State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

Susan B. Epstein
Specialist in Foreign Policy
Marian Leonardo Lawson
Analyst in Foreign Assistance
Tamara J. Resler
Analyst in Foreign Affairs
July 22, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41905
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

Summary
Some in the 112th Congress view the foreign affairs budget as a place to cut funds in order to
reduce the budget deficit. Foreign affairs expenditures typically amount to about 1% of the annual
budget. Others, including Members of Congress of both political parties, view a robust foreign
affairs budget as essential for America’s national security and foreign policy interests.
The State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies appropriations bills, in addition
to funding U.S. diplomatic and foreign aid activities, have been the primary legislative vehicle
through which Congress reviews the U.S. international affairs budget and influences executive
branch foreign policy making in recent years. (Congress has not amended foreign policy issues
through a complete authorization process for State Department diplomatic activities since 2003
and for foreign aid programs since 1985.) After a period of decline in the 1980s and 1990s,
funding for State Department operations, international broadcasting, and foreign aid rose steadily
from FY2002 to FY2010, largely because of ongoing assistance to Iraq, Afghanistan, new global
health programs, and increasing assistance to Pakistan. It declined again in FY2011 when
Congress passed a continuing resolution (P.L. 112-10) significantly reducing U.S. government-
wide expenditures, including foreign affairs.
On February 14, 2011, the Obama Administration submitted its FY2012 budget proposal before
enactment of the final FY2011 appropriations and the current congressional emphasis on budget
reductions. The FY2012 request sought $61.5 billion for the international affairs budget,
including a core budget plus extraordinary Overseas Contingency Operation funds for frontline
states in FY2012. This represents an increase of 21.8% over the enacted FY2011 funding level
including an across-the-board rescission of 0.2% passed by the 112th Congress on April 14, 2011.
Compared with the FY2010 enacted appropriation, the FY2012 foreign affairs request represents
an 7.7% increase.
This report focuses on the $59.65 billion requested for programs and activities funded through the
State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which excludes some portions of the International
Affairs request such as funding for certain commissions and foreign food aid requested as part of
other budget functions. The Administration’s FY2012 budget request seeks significant increases
for State Department’s administration of foreign affairs, security assistance, and various
multilateral environmental accounts. Programs for which the Administration recommended
significantly reduced funding, compared with enacted FY2011 levels, are funding for the East-
West Center, Debt Restructuring, and Emergency Refugee and Migration assistance.
The House-passed FY2012 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 34, agreed to on April 15, 2011) calls
for significant cuts in the foreign affairs budget. It provides new budget authority for the
International Affairs 150 Function set at $36.6 billion, as compared to the House and Senate
committee-approved allocation of $54 billion for the 150 Function the previous year. The Senate
may take up the budget resolution later in the year.
This report analyzes the FY2012 request, including State Department, international broadcasting,
and foreign aid highlights, recent-year funding trends, and congressional action related to FY2012
State-Foreign Operations legislation. This report will be updated to reflect congressional action.
For details on the FY2011 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, see CRS Report R41228,
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2011 Budget and Appropriations.
Congressional Research Service

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Recent Developments.................................................................................................................. 1
The FY2012 Request .................................................................................................................. 2
FY2012 Budget Request: State Department and Related Agencies......................................... 3
Key State Department Issues ........................................................................................... 4
FY2012 Budget Request: Foreign Operations........................................................................ 6
Key Foreign Operations Issues ........................................................................................ 6
State-Foreign Operations Background and Trends ..................................................................... 11
Top 10 U.S. Foreign Aid Recipient Countries ................................................................ 14
Regional Distribution .................................................................................................... 15
Sector Distribution ........................................................................................................ 16

Figures
Figure 1. Composition of the State-Foreign Operations Budget Request, FY2012........................ 3
Figure 2. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2002-FY2012........................................ 12
Figure 3. State Department and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2002-FY2012.................. 13
Figure 4. Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2002-FY2012................................................. 14
Figure 5. Regional Distribution of Foreign Aid, FY20010 and FY2012 Request ........................ 16

Tables
Table 1. Status of State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2012........................................... 2
Table 2. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2002-FY2012 ......................................... 12
Table 3. State Department and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2002-FY2012 ................... 13
Table 4. Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2002-FY2012 .................................................. 13
Table 5. Top 10 Recipients of U.S. Foreign Aid in FY2010, FY2012 Request ............................ 15
Table 6. Selected Sector Funding, FY2011 Request and FY2012 Request .................................. 17
Table C-1. State Department and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2010-FY2012 ............... 20
Table D-1. Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2010-FY2012 .............................................. 23
Table E-1. International Affairs (150) Budget Account, FY2010-FY2012 .................................. 27

Appendixes
Appendix A. Structure of State-Foreign Operations Appropriations ........................................... 18
Appendix B. Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... 19
Appendix C. State Department and Related Agencies Appropriations ........................................ 20
Congressional Research Service

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

Appendix D. Foreign Operations Appropriations ....................................................................... 23
Appendix E. International Affairs (150) Budget Account ........................................................... 27

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 28
Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 28

Congressional Research Service

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

Introduction
With a campaign to significantly reduce the budget deficit, some in the 112th Congress see foreign
affairs funds, particularly for foreign aid programs, as expenditures that can be cut in order to
reduce the deficit. Foreign affairs spending typically amounts to about 1% of the total budget.
Others, including Members of Congress in both political parties and outgoing Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates, view a robust foreign affairs budget as essential to promoting U.S.
national security and foreign policy interests, perhaps even saving long-term spending by
preventing the much costlier use of troops overseas. The 112th Congress is expected to introduce
and debate the annual State Department, Foreign Operations and Related Agencies appropriations
(State-Foreign Ops) legislation this summer.
The State-Foreign Ops appropriation funds
Treatment of Overseas Contingency
most programs and activities within the
Operations Funds
international affairs budget account, known as
The Administration, for the first time, divided the
Function 150, including foreign economic and
FY2012 International Affairs request into two parts: the
security assistance, contributions to
“core" budget request reflecting "enduring" needs, and
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), described in
international organizations and multilateral
the Congressional Budget Justification as extraordinary,
financial institutions, State Department and
temporary costs in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Of the
U.S. Agency for International Development
$19.52 billion requested for the State Department and
(USAID) operations, public diplomacy, and
related agencies, $4.39 billion is designated as OCO,
international broadcasting programs. The bill
while $4.32 billion of the $40.13 billion foreign
operations request is designated OCO. This approach
does not align perfectly with the international
reflects the way that the Department of Defense has
affairs budget, however. Food aid, which is
presented its budget in recent years. However, to
appropriated through the Agriculture
facilitate year-to-year comparison, and make readers
appropriations bill, and the International Trade
aware of the full extent of State-Foreign Operations
Commission and Foreign Claims Settlement
funding, the funding levels in this report, unless otherwise
stated, include both core and OCO funds. As a result,
Commission, both funded through the
they may differ from figures used in Administration or
Commerce-Science-Justice appropriation, are
committee documents that exclude OCO funds.
international affairs (Function 150) programs
not funded through the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill. Furthermore, a number of
international commissions that are not part of the Function 150, such as the International
Boundary and Water Commission, are funded through the State-Foreign Operations bill. A chart
illustrating the organizational structure of the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill is
provided in Appendix A.
This report focuses on only the accounts funded through the State-Foreign Operations
appropriations bill, but provides appropriations figures for the entire international affairs
(Function 150) budget in Appendix E.
Recent Developments
Most recent events and congressional activity related to the State-Foreign Operations
appropriations include
• The House Appropriations Committee announced on May 11, 2011 the budget
subcommittee allocations, or “302(b)s”, which set the State-Foreign Operations
funding ceiling at $39.6 billion, an 18% decrease from the FY2011 total of $48.2
Congressional Research Service
1

