Institute Taiwan

31.96

26.31

-17.68%

31.96

31.96

31.96

0%

International Chancery Center

0.74

.74

0.00%

0.74

0.74

0.74

0%
Foreign Service Retirement (mandatory)a

158.90

158.90

0.00%

158.90

158.90

158.90

0%

International Orgs, Subtotal

2,849.39

(1,063.70)

2,291.16

-19.59%

2,953.91

3,124.27

(1,063.70)

2,911.27

(1,084.90)

2.17%

Contributions to Int'l Orgs

1,467.41

(96.24)

1,095.05

-25.38%

1,364.42

1,440.38

(96.24)

1,360.27

(96.24)

-7.30%

Contributions, International Peacekeeping

1,381.98

(967.46)

1,196.11

-13.45%

1,589.50

1,683.88

(967.46)

1,551.00

(988.66)

12.23%

International Commission subtotal (Function 300)

137.15

117.31

-14.47%

137.15

141.44

141.44

3.13%

Int'l Boundary/U.S.-Mexico

77.53

71.22

-8.14%

77.53

77.53

77.53

0%

American Sections

13.26

12.18

-8.14%

12.73

13.26

13.26

0%

International Fisheries

46.36

33.91

-26.86%

46.88

50.65

50.65

9.25%

International Broadcast, Subtotal 

807.69

661.13

-18.15%

807.69

814.19

807.90

.03%

Broadcasting Operations

797.99

656.34

-17.75%

797.99

804.49

798.20

.03%

Capital Improvements

9.70

4.79

-50.62%

9.70

9.70

9.70

0%

Related Approps, Subtotal 

241.95

87.73

-63.74%

225.33

242.03

252.78

4.48%

Asia Foundation

17.00

—

-100.00%

17.00

17.00

17.00

0%

U.S. Institute of Peace

37.88

20.00

-47.20

37.88

37.88

38.63

1.98%

Center for Middle East-West Dialogue-Trust & Program

0.14

0.19

35.71%

0.19

0.19

0.19

35.71%

Eisenhower Exchange Programs

0.16

0.19

18.75%

0.19

0.19

0.19

18.75%

Israeli Arab Scholarship Program

0.07

0.07

—

0.07

0.07

0.07

0%

East-West Center

16.70

—

-100.00%

—

16.70

16.70

0%

National Endowment for Democracy

170.00

67.28

-60.42%

170.00

170.00

180.00

5.88%

Other Commissions, Subtotal 

13.26

13.26

0.00%

14.75

13.25

14.76

11.31%

Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad

0.68

.68

0.00%

0.68

0.68

0.68

0%

International Religious Freedom

4.50

4.50

0.00%

4.50

4.50

4.50

0%

Security & Cooperation in Europe

2.58

2.58

0.00%

2.58

2.58

2.58

0%

Congressional-Exec Commission on People's Republic of China

2.00

2.00

0.00%

2.00

2.00

2.00

0%

U.S.-China Economic and Security Review

3.50

3.50

0.00%

3.50

3.50

3.50

0%

Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission

—

—

0%

1.50

—

1.50

N/A

FOREIGN OPERATION, TOTAL

38,219.82

(7,838.45)

28,595.70

-25.18%

37,794.21

(4,987.13)

38,261.12

(3,892.23)

37,920.23

(3,634.23)

-0.78%

Title II. Admin of Foreign Assistance

1,620.08

(160.57)

1,377.32

-14.98%

1,623.68

(158.07)

1,757.48

(160.57)

1,674.48

(158.07)

3.36%

USAID Operating Expenses

1,347.68

(158.07)

1,114.92

-17.27%

1,347.68

(158.07)

1,456.98

(158.07)

1,372.88

(158.07)

1.87%

USAID Capital Investment Fund

197.10

190.90

-3.15%

200.00

225.00

225.00

14.16%

USAID Inspector General

75.30

(2.50)

71.5

-5.05%

76.00

75.50

(2.50)

76.60

1.73%

Title III. Bilateral Economic Assistance

25,831.03

(6,254.14)

19,444.88

-24.72%

25,510.81

(4,829.06)

26,164.53

(2,307.92)

25,891.20

(3,222.78)

0.23%

Global Health Programs (GHP), State + USAID

8,722.50

6,702.60

-23.16%

8,690.00

8,792.00

8,837.45

1.32%

GHP (USAID)

[3,052.50]

[1,927.50]

-36.86

[3,020.00]

[3,072.00]

[3,117.45]

3.23%

GHP (State Dept.)

