The Budget Control Act, Sequestration, and
the Foreign Affairs Budget: Background and
Possible Impacts
Susan B. Epstein
Specialist in Foreign Policy
March 13, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42994
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

The Budget Control Act, Sequestration, and the Foreign Affairs Budget

Summary
Congress has an interest in the cost and effectiveness of foreign affairs activities that promote
U.S. interests overseas. The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25), as amended by the
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240/H.R. 8, signed into law on January 2, 2013),
requires across-the-board reductions (sequestration) in most federal defense and nondefense
discretionary programs, projects, and activities, including those in foreign affairs. These
automatic cuts went into effect on March 1, 2013. Of ongoing interest will be the impact of these
cuts on State Department operations, foreign aid programs, and their ability to protect Americans
and promote U.S. interests overseas.
According to a February 22, 2013, Pew Research Center survey, Americans surveyed support cuts
in foreign aid spending more than any other government activity mentioned. Although still not the
majority, 48% of those polled prefer a decrease in foreign aid, while 49% prefer it remains at the
current level or is increased. When asked about the Department of State, 34% said they prefer the
Department of State funding be decreased, while 60% support maintaining current State
Department funding or increasing it.
At the same time that sequestration is being implemented, Congress is also working on
continuing government funding through the remainder of the fiscal year. Currently, the
government is operating under a continuing resolution (CR, P.L. 112-175) that provides stop-gap
funding through March 27, 2013. Some believe that Congress might pass a CR that provides
more flexibility for implementing the sequestration law. Whether or not a CR amends the across-
the-board cuts, many expect the new CR funding levels to change the baseline of Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) calculations and, thus, change the current estimates of
sequestration cuts, including for foreign affairs spending accounts.
In addition, the Administration has indicated that it intends to submit its FY2014 budget request
to Congress in April. It will identify President Obama’s priorities and plans for meeting the BCA
caps in the next fiscal year.
This report discusses current OMB estimates of foreign affairs accounts sequestration amounts.
For background on the current foreign affairs budget, see CRS Report R42621, State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations. This report will be
updated as changes occur.


Congressional Research Service

---

The Budget Control Act, Sequestration, and the Foreign Affairs Budget

Contents
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Sequestration of the Department of State and Foreign Operations Appropriations ......................... 2
How Foreign Affairs Sequestration Is to Be Implemented ........................................................ 2
Foreign Affairs Exemptions ....................................................................................................... 4
Preliminary Calculations and Possible Impact .......................................................................... 4

Tables
Table 1. State Department, Foreign Operations and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2011-FY2013 Post-Sequestration Estimate ............................................................................. 6

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 10

Congressional Research Service

---

The Budget Control Act, Sequestration, and the Foreign Affairs Budget

Background
Across-the-board funding reductions (sequestration) are estimated to significantly cut most
discretionary appropriations and direct spending within the federal budget. While much of the
congressional debate surrounds defense budget cuts, some Members of Congress, the newly
sworn-in Secretary of State John Kerry, and foreign aid advocates are concerned about the effect
sequestration could have on foreign affairs (150 budget function). They express concern about
activities that promote U.S. interests overseas such as providing humanitarian assistance and
regional stability abroad, economic and security support for U.S. strategic partners, as well as
export promotion and market development programs that benefit American job creation. Other
Members and many polled Americans, according to a recent Pew survey, consider foreign affairs
funding, particularly foreign aid, as spending that should be cut to reduce the deficit.
The Budget Control Act of 2011(BCA, P.L. 112-25), signed into law on August 2, 2011, was the
result of negotiations between the President and Congress to raise the debt ceiling by at least $2.1
trillion and reduce spending by that amount over a 10-year period between FY2012 and FY2021.1
It established the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to develop legislation to reduce the
deficit for Congress and the President to enact by January 15, 2012. The committee failed to do
this by November 23, 2011, and Congress did not approve a deal by its deadline of December 23,
2011. This failure triggered an automatic spending reduction process consisting of a combination
of sequestration in 2013 and lower statutory limits on discretionary spending through FY2021 to
meet the required $1.2 trillion in savings.
Section 302 of the BCA amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
(BBEDCA), requiring the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to allocate half of the total
reduction to discretionary appropriations and direct spending accounts within function 050
(defense) and half to all others in order to meet the $1.2 trillion reduction. Spending limits for
each are established for FY2013 through FY2021. The spending reductions are achieved for
direct spending (mandatory spending) through a combination of sequestration and the regular
appropriation process. For discretionary spending like the foreign affairs budget, reductions are
achieved through sequestration in FY2013 and through downward adjustment of statutory limits
to be met in the appropriation process for FY2014 to FY2021.
To meet the spending limits, the BCA originally required about $109 billion in automatic budget
reductions to be applied equally between defense and nondefense spending and to each program,
project, and activity (PPA) within every non-exempt budget account on January 2, 2013. It also
designated that OMB would calculate and implement the sequestration using specific procedures
provided in the BCA.
The Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 (STA, P.L. 112-155; signed August 7, 2012) required
OMB to submit a report to Congress no later than 30 days after enactment of the act outlining the
potential sequestration triggered by the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit
Reduction. The OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012, September