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

billion and 22% below the President’s request of $50.95 billion. These figures
exclude funds for overseas contingency operations, which do not count toward
the 302(b)allocation.
• Earlier, on April 15, 2011 the House Budget Committee passed a budget
resolution (H.Con.Res. 34) recommending $36.6 billion in new budget authority
for the International Affairs account, and an additional $8.7 billion in overseas
contingency funds for State Department and foreign operations programs
accounted for under a separate “Global War on Terrorism” budget function. At
$45.3 billion, total budget authority approved under the resolution for
International Affairs accounts would be 26% less than the Administration
requested.
• On February 14, 2011, the Obama Administration submitted its FY2012 budget
request to Congress. Hearings on various aspects of the international affairs
budget request were held throughout March and April.
Table 1. Status of State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2012
Subcomittee
Conf. Rept.
Markup
Full Committee
Floor
Passed
Conference
Public Law
House Senate House Senate House Senate Agreement House Senate
Signed
no
action
taken


The FY2012 Request
On February 14, 2011, the Obama Administration sent its FY2012 budget request to Congress,
with a total of $59.65 billion requested for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs. The budget, which the Administration was compiling a year before the 112th
Congress began focusing on reducing the deficit, represents an 8.2% increase from enacted
FY2010 funding, including the FY2010 supplemental, and a 21.8% increase over the FY2011
enacted level. Figure 1 provides a breakout of the request by assistance type.
Congressional Research Service
2


State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

Figure 1. Composition of the State-Foreign Operations Budget Request, FY2012

Source: Fiscal Year 2012 Budget of the United States Government and CRS calculations.
Note: MCC=Millennium Challenge Corporation
Figure 1 shows the major categories of foreign affairs funding requested for FY2012 and what
percentage of the total foreign affairs request each comprises. The Administration’s priorities on
foreign affairs funding for FY2012 as compared with those in FY2011 would have State
Department Administration of Foreign Affairs funding increase from 22% in the FY2011 request
to 25%, Bilateral Economic Aid funding decrease from 46% in the FY2011 request to 39%, and
Security Aid funding increase from 12% in the FY2011 request to 19%. These three categories
make up more than 80% of the total foreign affairs funding requested. For a full listing of funds
requested for State, Foreign Operations and Related Agency accounts, see Appendix C and
Appendix D. (For a description of all the accounts, see CRS Report R40482, State, Foreign
Operations Appropriations: A Guide to Component Accounts
, by Curt Tarnoff.)
FY2012 Budget Request: State Department and Related Agencies
The Administration’s FY2012 budget request for the Department of State, international
broadcasting, and related agencies is $19.52 billion, a nearly 10.8% increase over the FY2010
enacted level of $17.62 billion (which includes $1.52 billion in supplemental funds) and 22.4%
more than the FY2011 enacted level of $15.95 billion. Of the $19.52 billion requested for
FY2012, $4.39 billion is designated as extraordinary Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
funding,1 with the remaining $15.14 billion considered to be the core budget request.
The two largest State Department accounts make up 70% of the State Department operations
request. They are Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP), which funds salaries and
expenses, certain public diplomacy activities, and some worldwide security upgrades, and

1 According to the Department of State, Overseas Contingency Operations funding is considered to be temporary funds
to support military contingency operations and transitions to civilian led partnerships in the front-line states of Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Congressional Research Service
3

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM), which covers costs related to
embassy building, maintenance, land leasing, and worldwide security upgrades. D&CP would
receive $11.89 billion, a nearly 36% increase over the FY2011 enacted funding level. The request
for ESCM is $1.80 billion, or 11% more than the FY2011 enacted level.
The FY2012 request also includes $767.1 million for International Broadcasting, 2.7% above the
FY2011 enacted level and 2.4% above the FY2010 total. FY2012 funds requested for other
related agencies include $1.6 billion for Contributions to International Organizations (CIO)
including the United Nations (U.N.), $1.9 billion for U.N. Peacekeeping (CIPA), $120.8 million
for funding International Commissions, and $42.7 million for the U.S. Institute for Peace. Also
included are funding for The Asia Foundation ($14.9 million), the National Endowment for
Democracy ($104.0 million), and educational and cultural exchange activities ($637.1 million)
that help advance U.S. interests. (See Appendix C for funding levels of State Department,
International Broadcasting, and Related Agency accounts.)
Key State Department Issues
The State Department’s FY2012 request reflects similar priorities as in previous years, including
funding for “frontline states” of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, building Foreign and Civil
Service capacity, and reduced funding to certain international organizations.
Support Missions in Iraq and Other Frontline States
For FY2012 short-term State Department activities in Iraq, the Administration is requesting $3.2
billion in OCO funds to cover the extraordinary costs associated with the transition from military
to civilian leadership in Iraq, in addition to a core budget request of nearly $496 million to
support ongoing operations there. The planned withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq by
December 31, 2011, in accordance with U.S.-Iraq bilateral agreements, will bring a dramatic shift
in the U.S. government’s presence in Iraq, with the State Department planning to take over the
helm of U.S. engagement with a diplomatic presence—including an embassy, two consulates, and
two temporary branch offices—that is unmatched in terms of its security considerations, size, and
complexity. Some Members of Congress remain skeptical of the State Department’s capacity to
take over more than 300 activities that the U.S. military had been performing, from
environmental cleanup to medical support, while pursuing a wide-ranging policy agenda.
The Administration is requesting $757.5 million in OCO funds in FY2012 for short-term needs
related to State Department operations in Afghanistan to support an increased civilian presence,
security, and other operations. In addition, the budget request includes a core budget request of
$31.9 million for ongoing operations in Afghanistan. For State Department operations in
Pakistan, the Administration’s request for FY2012 includes $89.4 million in OCO funds to
support an increased diplomatic presence, plus $19.6 million for ongoing operations.
Growth in Human Resource Capacity
The State Department’s Human Resources Initiative is a multi-year initiative started under the
George W. Bush Administration and continued by the Obama Administration to build civilian
capacity through increased staffing to alleviate a chronic shortage, reduce reliance on contractors,
and increase training, including for critical languages. Original plans called for increasing Foreign
Service capacity by 25% over FY2008 levels by FY2014, but the Obama Administration’s
Congressional Research Service
4

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

FY2012 budget request shifted the goal beyond 2014 by requesting fewer positions than
originally planned. In each of the past three years, the Administration had requested funds to
support 500 – 600 new positions. For FY2012, while acknowledging the need for a “tight budget
for tight times,” the Administration nonetheless asked for increased funding for the Diplomatic &
Consular Programs account to continuing rebuilding the workforce at the State Department. The
Administration is requesting $687.2 million to continue to build civilian capacity, including
adding 197 new State Department positions at a cost of $66.7 million, including 130 (86 overseas,
44 domestic) Foreign Service and 67 Civil Service positions.
Proposed Reductions in Funding
The Administration proposed reductions in FY2012 funding in several State Department and
related agency accounts, relative to the FY2010 funding levels that were in effect when the
request was submitted. In some of these accounts, Congress made deeper cuts in the enacted
FY2011 continuing resolution appropriated after the Administration’s FY2012 budget
submission; in other accounts, however, the Administration had requested lower levels for
FY2012 funding than levels enacted by Congress for FY2011.
The Administration requested $92.2 million in FY2012 for Conflict Stabilization Operations,
formerly the Civilian Stabilization Initiative, which is designed to build civilian capability to
prevent and respond to crises and conflicts. This is 23.2% less than in FY2010, but more than 4½
times greater than Congress appropriated in FY2011. The funds would support deployments of a
Civilian Response Corps comprised of specialists from multiple federal agencies, as well as their
training, oversight, and management.2
The FY2012 budget request also includes decreased funds, compared to FY2010 enacted levels
for contributions to international organizations, including the United Nations, and for
peacekeeping missions. The request, however, reflects some alternative sources of funding for
some of these programs, including credits. Nevertheless, the Administration’s FY2012 request
still represents a 2.6% increase over the FY2011 enacted level for contributions to international
organizations and 1.9% more than the FY2011 level for peacekeeping operations. These accounts
primarily reflect the U.S. commitment to pay assessed contributions to most international
organizations that have resulted from treaties and conventions the United States has signed and
ratified. In addition, the Administration’s FY2012 request proposed a cut of 13.2%, compared to
FY2010 funding levels, for the U.S. Institute of Peace; however, the budget request of $42.7
million is 8.4% more than Congress appropriated for FY2011.
Some of the deepest proposed cuts in FY2012 as compared with FY2011 enacted levels were for
foundations and commissions, including The Asia Foundation, down 16.8%; the East-West
Center, reduced by 48.6%; the National Endowment for Democracy, cut 13.3%; the Center for
Middle East-West Dialogue, cut 11.1%; and the International Fisheries Commission, down
37.9%.