[5,670.00]

[4,775.10]

-15.78

[5,670.00]

[5,720.00]

[5,720.00]

0.88%

Development Assistance

3,000.00

—

-100.00%

3,000.00

3,000.00

3,000.00

0.00%

International Disaster Assistance (IDA)

4,285.31

(1,588.78)

3,557.41

-16.99

4,285.31

(1,287.58

4,385.31

(584.28)

4,385.31

(584.28)

2.33%

Transition Initiatives

92.04

(62.04)

87.04

-5.40%

96.15

92.04

(62.04)

92.04

(62.04)

0.00%

Complex Crises Fund

30.00

(20.00)

—

-100.00%

—

30.00

30.00

0.00%

Development Credit Authority—Admin

10.00

—

-100.00%

9.12

10.00

10.00

0.00%

Development Credit Authority Subsidy

[55.00]

—

-100.00%

[40.00]

[55.00]

[55.00]

0.00%

Economic Support Fund

3,960.85

(2,152.12)

—

-100.00%

3,696.90

(1,178.25)

4,021.55

(1,167.62)

3,717.86

(1,172.34)

-6.13%

Economic Support and Development Fund

—

5,063.13

—

—

—

—

0.00%

Democracy Fund

215.50

—

-100.00%

225.00

232.80

227.20

5.43%

Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia

750.33

—

-100.00%

750.33

770.33

760.33

1.33%

Migration & Refugee Assistance

3,366.00

(2,431.20)

2,800.38

-16.80%

3,360.00

(2,363.23)

3,432.00

(493.98)

3,432.00

(1,404.12)

1.96%

Emergency Refugee and Migration

1.00

—

-100.00%

—

1.00

1.00

0.00%

Independent Agenciessubtotal

1,367.50

1,204.32

-11.93%

1,368.00

1,367.50

1,368.00

0.00%

Peace Corps

410.00

396.20

-3.37%

410.50

410.00

410.50

0.12%

Millennium Challenge Corporation

905.00

800.00

-11.60%

905.00

905.00

905.00

0.00%

Inter-American Foundation

22.50

3.48

-84.53%

22.50

22.50

22.50

0.00%

African Development Foundation

30.00

4.64

-84.60%

30.00

30.00

30.00

0.00%

Department of the Treasury, subtotal

30.00

30.00

0.00%

30.00

30.00

30.00

0.00%

Department of the Treasury Technical Assistance

30.00

30.00

0.00%

30.00

30.00

30.00

0.00

Title IV. Int'l Security Assistance

9,025.26

(1,423.75)

7,304.06

-19.07%

9,273.82

8,789.28

(1,423.75)

9,153.08

(554.59)

1.42%

International Narcotics Control & Law Enforcement

1,368.80

(417.95)

880.35

-35.68%

1,435.15

1,404.90

(417.95)

1,497.47

9.40%

Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining

876.05

(220.58)

690.31

-21.20%

876.05

860.66

(220.58)

864.55

-1.31%

Peacekeeping Operations

537.93

(325.21)

291.40

-45.83%

490.40

477.42

(325.21)

488.67

(325.21)

-9.16%

International Military Education & Training

110.88

95.00

-14.32%

110.88

110.68

110.78

-0.09%

Foreign Military Financing

6,131.61

(460.00)

5,347.00

-12.80%

6,361.34

5,935.61

(460.00)

6,191.61

(229.37)

0.98%

Title V. Multilateral Assistance

1,825.20

1,416.43

-22.40%

1,731.50

1,875.44

1,856.70

1.73%

International Organizations & Programs

307.50

—

-100.00%

213.80

358.75

339.00

10.24%

World Bank: Global Environment Facility

139.58

68.3

-51.07%

139.58

136.56

139.58

0.00%

World Bank: Int'l. Development Association

1,097.01

1,097.01

0.00%

1,097.01

1,099.01

1,097.01

0.00%

Asian Development Fund

47.40

47.4

0.00%

47.40

47.40

47.40

0.00%

African Development Bank - capital

32.42

32.42

0.00%

32.42

32.42

32.42

0.00%

African Development Fund

171.30

171.3

0.00%

171.30

171.30

171.30

0.00%

International Fund for Agricultural Development

30.00

—

-100.00%

30.00

30.00

30.00

0.00%

Title VI. Export Assistance

-81.75

-946.99

—

-345.60

-325.60

-335.60

310.52%

Export-Import Bank (net)

74.55

-633.1

—

-99.30

-89.30

-99.30

-233.20%

Overseas Private Investment Corporation

-235.80

—

—

-325.80

-315.80

-315.80

33.93%

Development Finance Institute

—

-326

—

—

—

—

 