1 For more detail, see CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011, by Bill Heniff Jr., Elizabeth Rybicki, and
Shannon M. Mahan.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

The Budget Control Act, Sequestration, and the Foreign Affairs Budget

14, 2012, presents the methodology, identifies sequestrable and exempt funds, and estimates
sequestration at the account-level.2
Sequestration of the Department of State and
Foreign Operations Appropriations
The State-Foreign Operations (SFOP) appropriations, typically representing about 1.5% of the
total federal budget in recent years, supports most programs and activities within the international
affairs budget account, known as the 150 budget function. SFOP appropriations include foreign
economic and security assistance, contributions to international organizations and multilateral
financial institutions, State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
operations, public diplomacy, and international broadcasting programs. A few 150 function
activities, such as foreign food aid (P.L. 480), are not included.
How Foreign Affairs Sequestration Is to Be Implemented
The Budget Control Act of 2011, as amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L.
112-240/H.R. 8, signed into law January 2, 2013), requires $85.3 billion in automatic cuts to be
applied equally ($42.65 billion for each) between defense and nondefense accounts.3 Defense is
defined as spending under the 050 budget function, and nondefense is defined as spending under
most other budget functions. Foreign affairs appropriations are categorized as nondefense. OMB
calculates that, in order to meet the FY2013 budget cap and based on the current CR funding
levels, a 5% reduction for nondefense discretionary funding and a 5.1% reduction for nondefense
mandatory programs is necessary between March and September 30, 2013.4
The approximately 5% reduction is to be applied to the annualized level of the budgetary
resources provided under the FY2013 CR. The Continuing Resolution Appropriation, 2013 (CR,
P.L. 112-175) provides appropriations for foreign affairs spending at the FY2012 appropriation
act levels plus an increase of .0612% for most accounts through March 27, 2013.5 According to
State Department officials, for State Department operations, many reductions will be calculated at
the account level, but some will be at PPA levels as defined in the most recent appropriations and
authorization acts or related report language.6 For foreign operations, the FY2012 appropriation

2 For more detail on program exemptions and rules, see CRS Report R42050, Budget “Sequestration” and Selected
Program Exemptions and Special Rules, coordinated by Karen Spar.
3 For more detail, see CRS Report R42949, The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012: Modifications to the Budget
Enforcement Procedures in the Budget Control Act, by Bill Heniff Jr.
4 The Office of Management and Budget, OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration for Fiscal
Year 2013, March 1, 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/
fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf.
5 Appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations was not increased by 0.612% for FY2013.
6 E-mail communication on February 21, 2013, with Department of State Office of Budget Analysis who cited the
following: Section 251A(10) of Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 states that the required
reductions “shall be implemented in accordance with section 256(k).” Section 256(k)(2) provides as follows: Except as
otherwise provided, the same percentage sequestration shall apply to all programs, projects, and activities within a
budget account (with programs, projects, and activities as delineated in the appropriation Act or accompanying report
for the relevant fiscal year covering that account, or for accounts not included in appropriation Acts, as delineated in
the most recently submitted President’s Budget). Thus, each budget account must be analyzed separately to determine
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2