2 For background information, see CRS Report RL32862, Peacekeeping/Stabilization and Conflict Transitions:
Background and Congressional Action on the Civilian Response/Reserve Corps and other Civilian Stabilization and
Reconstruction Capabilities
, by Nina M. Serafino.
Congressional Research Service
5

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

FY2012 Budget Request: Foreign Operations
The Foreign Operations budget comprises the majority of U.S. foreign assistance programs, both
bilateral and multilateral. (See Appendix D for Foreign Operations accounts and funding levels.)
The main exception is food assistance, which is appropriated through the Agriculture
Appropriations bill. Foreign Operations accounts are managed primarily by USAID and the State
Department, together with several smaller independent foreign assistance agencies such as the
Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Peace Corps, and the Inter-American and African
Development Foundations. The foreign operations budget also encompasses U.S. contributions to
major multilateral financial institutions, such as the World Bank and U.N. entities, and includes
funds for the Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation, whose activities
are regarded more as trade promotion than foreign aid. On occasion, the budget replenishes U.S.
financial commitments to international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund.
The foreign operations budget request for FY2012 totals $40.13 billion, representing a 21.5%
increase from the enacted FY2011 level of $33.02 billion. The request was released in February,
before final FY2011 appropriations were enacted and before the current emphasis on budget
reductions developed in Congress. At that time, foreign operations programs were being funded
largely at the FY2010 funding level of $37.49 billion, compared to which the request was a 7%
increase.
Key Foreign Operations Issues
In the FY2012 foreign operations request, the Administration focused on its key foreign
assistance initiatives—the Global Health Initiative, Food Security Initiative, and the Global
Climate Change Initiative—as well as the transition from military to civilian authority in front-
line states and resources needed for reforming USAID operations. Since the request was released
in February, events in the Middle East and widespread support for significant budget cuts have
raised new questions about foreign assistance priorities. The following issues are likely to be
among those at the center of congressional consideration of foreign operations appropriations for
FY2012:
Middle East Turmoil
With popular uprisings leading to the fall of governments in the Middle East when many in the
112th Congress are pressing for drastic budget reductions, foreign assistance as a tool of
democracy promotion is receiving significant scrutiny. Egypt, for example, has long been a top
U.S. foreign aid recipient. The results of its political transition combined with congressional
reaction to a more independent foreign policy course may shape future U.S. assistance. The form
of assistance (which in recent years has been primarily military aid) is a key issue, with some
lawmakers calling for debt cancellation, others for direct democracy promotion assistance, and
still others suggesting that focusing aid on economic growth is the best way to foster a democratic
future for Egypt. Similar considerations apply to Tunisia, for which the United States pledged $20
million in March through the Middle East Partnership Initiative for transition support, and
legislation has been introduced in the Senate, S. 618, to authorize Tunisia-United States and
Egypt-United States enterprise funds. In Libya, the U.S. has suspended previously approved aid
programs, approved $25 million in non-lethal assistance for Libyan opposition groups, and
provided humanitarian assistance for refugees fleeing the country. As events evolve throughout
Congressional Research Service
6

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

the Middle East, U.S. efforts to respond with appropriate aid will likely be at the top of the
foreign assistance agenda.
Military/Civilian Transition
The Department of Defense (DOD) greatly expanded its foreign aid activities in the wake of the
Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, when high levels of security and economic aid flowed into those
countries even while instability and relatively low personnel capacity limited the role of civilian
aid agencies. As conditions on the ground have stabilized and both State and USAID have begun
building their capacity in both countries, the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense have
expressed support for stronger civilian control of these activities. Congress, however, has not
demonstrated support for Administration efforts to carry out such transitions. For example, the
FY2011 foreign operations request called for funding in three foreign operations accounts ― the
Complex Crisis Fund (CCF), Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (PCCF), and the
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account ― to support activities
such as police training that were previously funded through the Defense Appropriations bill.
Congress, rather than providing additional funding for these activities, cut the CCF and INCLE
account significantly in the FY2011 continuing resolution from FY2010 enacted levels and
eliminated foreign operations funding for the PCCF, for which it instead provided $800 million
through the Defense appropriation. While Secretary of State Clinton has claimed that a shift from
military to civilian control will allow the Defense budget for Iraq to decrease by $16 billion,3
which may appeal to budget reduction advocates in Congress, the fate of the transition is in
question, and FY2012 appropriations will be a strong indicator of Congress’s position on this
issue. For FY2012, the Administration has requested $75 million for the CCF, $1.1 billion for the
PCCF, and $2.78 billion for INCLE programs. The Administration also requested, for the first
time, $50 million for a Global Contingency Security Fund (with an additional $450 million
requested through the DOD appropriation), to support a pilot program focused on joint civilian-
military response to unforeseen events.
Accountability for Funding in Frontline States
As demonstrated in Table 5, the Administration’s FY2012 request would largely continue the
flow of assistance to Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, countries of particular strategic interest in
the fight against terrorism. However, Congress has expressed significant concerns over State and
USAID accountability for the billions of U.S. assistance dollars that have flowed to these
countries in recent years. The Commission on Wartime Contracting has reported that billions of
dollars have been lost to waste, fraud, and abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq, often as a result of poor
planning, limited competition in contracting, and insufficient oversight of contractors.4 Widely
reported corruption at every level of the Afghanistan government and within Pakistan has
bolstered concerns that U.S funds are being channeled for the private use of elites, rather than for
development purposes. In June 2010, then House State-Foreign Operations Appropriations
Subcommittee Chairwoman Nita Lowey announced that her subcommittee would not consider
the non-humanitarian part of the Administration’s FY2011 aid request for Afghanistan until she

3 Secretary Clinton’s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Hearing on “Foreign Policy Priorities
in the FY2011 International Affairs Budget,” February 24, 2010.
4 See Commission on Wartime Contracting, Special Report 1, available at http://www.wartimecontracting.gov/
index.php/reports.
Congressional Research Service
7

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

was satisfied that the corruption issue had been resolved. The topic was also raised by several
appropriators at hearings in early 2011 on the FY2012 request. The revelation that Osama Bin
Laden was apparently living near a military academy in Pakistan for years before he was killed in
May 2011 by U.S. military forces has led to doubts about the use of U.S. security assistance to
Pakistan and calls by some for the suspension of all U.S. aid to Pakistan. In determining FY2012
aid funding, Congress will likely consider the risks associated with the continuation or reduction
of assistance to these countries, or the additional funding that might be required in an effort to
enhance oversight and lessen the risk of fraud and abuse.
International Family Planning and Abortion-Related Issues5
U.S. international family planning and abortion-related issues have generated contentious debate
in Congress for over three decades, resulting in frequent clarification and modification of family
planning laws and policies. Recent congressional debate centers around two key issues: (1)
implementation of the “Mexico City policy” and (2) U.S. funding of the U.N. Population Fund
(UNFPA). The Mexico City policy, issued by President Reagan in 1984, required foreign NGOs
receiving USAID family planning assistance to certify that they would not perform or actively
promote abortion as a method of family planning, even if such activities were undertaken with
non-U.S. funds. The policy has been rescinded and reissued by past and current Administrations.
It was most recently rescinded by President Obama in January 2009. Language reinstating the
policy was included in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY2012, approved by the
House Foreign Affairs Committee on July 21, 2011, indicating that it may be a contentious issue
during consideration of FY2012 foreign operations appropriations.
Previous Administrations have also suspended grants to UNFPA due to evidence of coercive
family planning practices in China, citing violations of the “Kemp-Kasten” amendment, which
bans U.S. assistance to organizations that support or participate in the management of coercive
family planning programs. Past and current Administrations have disagreed as to whether UNFPA
engages in such activities. The George W. Bush Administration suspended U.S. contributions to
UNFPA from FY2002 to FY2008 following a State Department investigation of family planning
programs in China. President Obama resumed U.S. contributions to the organization in 2009. In
recent years, Congress has enacted certain conditions for U.S. funding of UNFPA.6 For FY2012,
the Administration requested a total of $769.105 million for bilateral and multilateral family
planning and reproductive health assistance, including $47.5 million for UNFPA.
Global Health
The Administration has requested $8.72 billion through the Global Health and Child Survival
Account to support State and USAID components of its Global Health Initiative (GHI) in
FY2012.7 The request represents a 10% increase over FY2010 funding, including supplemental