Trade & Development Agency

79.50

12.11

-84.77%

79.50

79.50

79.50

0.00

State, Foreign Ops & Related Programs, TOTAL

54,538.80

(12,018.00)

41,858.56

-23.25%

54,176.90

(8,018.00)

54,601.90

(8,000.00)

54,376.91(8,000.00) -0.30%(-33.43%) Add Ons/ Rescissions, netb

-23.77

—

—

—

-25.00

-319.62
 

State-Foreign Ops Total, Net of Rescissions

54,515.03

(12,018.00)

41,858.56

-23.22%

54,176.90

(8,018.00)

54,576.90

(8,000.00)

54,057.29(8,000.00)

-0.84%(-33.4%)

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, P.L. 116-6, Division F, 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 amount designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) and are subsumed in the larger account number above them. "Enduring" funding is also sometimes referred to as "base" or "ongoing" funding in budget documents. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

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. FY2018 rescissions include $23.76 million from Development Assistance. 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. Rescission in P.L. 116-6 included $12.42 million in INCLE funds and $11.0 million in FMS funding and $301 million in OCO funds. CRS-25 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs 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 Actual, and FY2019 Request and Enacted (in millions of current U.S. dollars) FY2017 Actual State-Foreign Operations, excluding commissionsa FY2018 Actual FY2019 Request FY2019 Enacted (P.L. 116-6) % change FY18 vs FY19 Enacted 57,582.55 54,060.26 41,727.52 54,235.46 +0.3% 2.37 2.41 2.41 2.41 0.0% 91.50 93.70 97.50 95.00 +1.3% 1,900.00 1,716.00 0.00 1,716.00 0.0% 201.63 207.63 0.00 210.26 +1.3% — — — 59,778.05 56,080.00 41,827.43 56,259.13 +0.4% Commerce-Justice-Science Foreign Claims Settlement Commission Int’l Trade Commission Agriculture P.L. 480 McGovern-Dole Local/Regional Procurement Total International Affairs (150) Source: Congressional Budget Justification, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs,   FY2017Actual

FY2018 Actual

FY2019Request

FY2019 Enacted (P.L. 116-6)

% change FY18 vs FY19 Enacted

State-Foreign Operations, excluding commissionsa

57,582.55

54,388.39

41,728.00

54,220.71

-0.3%

Commerce-Justice-Science

 

 

 

 

 

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

2.37

2.41

2.41

2.41

0.0%

Int'l Trade Commission

91.50

93.70

97.50

95.00

+1.3%

Agriculture

 

 

 

 

 

P.L. 480

1,900.00

1,716.00

0.00

1,716.00

0.0%

McGovern-Dole

201.63

207.63

0.00

210.26

+1.3%

Local/Regional Procurement

—

—

—
 

 

Total International Affairs (150)

59,778.05

56,408.13

41,827.91

56,244.38

-0.3%
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; ; H.R. 3268; S. 1780, P.L. 115-141, ; P.L. 116-6,; U.S. International Trade Commission FY2019 Budget Justification,; and CRS calculations. a. 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). Congressional Research Service 26 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appendix C. SFOPS Organizational Chart

Source: Congressional Research Service. Appendix D. Glossary

AEECA

Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia

BBA

Congressional Research Service. Congressional Research Service 27 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appendix D. Glossary AEECA Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia BBA Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, P.L. 114-74 BCA

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

Susan B. Epstein, Specialist in Foreign Policy ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
Marian L. Lawson, Specialist in Foreign Assistance Policy ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
Cory R. Gill, Analyst in Foreign Affairs ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])

Footnotes

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.

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.

For example, see Section 7073 of Division F, Title VII of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6).

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.

15.

For example, see Section 7069 of H.R. 6385 and Section 7075 of S. 3108.

16.

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.

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.

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 §1287(e) of P.L. 114-328.

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. 31-32.

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.

29.

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

30.

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

31.

U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, pp. 829-830.

32.

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

33.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, p. 23; U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, p. 850.

34.

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

35.

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.

40.

Ibid., p. 311.

41.

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.

46.

U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, p. 831.

47. 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. 48.

For example, see Sections 7015, 7075, and 7076 of S. 3108 and Sections 7015 and 7069 of H.R. 6385.

49.

See Section 7073(b)(3) of Division F, Title VII of P.L. 116-6.

50.

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

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.

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.

56.

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

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 Congressional Research Service 28 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Author Information Susan B. Epstein Specialist in Foreign Policy Cory R. Gill Analyst in Foreign Affairs Marian L. Lawson Specialist in Foreign Assistance Policy Disclaimer This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. Congressional Research Service R45168 · VERSION 10 · UPDATED 29