---

The Budget Control Act, Sequestration, and the Foreign Affairs Budget

act defined some PPAs, particularly foreign aid programs. Section 7023 of P.L. 112-74, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 states that for Foreign Operations
‘‘program, project, and activity’’ shall be defined at the appropriations Act account level and
shall include all appropriations and authorizations Acts funding directives, ceilings, and
limitations with the exception that for the following accounts: ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’
and ‘‘Foreign Military Financing Program’’, ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ shall also be
considered to include country, regional, and central program level funding within each such
account; for the development assistance accounts of the United States Agency for
International Development ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ shall also be considered to
include central, country, regional, and program level funding, either as:
(1) justified to the Congress; or
(2) allocated by the executive branch in accordance with a report, to be provided to the
Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of the enactment of this Act, as required
by section 653(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
According to State Department’s F Bureau, sequestration is to be applied at the account level for
International Disaster Assistance, Transition Initiatives (TI), Complex Crises Fund (CCF),
USAID’s Capital Investment Fund (CIF), USAID’s Inspector General (IG), Administrative
expenses of the Development Credit Authority (DCA), U.S. Emergency Refugee and Migration
Assistance (ERMA), International Military Education and Training (IMET), Assistance for
Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia (AEECA), and the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability
Fund (PCCF).
Sequestration is to be applied at the account level and to earmarks for Peacekeeping Operations
(PKO), International Organizations and Programs (IO&P), USAID Operating Expenses (USAID
OE), Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR), Democracy
Fund (DF) split between State and USAID, Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA), and
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE).
The sequester is to be applied at the country allocation level and to earmarks for Development
Assistance (DA), Economic Support Fund (ESF), Global Health Programs (GHP), and Foreign
Military Financing (FMF).
Under sequestration, the Department of State and USAID have the authority to reprogram certain
funds to protect a particular country or activity, subject to regular notification procedures. That
would mean, however, that other PPAs within those accounts would be further reduced. It is
possible that transfer authority may be available as defined by Section 7009, Title VII, Division I
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, P.L. 112-74.7 Because of these uncertainties,
precise country allocations after sequestration cannot be calculated.

(...continued)
its component PPAs. For discretionary spending, the inquiry requires agencies to conduct a detailed analysis of their
appropriation act(s) for the relevant fiscal year and, if applicable, any legislative report accompanying that act.
7 Telephone conversation with the Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance (F Bureau), Department of State,
February 20, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

The Budget Control Act, Sequestration, and the Foreign Affairs Budget

Foreign Affairs Exemptions
According to OMB’s September 2012 report, certain foreign affairs funds are exempt from
sequestration. Exemptions within the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related
Programs appropriations include8
• mandatory funds, such as the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund;
• intragovernmental payments, such as other agencies’ contributions to the
Capital Security Cost Sharing Program (CSCS), the Working Capital Fund, or the
International Cooperative Administrative Support Services (ICASS), because
those funds would be sequestered at the paying agency; and
• voluntary payments, such as the sale of property back to host countries; user
fees, such as for passports; or rent paid by other entities to use the International
Chancery Center.
Preliminary Calculations and Possible Impact
OMB’s calculations based on the current six-month CR, as seen in the Table 1 below, show that
the sequestration would reduce State-Foreign Operations appropriations by more than $2.7 billion
in FY2013. The total estimate of $52.3 billion for the Department of State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs in FY2013 is 3% below the FY2012 appropriation estimate, but still 6%
above the FY2011 actual funding level.
Within the total reduction, according to OMB, the Department of State’s Administration of
Foreign Affairs will be reduced by $670 million. Of specific interest to some in Congress is the
anticipated $550 million reduction in the Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP) account,
which includes Worldwide Security Programs (WSP) funds for embassy security, and the $79
million reduction in Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM), which includes
Worldwide Security Upgrades (WSU) for facility security around the world.9 While WSP and
WSU estimated reductions are not available, the House Appropriations Committee Democrats
estimate that sequestration could cut about $168 million from embassy security activities at a time
when many, including the Accountability Review Board (ARB) for the Benghazi Consulate
attack, are saying embassy security is already underfunded.10
OMB estimates show Global Health Programs (GHP) would lose $411 million, including an
estimated $280 million from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR); the
Economic Support Fund (ESF) would lose $284 million; and Foreign Military Financing (FMF)
would lose $317 million.
OMB also calculates that U.S. Contributions to International Peacekeeping and Peacekeeping
Operations are scheduled to lose $92 million and $19 million, respectively, which could cause
disruption in activities such as the ongoing U.S. efforts to stabilize Mali. More than $100 million