5 This section contributed by Luisa Blanchfield. For more information on international planning issues, see CRS Report
R41360, Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Legislation and Policy, by
Luisa Blanchfield.
6 For example, Section 7078 of P.L. 111-117, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, requires that none of the
funds made available to UNFPA may be used by UNFPA for a country program in China; U.S. contributions to
UNFPA be kept in an account segregated from other UNFPA accounts and not be commingled with other sums; and
for UNFPA to receive U.S. funding, it cannot fund abortions, among other things.
7 An additional $1.1 billion is requested for GHI through the budgets of other government agencies outside the scope of
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

funds, and 11.3% over the FY2011 enacted level.8 GHI is intended to be a comprehensive
approach to global health problems that builds on the previous Administration’s focus on global
HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, but prioritizes building strong and sustainable health
systems through an emphasis on maternal and pediatric programs, as well as strategic
coordination. The FY2012 request includes notable increases for nutrition programs and maternal
and child health activities, while proposing a funding reduction only for pandemic influenza
programs. The initiative was designed to last six years and invest $63 billion. However, with a
total of about $18 billion appropriated for GHI in FY2009 and FY2010, Congress would need to
provide $15 billion on average for FY2011 through FY2013 to meet that target, just as budget
constraints make cuts more likely than increases. The 112th Congress may face difficult questions
in determining funding levels for GHI programs. The life-saving nature of many global health
activities may give pause to some lawmakers looking for budget savings, while the significant
resources needed just to maintain the health gains of the last decade, such as providing anti-
retroviral drugs for HIV/AIDS patients, may appear to others to be unsustainable.
Food Security
Feed the Future (FtF), the Obama Administration’s food security initiative announced in 2010,
continues to be a priority for the Administration, which requested $1.56 billion through the State-
Foreign Operations appropriation for related programs in the FY2012 budget, about 20% more
than the enacted FY2010 level.9 FtF is the outgrowth of a pledge made by the President at a G-8
summit in 2009 to provide at least $3.5 billion over three years (FY2010-FY2012) to address root
causes of global hunger, such as low agricultural productivity and poor nutrition. The initiative
targets funding to countries with widespread hunger, an agriculture-based economy, and
comprehensive strategies for food security already in place. The initiative also emphasizes the
benefits of working multilaterally and in partnership with other stakeholders to leverage
resources.10 The FY2012 request also includes $308 million for the multi-donor Global
Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), managed by the World Bank.11 Congress has
shown less support for this approach, appropriating just under $100 million for the GAFSP in
FY2011 in response to a request for $408 million. In testimony before the Senate State-Foreign
Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah commented that
newer initiatives, such as FtF, are particularly vulnerable to budget cuts in FY2012.
Climate Change
The FY2012 request for programs supporting the Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) totals
slightly over $1.3 billion, a 40% increase over the $946 million enacted in FY2010. (As with GHI
and FtF, total GCCI funding for FY2011 is unclear because some relevant sub-account allocations
have not been reported.) The funds would support activities relating to climate change, with an

(...continued)
the State-Foreign Operations appropriation.
8 Some GHI funds are appropriated through sub-accounts for which FY2011 allocations are not yet available, so total
GHI funding for FY2011 cannot be determined at this time.
9 This amount does not include P.L. 480 food assistance, provided through the Agriculture appropriation, for which
$1.7 billion was requested for FY2012. FY2011 funding data for FtF is not yet available.
10 An additional $18 billion was pledged by other donors at the summit.
11 While FY2011 funding levels allocated for FtF programs are not yet known, GAFSP has its own appropriation line.
Congressional Research Service
9

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

emphasis on adaptation, deployment of clean energy technologies, and reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions through sustainable landscapes. A significant portion of this climate change
funding would be channeled through international financial institutions. The emphasis on
multilateral funding, both for climate change and food security, has been described by the
Administration as a fiscally responsible approach intended to leverage commitments from other
donors and increase the impact of U.S. funds.12 As with the multilateral approach to food security,
however, Congress has not been fully supportive of the Administration’s requests. The $400
million requested for the International Clean Technology Fund in FY2012 would be a 117%
increase over the FY2011 funding, which was enacted after the FY2012 request was made. The
request also includes $190 million for the International Strategic Climate Fund, a 281% increase
over the FY2011 level.
USAID Forward
USAID Administrator Shah noted in Congressional testimony earlier this year that his biggest
frustrations in the job have related to the agency’s complicated procurement process and a human
resources management system that makes it difficult to reward leadership and risk-taking.13 He
hopes to address these issues through USAID Forward, an initiative to change the way the agency
does business through implementing reforms related to procurement, talent management, building
policy capacity, monitoring and evaluation, budget management, use of science and technology,
and innovation. While these reforms are intended to address aspects of USAID operations that
Congress has often criticized, implementation will require additional funding at a time when
Congress seeks to reduce spending. For FY2012, the Administration requests about $380 million
for USAID Forward reforms through the USAID Operating Expenses account, primarily to hire
95 mid-career Foreign Service Officers, with an emphasis on Contract Officers and Controllers.14
General Capital Increases at Multilateral Banks
The Administration has requested $358.4 million in funding through Treasury Department
international programs for general capital increases (GCIs) at several multilateral financial
institutions in FY2012 ― $117.4 million for the International Bank of Reconstruction and
Development; $106.6 million for the Asian Development Bank; $102.0 million for the Inter-
American Development Bank; and $32.4 million for the African Development Bank. Most of the
funds requested represent just one of several annual installments toward a larger total GCI
commitment. Multiple simultaneous GCIs are unusual but necessary, according to Treasury
Secretary Timothy Geithner, because of high lending rates at the institutions, with U.S.
encouragement, in response to the global financial crisis.15 Congressional appropriators, however,
have suggested reluctance to appropriate such funds without prior consideration of authorization
legislation stipulating reforms on which disbursement of the funds would be contingent.16 The

12 Remarks of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, testifying before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on
State-Foreign Operations, March 25, 2010.
13 Comments of USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah before the Senate State-Foreign Operations Appropriations
Subcommittee, April 12, 2011.
14 This proposed hiring would be part of the Development Leadership Initiative that began in 2008 to build USAID’s
general capacity and technical expertise.
15 Testimony of Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner before the House State-Foreign Operations Appropriations
Subcommittee, March 9, 2011.
16 Remarks of Chairwoman Kay Granger, House State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, March 9,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

Administration asserts that failure to provide the requested funding would diminish U.S.
influence globally and potentially create an opportunity for other countries, such as China, to
expand their global influence.
State-Foreign Operations Background and Trends
U.S. national security, trade promotion, and humanitarian interests are rationales for most
international affairs activities. During the Cold War, foreign aid and diplomatic programs had a
primarily anti-communist focus, while concurrently pursuing other U.S. policy interests, such as
promoting economic development, advancing U.S. trade, expanding access to basic education and
health care, promoting human rights, and protecting the environment. After the early 1990s, with
the Cold War ended, distinct policy objectives—including stopping nuclear weapons
proliferation, curbing the production and trafficking of illegal drugs, expanding peace efforts in
the Middle East, achieving regional stability, protecting religious freedom, and countering
trafficking in persons—replaced the cold war-influenced foreign policy objectives.
A defining change in focus came following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States. Since
then, many U.S. foreign aid and diplomatic programs have emphasized national security
objectives, frequently cast in terms of contributing to efforts to counter terrorism. In 2002,
President Bush released a National Security Strategy that for the first time established global
development as the third pillar of U.S. national security, along with defense and diplomacy.
Development was again underscored in the Administration’s 2006 and 2010 National Security
Strategy.
Also in 2002, foreign assistance budget justifications began to highlight the war on terrorism as
the top foreign aid priority, emphasizing U.S. assistance to 28 “front-line” states—countries that
cooperated with the United States in the war on terrorism or faced terrorist threats themselves.17
Large reconstruction programs in Afghanistan and Iraq exemplified the emphasis on using foreign
aid to combat terrorism. State Department efforts focused extensively on diplomatic security and
finding more effective ways of presenting American views and culture through public diplomacy,
particularly in Muslim communities.
The Obama Administration has carried forward many Bush foreign aid initiatives, including
USAID’s Development Leadership Initiative (DLI), the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and
robust assistance to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The Obama Administration has also largely
sustained Bush Administration investments in global health and HIV/AIDS treatment, though its
Global Health Initiative shifts the emphasis away from a focus on discrete diseases and toward
comprehensive health systems. In the FY2011 and FY2012 requests, the Administration further
defined its international priorities, with an emphasis on building State Department and USAID

(...continued)
2011. (For more information, see CRS Report R41672, Multilateral Development Banks: General Capital Increases,
by Martin A. Weiss.)
17 According to the State Department, these “frontline” states in 2002 included Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Colombia, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan,
Kenya, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, and Yemen.
Congressional Research Service
11


State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

capacity, supporting multilateral food security and global climate change initiatives, and shifting
responsibility for assistance programs in Iraq and elsewhere from military to civilian authorities.
Table 2 and Figure 2 show State-Foreign Operations appropriations for the past decade in both
current and constant dollars.
Table 2. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2002-FY2012
(in billions of current and 2012 constant dollars)
FY11
FY12

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08
FY09
FY10
est.
req.
Current
$ 24.25 31.72 48.34 34.23 34.25 37.28 40.47 50.50 55.11 48.98 59.65
Constant

2011
$ 30.84 39.31 58.24 39.77 38.43 40.68 42.61 52.91 56.81 49.79 59.65
Source: Summary and Highlights, International Affairs Function 150, FY2003-FY2012 and CRS calculations.
Notes: Figures include al enacted appropriations: regular, OCO, supplementals, and rescissions.
Figure 2. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2002-FY2012

Source: Summary and Highlights, International Affairs Function 150, FY2003-FY2012, and CRS calculations.
Table 3 and Figure 3 show appropriations for the State Department and related agencies over the
past decade in both current and constant dollars.
Congressional Research Service
12


State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

Table 3. State Department and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2002-FY2012
(discretionary budget authority in billions of current and 2012 constant dollars)
FY11 FY12

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10
est.
req.
Current
$ 7.71 8.05 9.29 10.78 11.12 10.90 13.57 16.10 17.62 15.95 19.52
Constant
2011
$
9.81 9.98 11.19 12.52 12.48 11.89 14.28 16.87 18.16 16.21 19.52
Source: The Department of State Congressional Budget Justifications, FY2003-FY2012, and CRS calculations.
Notes: Figures include al enacted appropriations: regular, OCO, supplementals, and rescissions.
Figure 3. State Department and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2002-FY2012

Source: The Department of State Congressional Budget Justifications, FY2003-FY2012, and CRS calculations.
Table 4 and Figure 4 show appropriations for the State Department and related agencies over the
past decade in both current and constant dollars.
Table 4. Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2002-FY2012
(discretionary budget authority in billions of current and constant 2012dollars)

FY11 FY12
FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 est.
req.
Current
$
16.54 23.67 39.05 23.45 23.13 26.38 26.89 32.82 37.49 33.02 40.13
Constant
2011
$ 21.04 29.33 47.04 27.24 25.95 28.79 28.30 34.39 38.65 33.56 40.13
Source: The Foreign Operations Congressional Budget Justifications, FY2003-FY2012, and CRS calculations.
Notes: Figures include al enacted appropriations: regular, OCO, supplementals, and rescissions.

Congressional Research Service
13


State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

Figure 4. Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2002-FY2012

Source: The Foreign Operations Congressional Budget Justification, FY2003-FY2012, and CRS calculations.
Top 10 U.S. Foreign Aid Recipient Countries
Prior to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Israel and Egypt typically received the largest amounts
of U.S. foreign aid every year since the Camp David Peace Accords in 1978.18 The reconstruction
efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan moved those countries into the top five, though assistance to Iraq
has declined significantly in the past couple of years, with the completion of many reconstruction
activities. Meanwhile, a combination of security assistance and economic aid designed to limit
the appeal of extremist organizations has moved Pakistan up the list in recent years. Funding for
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan include Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) temporary
appropriations.

18 For more information on historic aid trends, see CRS Report R40213, Foreign Aid: An Introduction to U.S.
Programs and Policy
, by Curt Tarnoff and Marian Leonardo Lawson.
Congressional Research Service
14

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

Table 5. Top 10 Recipients of U.S. Foreign Aid in FY2010, FY2012 Request
(in millions of current U.S. $)
FY2010 Actual
FY2012 Request
Estimated
Requested
Country
Allocation Country Allocation
Afghanistan $4,144.9
Afghanistan $3,213.4
Israel $2,775.0
Israel $3,075.0
Pakistan $1,911.6
Pakistan $2,965.0
Egypt $1,555.7
Iraq $2,360.1
Haiti $1,412.4
Egypt $1,557.3
Iraq $1,116.8
Kenya $751.4
Ethiopia $909.4
Jordan $675.7
Jordan $843.0
Nigeria
$660.5
Kenya $797.9
Ethiopia
$608.3
Mexico $757.6
Tanzania
$571.9
Notes: These lists consist of funding only from the 150 International Affairs Function. If funding from the
defense budget were included, Pakistan, for example would rank second for both FY2010 and the FY2012
request. FY2010 numbers include supplemental funding from P.L. 111-212. FY2012 numbers include Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) funding. Country-level data for FY2011 are not yet available.
In the FY2012 request, Afghanistan tops the list at $3,213.4 million, including $1.2 billion in
Economic Support Fund-OCO funds. Israel ranks second, with all of the $3,075 million requested
for Foreign Military Financing (FMF). Pakistan ranks third at $2,965 million, 80% of which is for
activities supported by the Economic Support Fund (ESF) and the Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Capability Fund-OCO (PCCF). Iraq moves up from 6th in FY2010 to 4th in the FY2012 request.
This is largely because of $1.0 billion for INCLE-OCO and $1.0 billion for FMF-OCO. Haiti,
which was a top recipient in FY2010 as a result of supplemental funds for post-earthquake relief
and reconstruction, would not be among the top 10 recipients in FY2012 under the
Administration’s proposal.
Regional Distribution
As shown in Figure 5, under the FY2012 budget request, Africa ($7.8 billion), Near East ($8.8
billion), and South Central Asia ( $6.8 billion) would receive the most U.S. foreign assistance.
Aid to Africa primarily supports HIV/AIDS and other health-related programs while 88% of the
aid to South Central Asia is requested for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Near East region
continues to be dominated by assistance to Israel ($3.0 billion), Iraq ($2.4 billion), Egypt ($1.6
billion), and Jordan ($0.7 billion). The Western Hemisphere’s projected relative decline in
FY2012 is attributable mostly to the $1.4 billion in supplemental funds for Haiti’s humanitarian
crisis in 2010. Assistance to Europe and Eurasia would decline, according to the Administration,
partly due to a reduction of funds in AEECA to reflect progress made by many countries in the
region and other more pressing global priorities.19 Aid to East Asia and Pacific remains relatively
low and consistent with past years’ levels.