8 Telephone conversation with the State Department’s Bureau of Budget and Planning, February 13, 2013.
9 In addition to appropriations, D&CP has an estimated $2,290 million in fees that would also be sequestered, reducing
it by $115 million.
10 The House Committee on Appropriations, Report on Sequestration, by House Committee Democrats, February 13,
2013, pp. 27-31.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

The Budget Control Act, Sequestration, and the Foreign Affairs Budget

would be reduced from international counter-narcotics programs, which could hinder the work to
dismantle drug-trafficking in Mexico and elsewhere. And sequestration is expected to reduce
International Broadcasting funds by about $39 million, perhaps limiting the ability to influence
audiences abroad.
According to Secretary of State John Kerry, other possible impacts from these cuts could include
the following:11
• Reductions in humanitarian aid may reduce the U.S. ability to address growing
needs in Syria, the Horn of Africa, and the Sahel.
• Reductions in security assistance could hinder U.S. support for Israel.
Sequestration of national security assistance would include an estimated
reduction of $317 million in Foreign Military Financing, more than half of which
typically is appropriated for Israel. Another 42% of FMF funds in recent years
have gone to Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq.
• The Diplomatic and Consular Programs account could restrict the ability to help
Americans abroad and could limit the processing of visa applications. The
Department of Commerce estimates that issuing visas promotes American job
creation in the travel and tourism industry.
• An estimated reduction in U.S. economic and development assistance overseas
by more than $400 million may hinder lifesaving global health programs and
curtail opening up overseas markets for U.S. exports and the resulting job
creation that supports those exports.
In sharp contrast, however, some Members of Congress believe reducing foreign aid would not
cause a significant problem. They argue that the United States should spend that money
domestically.12 Some also suggest that foreign aid funding has increased in recent years and the
sequester would bring it in line with funding levels during the George W. Bush Administration. A
recent survey illustrated this sentiment when, among 19 categories included in the survey, foreign
aid received the highest percentage in favor of decreasing its funding. Public opinion, however,
registers a split on this issue. When Americans were asked what should happen to foreign aid
funding, 48% said it should be decreased, although 49% said it should be increased or remain the
same. The Department of State received a more favorable response, with 34% believing its
funding should be decreased, while 60% said it should be increased or remain the same.13
Foreign aid proponents respond that most U.S. foreign aid benefits the United States in promoting
national security, exports, American jobs to support those exports, and regional stability around
the world. They contend that foreign aid achieves a lot for a small amount of funds that represent
less than 1% of the total U.S. government budget.14 Furthermore, for the U.S. government to not

11 Letter from Secretary of State John F. Kerry to Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Chairwoman, Senate Committee on
Appropriations, February 11, 2013.
12 Sen. Rand Paul’s Sequester Solution: Stop Replacing Retired Federal Workers, Cut Foreign Aid & Travel, Real
Clear Politics, February 26, 2013, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/26. Looming US cuts raise fears for
world’s poor, Agence France-Presse, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130226/looming-us-cuts-raise-
fears-world’s-poor, February 26, 2013.
13 Pew Research Center, As Sequester Deadline Looms, Little Support for Cutting Most Programs, February 22, 2013,
p. 1.
14 While State-Foreign Operations appropriations typically represents about 1.5% of the total federal budget, the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5