19 Executive Budget Summary, Function 150 and Other International Programs, Fiscal Year 2012, p. 86.
Congressional Research Service
15

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

Figure 5. Regional Distribution of Foreign Aid, FY20010 and FY2012 Request
$9.0
$8.0
. $ $7.0
.S
t U
$6.0
n
rre
$5.0
u
c
$4.0
of
$3.0
llions $2.0
bi
$1.0
$0.0
Africa
EAP
EE
NE
SCA
WH
FY2010 enacted
FY2012 request

Source: Foreign Operations Congressional Budget Justification, FY2012.
Note: FY2010 figures include enacted funding from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117),
forward funding from the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-32), supplemental funding from the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-212), and Overseas Contingency Operation funds. FY2012
figures represent the Administrations request, including Overseas Contingency Operations funds. EAP=East Asia
and Pacific; EE=Europe and Eurasia; NE=Near East; SCA=South and Central Asia; WH=Western Hemisphere.
Sector Distribution
Over the years, Congress has expressed interest in various discrete aid sectors, such as education,
building trade capacity, maternal and child health, and biodiversity, that are funded across
multiple accounts and/or agencies. Administrations have begun presenting their respective budget
requests with a section showing what portion of the request would address some of these “key
interest areas.” Unlike the account funding tables in the budget request, however, the key interest
area breakout does not show prior year allocations, limiting year-to-year comparison to requested
funds rather than actual funding. This provides an indication of the Administration’s interests and
priorities, but not necessarily those of congressional appropriators.
Table 6 compares the FY2011 and FY2012 budget requests for key interest areas identified by
the Administration. The Administration requested less for most sectors than it did in FY2011.
Perhaps surprisingly, two of the Administration’s major initiatives—Food Security and Global
Climate Change―show declines in the FY2012 request, as does the request for Microenterprise
and Microfinance, Trade Capacity Building, Pandemic Influenza, and Other Public Health
Threats. Sectors with increased funding include Family Planning, Maternal and Child Health, and
Water. The Administration emphasized two new focus areas, adding Gender Funding and Science,
Technology, and Innovation to the key interests list.
Congressional Research Service
16

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

Table 6. Selected Sector Funding, FY2011 Request and FY2012 Request
(millions of current U.S. $)
Sector
FY2011 req.
FY2012 req.
% Change
Avian/Pandemic Influenza
$75
$60
-20%
Basic Education
$844
$740
-12%
Biodiversity $114
$79
-31%
Clean Energy
$203
$195
-4%
Family Planning/Reproductive
Health
$716 $769 +7%
Food Security
$1,644
$1,100
-33%
Gender Funding

$391

Global Climate Change
$1,391
$1,329
-4%
Higher Education
$249
$233
-6%
HIV/AIDS $5,850
$5,992
+2%
Malaria $680
$691
+2%
Maternal and Child Health
$983
$1,191
+21%
Microenterprise and
Microfinance
$230 $155
-33%
Neglected Tropical Diseases
$155
$163
+5%
Nutrition $231
$226
-2%
Other Public Health Threats
$225
$100
-125%
Polio $33
$40
+21%
Science, Tech. & Innovation

$333

Trade Capacity Building
$323
$216
-33%
Trafficking in Persons
$36
$37
+3%
Trans-Sahara Counter-
Terrorism
$61 $53
-13%
Tuberculosis $251
$254
+1%
Water $256
$294
+15%
Source: U.S. Department of State Foreign Operations Congressional Budget Justification, FY2011 and FY2012,
and CRS calculations.
Note: Totals for Water, Basic Education, Child & Maternal Health, and Food Security do not include related
funding through the P.L. 480/Food for Peace program, which is funded through Agriculture appropriations.


Congressional Research Service
17




Appendix A. Structure of State-Foreign Operations Appropriations

Source: CRS.

CRS-18

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

Appendix B. Abbreviations
Funding Accounts:

ACI
Andean Counterdrug Initiative
AEECA
Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia
CSH
Child Survival and Health
DA Development
Assistance
DF Democracy
Fund
ERMA
Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance
ESF
Economic Support Fund
FMF Foreign
Military
Financing
GHAI
Global HIV/AIDS Initiative
IDFA
International Disaster and Famine Assistance
IMET
International Military Education and Training
INCLE
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
MCC Millennium
Challenge
Corporation
MRA
Migration and Refugee Assistance
NADR
Non-proliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs
PEPFAR
President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief
PKO Peacekeeping
Operations
PL 480
Food aid
PMI
President’s Malaria Initiative
TI Transition
Initiatives
Other:

DFA
Director of Foreign Assistance
AFR Africa
EAP
East Asia and Pacific
EE
Europe and Eurasia
LAC
Latin America and Caribbean
NE Near
East
SCA
South and Central Asia
USAID
U.S. Agency for International Development
Congressional Research Service
19

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

Appendix C. State Department and Related
Agencies Appropriations

Table C-1. State Department and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2010-FY2012
(in millions of current U.S. $)
FY2010
FY2010

Enacted
Supp.
Total,
(H.R.
enacted
enacted
FY2011

% change
3288/div
(H.R.
FY2010
enacted
FY2012 vs.
F; P.L.
4899; P.L. regular &
P.L. 112-
FY2012
FY2011

111-117
111-212
suppa
10b
Request
enacted
Title I. State Department



Administration of Foreign
Affairs, Subtotal
11,183.4
1,415.8
12,599.2 11,410.6
14,907.3
30.6%


Diplomatic & Consular
Program

8,227.0 1,326.0 9,553.0 8,772.4
11,893.5
35.6%
Capital Investment Fund
139.0

139.0
59.4
125.0 110.4%


Embassy Security, Construction
& Maintenance
1,724.1
79.0
1,803.1
1,616.8
1,801.5
11.4%
Civilian Stabilization Initiative
120.0

120.0
34.9
92.2 164.2%


Ed. & Cultural Exchange
Programs
635.0

635.0
598.8
637.1
6.4%



Office of Inspector General
102.0 3.6
105.6
101.8
128.1
25.8%



Special Inspector General for
Afghanistan Reconstruction

7.2c 7.2
[24.0]
[8.2]
[-65.8%]
Representation Al owances
8.2

8.2
7.5
8.2 9.3%


Protection of Foreign
Missions & Officials
28.0

28.0
27.9
27.7
-0.7%


Emergency-Diplomatic &
Consular Services
10.0

10.0
9.5
10.0
5.3%


Buying Power and
Maintenance
8.5

8.5
0


Repatriation Loans
1.5

1.5
1.5
1.8 20.0%


Payment American Institute
Taiwan
21.2

21.2
21.2
23.3
10.0%
Foreign Service Retirement

(mandatory)
158.9

158.9
158.9
158.9

Congressional Research Service
20

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

FY2010
FY2010

Enacted
Supp.
Total,
(H.R.
enacted
enacted
FY2011

% change
3288/div
(H.R.
FY2010
enacted
FY2012 vs.
F; P.L.
4899; P.L. regular &
P.L. 112-
FY2012
FY2011

111-117
111-212
suppa
10b
Request
enacted


International
Organizations, Subtotal
3,807.5
96.5
3,904.0
3,462.5
3,539.4
2.2%
Contributions to Int’l Orgs
1,682.5

1,682.5
1,578.6
1,619.4 2.6%


Contributions to International
Peacekeeping
2,125.0
96.5
2,221.5
1,883.9
1,920.0
1.9%


International
Commissionsd
142.9
0.0
142.9
120.1
120.8
0.6%
Int’l Boundary;/U.S.-Mexico
76.3

76.3
69.7
77.5 11.2%
American Sections
12.6

12.6

12.0

International Fisheries
54.0

54.0
50.4
31.3 -37.9%


International
Broadcasting, Subtotal
746.4
3.0
749.4
746.9
767.1
2.7%
Broadcasting Operations
733.8
3.0
736.8
740.0
754.3 1.9%
Cuba Broadcasting
[30.5]

[30.5]

[28.5]

Capital Improvements
12.6

12.6
6.9
12.8 85.5%


Related Appropriations,
Subtotal
211.0
0.0
211.0
197.9
174.1
12.0%
Asia Foundation
19.0

19.0
17.9
14.9 -16.8%
U.S. Institute of Peace
49.2

49.2
39.4
42.7 8.4%
Center for Middle East-West
Dialogue-Trust & Program
0.9

0.9
0.9
0.8
-11.1%
Eisenhower Exchange

Programs
0.5

0.5
0.5
0.5

Israeli Arab Scholarship

Program
0.4

0.4
0.4
0.4

East-West Center
23.0

23.0
21.0
10.8 -48.6%

National Endowment for

Democracy
118.0

118.0
117.8
104.0
-13.3%
Other Commissions
13.0 0.0 13.0 13.0
12.8 -1.5%

Preservation of America’s
Heritage
0.6

0.6 0.6 0.6

Int’l Religious Freedom
4.3

4.3
4.3
4.4 2.3%
Security & Cooperation
Europe
2.6

2.6
2.6
2.7
3.8%
Cong.-Exec. on People’s
Republic of China
2.0

2.0
2.0


Congressional Research Service
21

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

FY2010
FY2010

Enacted
Supp.
Total,
(H.R.
enacted
enacted
FY2011

% change
3288/div
(H.R.
FY2010
enacted
FY2012 vs.
F; P.L.
4899; P.L. regular &
P.L. 112-
FY2012
FY2011

111-117
111-212
suppa
10b
Request
enacted
2.0

U.S.-China Economic and
Security Review
3.5

3.5
3.5
3.5



State/Broadcasting/Related
Agencies, TOTAL
16,104.2
1,515.3
17,619.5
15,951.0
19,521.9
22.4%
Sources: U.S. Department of State budget documents, House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and CRS
calculations.
Note: Includes Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds. Brackets indicate funds are subsumed in larger
account above.
a. P.L. 111-32, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, included $1.8 billion that the Administration
considers forward funding for FY2010, but which are not included in the FY2010 column in this table.
b. FY2011 figures reflect a 0.2% across-the-board rescission included in P.L. 112-10.
c. H.R. 4899 appropriates $7.2 million for SIGAR while simultaneously rescinding $7.2 million appropriated
for the State Inspector General in P.L. 111-32, which was authorized to be transferred to SIGAR.
d. These activities are funded through the State-Foreign Operations bill, but are not part of Function 150 of
the budget.
Congressional Research Service
22

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

Appendix D. Foreign Operations Appropriations
Table D-1. Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2010-FY2012
(millions of current U.S. $)
FY2010
FY2010
Supp.
%
enacted
enacted
Total,
change
(H.R.
(H.R.
enacted
FY2011

FY2012
3288/div
4899;
FY2010
enacted
vs.
F; P.L.
P.L. 111-
regular
P.L. 112-
FY2012
FY2011

111-117
212
& suppa
10b
request
enacted


Title II. USAID Admin.,
Subtotal
1,650.3 7.9
1,658.2
1,526.9
1,744.1
14.2%
USAID Operating Expenses
1,388.8

1,388.8 1,347.3 1,503.4 11.6%
Civilian Stabilization Initiative
30.0

30.0 5.0 ―



USAID Capital Investment
Fund 185.0

185.0 129.7 189.2
45.9%
USAID
Inspector
General
46.5 7.9 54.4 44.9 51.5
14.7%
Title III. Bilateral


Economic Assistance,
Subtotal
21,861.2
3,167.1
25,028.3
21,208.9
23,743.5
12.0%


Global Health and Child
Survival, State + USAID
7,779.0
45.0c 7824.0 7,829.3 8,715.5
11.3%
GHCS (State Dept.)
[5,359.0]

[5,359.0] [5,334.3] [5,641.9] [5.8%]
GHCS (USAID)
[2,420.0]

[2,420.0] [2,495.0] [3,073.6] [23.2%]
Development Assistance
2,520.0

2,520.0 2,520.0 2,918.0 15.8%


International Disaster &
Famine Assistance
845.0
460.0
1,305.0
863.3
860.7
-0.3%
Transition Initiatives
55.0

55.0 54.9 56.0 2.0%
Complex Crises Fund
50.0

50.0 40.0 75.0
87.5%

Development Credit Authority

– Admin
8.6

8.6 8.3 8.3


Development Credit Authority

Subsidy [25.0]

[25.0] [30.0] [50.0]

Economic
Support
Fund
6,344.0 2,490.0 8,834.0 5,946.2 7,185.3 20.8%


Assistance for Europe; Eurasia
& Central Asia (AEECA)
741.6

741.6 695.7 626.7
-9.9%
Fund for Ireland
17.0

17.0 0


Democracy Fund
120.0

120.0 114.8


Migration
&
Refugee
Assistance 1,693.0 165.0 1,858.0 1,686.6 1,613.1 -4.4%
Emergency Refugee and
45.0

45.0 49.9



Congressional Research Service
23

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

FY2010
FY2010
Supp.
%
enacted
enacted
Total,
change
(H.R.
(H.R.
enacted
FY2011

FY2012
3288/div
4899;
FY2010
enacted
vs.
F; P.L.
P.L. 111-
regular
P.L. 112-
FY2012
FY2011

111-117
212
& suppa
10b
request
enacted
Migration
32.0 -35.9%
Independent Agencies, Subtotal
1,558.0

1,558.0 1,324.5 1,607.8 21.4%


Inter-American
Foundation 23.0

23.0 22.5 19.1
-15.1%


African Development
Foundation 30.0

30.0 29.5 24.0
-18.6%
Peace Corps
400.0

400.0 374.3 439.6 17.4%


Millennium Challenge
Corporation 1,105.0

1,105.0 898.2
1,125.1
25.3%
Department of Treasury, Subtotal
85.0

92.1 75.4 45.1
-40.2%


Treasury Department
Technical Assistance
25.0
7.1
32.1
25.5
30.1
18.0%
Debt Restructuring
60.0

60.0 49.9 15.0
-70.0%


Title IV. Military/Security
Assistance,
Subtotal
6,985.5 1,281.7 8,267.2 8,116.7 11,322.8
39.5%


International Narcotics
Control & Law Enforcement
1,597.0
1,181.7
2,778.7
1,593.8
2,511.8
57.6%


Nonproliferation, Anti-
Terrorism, Demining
754.0

754.0 738.5 708.5
-4.1%


International Military Education
& Training
108.0

108.0 105.8 110.0
4.0%
Foreign Military Financing
4,195.0 100.0
4,295.0 5,374.2 6,550.5 21.9%
Peacekeeping Operations
331.5

331.5 304.4 292.0 -4.1%

Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Capability Fund (PCCF)




1,100.0

Global Security Fund




50.0



Title V. Multilateral
Assistance, Subtotal
2,437.7
212.0
2,649.7
2,302.6
3,667.5
59.3%


World Bank: Global
Environment Facility
86.5

86.5 89.8 143.8
60.1%


International Clean Technology
Fund 300.0

300.0 184.6 400.0
116.7%
Strategic Climate Fund
75.0

75.0 49.9 190.0
280.8%
Congressional Research Service
24

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

FY2010
FY2010
Supp.
%
enacted
enacted
Total,
change
(H.R.
(H.R.
enacted
FY2011

FY2012
3288/div
4899;
FY2010
enacted
vs.
F; P.L.
P.L. 111-
regular
P.L. 112-
FY2012
FY2011

111-117
212
& suppa
10b
request
enacted


World Bank: Int’l.
Development Association
1,262.5
1,262.5
1,232.5
1,358.5
102.2%
Int’l Bank Recon & Dev




117.4

Inter-Amer Dev Bank




102.0


IADB: Enterprise for Americas

MIF 25.0

25.0 25.0 25.0



IADB: Inter-American
Investment Corporation
4.7

4.7 21.0 20.4
-2.9%
Asian Development Fund
105.0

105.0 0
115.3 ―
Asian Development Bank



106.4 106.6 0.2%
African Development Fund
155.0

155.0 109.8 195.0 77.6%
African Development Bank




32.4

International Fund for


Agricultural Development
30.0

30.0 29.5 30.0
1.7%
Global Food Security Fund


— 99.8 308.0
208.6%


International Organizations &
Programs 394.0

394.0 354.3 348.7
-1.6%
Haiti Response/Debt Reliefd

212.0 212.0



Multilateral Debt Relief




174.5


Title VI. Export Aid,

Subtotal -113.9

-113.9 -130.5 -344.7

Export-Import Bank (net)e
2.4

2.4 2.4
-212.9 ―

Overseas Private Investment

Corporation (net)f
-171.5

-171.5 -182.8 -188.1

Trade & Development Agency
55.2

55.2 49.9 56.3
12.8%
Foreign Operations, Total
32,820.8
4,668.7
37,489.5
33,024.6
40,133.2
21.5%