---

The Budget Control Act, Sequestration, and the Foreign Affairs Budget

be engaged with many countries trying to transition toward democracy would likely leave a void
that could be filled by unfriendly countries.
Despite differing views of reducing foreign affairs spending, how current and future
Administrations do more overseas with less will be key as reductions continue to FY2021 and
perhaps beyond. Table 1 below outlines budget levels by account for FY2011, estimated FY2012
levels, and OMB estimates of the FY2013 baseline and sequestration levels.
Table 1. State Department, Foreign Operations and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2011-FY2013 Post-Sequestration Estimate
(millions of current U.S. $)
FY2011
FY2012 estimate
Sequestration of Appropriations
actuala
(P.L. 112-74)
for FY2013b
Sequestered
approps
FY2013
[funds not
appropriation
sequestered Sequester estimate post

Total Core OCO Total
in brackets] amount sequestration
Title I. State Department
11,384.83 9,018.01
4,513.34 13,531.35
13,604
670
12,934
Administration of Foreign
Affairs, Subtotal
Diplomatic & Consular
8,717.07 6,529.13
4,389.06
10,918.19
11,001c
550 c 10,451
Program
Capital Investment Fund
59.38
59.38
59.38
60
3
57
Embassy Security,
1,630.95 1,537.00
33.00
1,570.00
1,579
79
1,500
Construction & Maintenance
Conflict Stabilization
35.20 21.82
8.50
30.32
8 *
8
Operations
Ed. & Cultural Exchanges
599.55
583.20
15.60
598.80
602
30
572
Office of Inspector General
104.79
61.90
67.18
129.08
129
6
123
Representation Al owances
7.84
7.30
7.30
7
*
7
Protection of Foreign Missions
27.94 27.00
27.00
27 1
26
& Officials
Emergency-Diplomatic &
19.35 9.30
9.30
9 *
9
Consular Services
Repatriation Loans
1.57
1.45
1.45
1
*
1
International Center
0.51
0.52
0.52
1
*
1
Payment American Institute
21.78 21.11
21.11
21 1
20
Taiwan
Foreign Service Retirement
158.90 158.90
158.90
[159] —
159
(mandatory)
International
3,462.58 3,277.88
101.30
3,379.18
3,399
170
3,229
Organizations, Subtotal
Contributions to Int’l Orgs
1,578.65
1,449.70
101.30
1,551.00
1,560
78
1,482
Contributions to International
1,883.93 1,828.18
1,828.18
1,839
92
1,747
Peacekeeping
International Commissions
132.64
124.16
0.00
124.16
126
7
119

(...continued)
foreign aid portion typically represents less 1% of the federal budget.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

The Budget Control Act, Sequestration, and the Foreign Affairs Budget

FY2011
FY2012 estimate
Sequestration of Appropriations
actuala
(P.L. 112-74)
for FY2013b
Sequestered
approps
FY2013
[funds not
appropriation
sequestered Sequester estimate post