State/Broadcasting/Related
Agencies, Total
16,104.2
1,515.3
17,619.5
15,951.0
19,521.9
22.4%



State-Foreign Operations,
Total 48,925.0
6,184.0
55,109.0
48,975.6
59,655.1
21.8%
Source: U.S. Department of State budget documents, House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and CRS
calculations.
Notes: Includes Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds. Brackets indicate funds are subsumed in
larger account above and are not counted against the total.
Congressional Research Service
25

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

a. P.L. 111-32, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, included $1.8 billion that the Administration
considers forward funding for FY2010, but which are not included in the FY2010 column in this table.
b. FY2011 figures reflect a 0.2% across-the-board rescission included in P.L. 112-10.
c. The agency managing the supplemental GHCS funds was not specified in the legislation.
d. These funds are requested for contributions to the Inter-American Development Bank, the International
Development Association, and the International Fund for Agricultural Development to cancel debts owed
by Haiti and for disaster response activities fol owing the January 12 earthquake. These contributions are
part of a multi-donor debt cancellation deal to which the U.S. has agreed.
e. Appropriated funds are for expenses of the Inspector General. Administration expenses and loan program
funds are covered by Bank receipts.
f.
These figures represent anticipated OPIC receipts, minus amounts requested for administrative expenses
and credit funding.
Congressional Research Service
26

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

Appendix E. International Affairs (150) Budget
Account

Table E-1. International Affairs (150) Budget Account, FY2010-FY2012
(in millions of current U.S. $)
FY2010
FY2010
Supp.
Base
enacted
enacted
(H.R.
FY2010
% change
(P.L. 111-
4899; P.L.
enacted,
FY2011
FY2012
FY2012 vs.

117)
111-212)
Totala
enacted
request
FY2011
State-
Foreign
Operations,
excluding
commissionsb 48,782.1 6,184.0 54,966.1 48,842.6 59,521.2
21.9%
Commerce-
Justice-
Science






Foreign Claim
Settlement
Commission
2.1

2.1 2.1 2.1 ―
Int’l Trade
Commission
81.9

81.9 81.7 87.0 6.5%
Agriculture






P.L. 480 &
McGovern-
Dole
1,899.5
150.0
2,049.5 1,695.7 1,899.5
12.0%
Total
International
Affairs (150)
50,765.6 6,334.0 57,099.6 50,622.1 61,509.8
21.5%
Source: U.S. Department of State budget documents, House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and CRS
calculations.
Note: Includes Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds.
a. P.L. 111-32, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, included $1.8 billion that the Administration
considers forward funding for FY2010, but which are not included in the FY2010 column in this table.
b. While funding for international commissions are appropriated in State-Foreign Operations bill, they are not
part of the International Affairs Function 150 Account.

Congressional Research Service
27

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

Author Contact Information

Susan B. Epstein
Tamara J. Resler
Specialist in Foreign Policy
Analyst in Foreign Affairs
sepstein@crs.loc.gov, 7-6678
tresler@crs.loc.gov, 7-7367
Marian Leonardo Lawson

Analyst in Foreign Assistance
mlawson@crs.loc.gov, 7-4475

Key Policy Staff

Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
E-mail
General: Foreign Operations Policy Issues/Budget
Susan
7-6678 sepstein@crs.loc.gov
Epstein
Marian
7-4475 mlawson@crs.loc.gov
Lawson
Curt Tarnoff 7-7656
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
General: State Dept & Foreign Service Issues/Budget
Tamara
7-7367
tresler@crs.loc.gov
Resler
7-6678
sepstein@crs.loc.gov
Susan
Epstein
Afghanistan Assistance
Rhoda
7-0425 rmargesson@crs.loc.gov
Margesson

Curt Tarnoff 7-7656
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
Africa Assistance
Ted Dagne
7-7646
tdagne@crs.loc.gov
Agency for International Development
Susan
7-6678 sepstein@crs.loc.gov
Epstein
Marian
7-4475 mlawson@crs.loc.gov
Lawson
Curt Tarnoff 7-7656
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
Asia Assistance
Thomas
7-7616 tlum@crs.loc.gov
Lum
Broadcasting, International
Matthew
7-4589 mweed@crs.loc.gov
Weed
Central Asia Assistance
Jim Nichol
7-2289
jnichol@crs.loc.gov
Civilian Stabilization/Civilian Response Corps
Nina
7-7667 nserafino@crs.loc.gov
Serafino
Debt Relief
Marty Weiss 7-5407
mweiss@crs.loc.gov
Development Assistance (bilateral)
Susan
7-6678 sepstein@crs.loc.gov
Epstein
Curt Tarnoff 7-7656
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
Marian
7-4475 mlawson@crs.loc.gov
Lawson
Congressional Research Service
28

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
E-mail
Disaster/Humanitarian Aid/Refugees
Rhoda
7-0425 rmargesson@crs.loc.gov
Margesson
DOD and Foreign Assistance
Nina
7-7667 nserafino@crs.loc.gov
Serafino
Export-Import Bank
James
7-7751 jjackson@crs.loc.gov
Jackson
Family Planning Programs
Luisa
7-0856
lblanchfield@crs.loc.gov
Blanchfield
7-4475
mlawson@crs.loc.gov
Marian
Lawson
Foreign Aid Reform
Susan
7-6678
sepstein@crs.loc.gov
Epstein

Foreign Aid Reform—USAID operations
Curt Tarnoff 7-7565
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
Health Programs, including HIV/AIDS, Malaria,
Tiaji Salaam
7-7677
tsalaam@crs.loc.gov
Tuberculosis, Child and Maternal
Alexandra
7-7314
Akendall@crs.loc.gov
Kendall
7-4475
mlawson@crs.loc.gov
Marian
Lawson
Human Rights
Tamara
7-7367 tresler@crs.loc.gov
Resler
International Affairs Budget
Susan
7-6678 sepstein@crs.loc.gov
Epstein
International Crime & Narcotics
Liana Wyler
7-6177
lwyler@crs.loc.gov
International Organizations/UN Funding
Marjorie
7-7695 mbrowne@crs.loc.gov
Browne
Iraq Reconstruction
Curt Tarnoff 7-7656
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
Latin America Assistance
Mark
7-7689 msullivan@crs.loc.gov
Sullivan
Microenterprise Curt
Tarnoff
7-7656
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
Middle East Assistance
Jeremy
7-8687 jsharp@crs.loc.gov
Sharp
Military Assistance
Richard
7-7675 rgrimmett@crs.loc.gov
Grimmett
Millennium Challenge Corporation
Curt Tarnoff 7-7656
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
Multilateral Development Banks
Marty Weiss 7-5407
mweiss@crs.loc.gov
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
James
7-7751 jjackson@crs.loc.gov
Jackson
Pakistan aid
Susan
7-6678 sepstein@crs.loc.gov
Epstein
Peace Corps
Curt Tarnoff 7-7656
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
Peacekeeping
Marjorie
7-7695 mbrowne@crs.loc.gov
Browne
Nina
7-7667 nserafino@crs.loc.gov
Serafino
Public Diplomacy
Matt Weed
7-4589
mweed@crs.loc.gov
Congressional Research Service
29

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations

Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
E-mail
Refugee Aid
Rhoda
7-0452 rmargesson@crs.loc.gov
Margesson
Russia/East Europe Assistance
Curt Tarnoff 7-7656
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
Terrorism John
Rollins
7-5529
jrollins@crs.loc.gov
U.S. Institute of Peace
Matt Weed
7-4589
mweed@crs.loc.gov
U.S. Contributions to U.N. Agencies
Marjorie
7-7695 mbrowne@crs.loc.gov
Browne


Congressional Research Service
30