Total Core OCO Total
in brackets] amount sequestration
Int’l Boundary/
69.66 76.17
76.17
77 4
73
U.S.-Mexico
American Sections
12.58
11.69
11.69
12
1
11
International Fisheries
50.40
36.30
36.30
37
2
35
International
738.76 747.13
4.40
751.53
756 39
717
Broadcasting, Subtotal
Broadcasting Operations
732.31
740.10
4.40
744.50
749
39
710
Capital Improvements
6.45
7.03
7.03
7
*
7
Related Appropriations,
198.00 183.77
8.40
192.17
194 10
184
Subtotal
Asia Foundation
17.86
17.00
17.00
17
1
16
U.S. Institute of Peace
39.40
30.59
8.40
38.99
39
2
37
Center for Middle East-West
1.30 0.84
0.84
[1] —
1
Dialogue-Trust & Program
Eisenhower Exchange
0.30 0.50
0.50
[1] —
1
Programs
Israeli Arab Scholarship
0.42 0.38
0.38
1 *
1
Program
East-West Center
20.96
16.70
16.70
17
1
16
National Endowment for
117.76 117.76
117.76
118
6
112
Democracy
Other Commissions 13.00
11.84
0.00
11.84
12
* 12
Preservation of America’s
0.60 0.63
0.63
[1] —
1
Heritage
Int’l Religious Freedom
4.30
3.00
3.00
[3]
—
3
Security & Cooperation
2.60 2.72
2.72
[3] —
3
Europe
Cong.-Exec. on People’s
2.00 2.00
2.00
[2] —
2
Republic of China
U.S.-China Economic and
3.50 3.49
3.49
3 *
3
Security Review
State/Broadcasting/Related 15,929.81 13,362.79
4,627.44 17,990.23
18,091
896
17,195
Agencies, TOTAL
Title II. U.S. Agency for
1,528.44 1,268.50
259.50
1,528.00
1,535
78
1,457
International Development
USAID Operating Expenses
1,347.30
1,092.30
255.00
1,347.30
1,354
68
1,286
Conflict Stabilization
4.99 —
—
—
—
Operations
USAID Capital Investment
129.74 129.70
129.70
130
7
123
Fund
USAID Inspector General
46.41
46.50
4.50
51.00
51
3
48
Title III. Bilateral
21,205.03 18,353.94
3,218.56 21,572.50
21,544 1,077
20,467
Economic Assistance,
Subtotal
Global Health Programs
7,832.31 8,167.86
8,167.86
8,218 411
7,807
(GHP), State + USAID
Development Assistance
2,519.95
2,519.95
2,519.95
2,535
127
2,408
Congressional Research Service
7

---

The Budget Control Act, Sequestration, and the Foreign Affairs Budget

FY2011
FY2012 estimate
Sequestration of Appropriations
actuala
(P.L. 112-74)
for FY2013b
Sequestered
approps
FY2013
[funds not
appropriation
sequestered Sequester estimate post

Total Core OCO Total
in brackets] amount sequestration
International Disaster &
863.27 825.00
150.00
975.00
980 49
931
Famine Assistance
Transition Initiatives
54.89
50.14
6.55
56.69
57
3
54
Complex Crises Fund
39.92
10.00
30.00
40.00
40
2
38
Development Credit Authority
8.28 8.30
8.30
8 *
8
–Admin
Economic Support Fund
5,931.71
2,994.75
2,801.46
5,796.21
5,675
284
5,391
Assistance for Europe; Eurasia
695.74 626.72
626.72
631 32
599
& Central Asia (AEECA)
Democracy Fund
114.77
114.77
114.77
115
6
109
Migration & Refugee
1,694.60 1,646.10
229.00
1,875.10
1,885
94
1,791
Assistance
Emergency Refugee and
49.90 27.20
27.20
27 1
26
Migration
Inter-American Foundation
22.45
22.50
22.50
23 c
1 c 22
African Development
29.44 30.00
30.00
30 2
28
Foundation
Peace Corps
374.25
375.00
375.00
377
19
358
Millennium Challenge
898.20 898.20
898.20
904 45
859
Corporation
Treasury Department
25.45 25.45
1.55
27.00
[27] —
27
Technical Assistance
Debt Restructuring
49.90
12.00
12.00
12
1
11
Title IV. Military/Security
8,413.96 7,269.82
3,097.27 10,367.09
10,501
523
9,978
Assistance, Subtotal
International Narcotics
1,593.81 1,061.10
943.61
2,004.71
2,051 103
1,948
Control & Law Enforcement
Nonproliferation, Anti-
738.52 590.11
120.66
710.77
714 36
678
Terrorism, Demining
International Military Education
105.79 105.79
105.79
106
5
101
& Training
Foreign Military Financing
5,374.23
5,210.00
1,102.00
6,312.00
6,344
317
6,027
Peacekeeping Operations
304.39 302.82
81.00
383.82
386 19
367
Pakistan Counterinsurgency
297.22 800.00
800.00
850
43
807
Capability Fund (PCCF)
Global Security Fund

—
50.00
50.00
[50]
—
50
Title V. Multilateral
2,299.47 2,971.10
2,971.10
3,259
150
3,109
Assistance, Subtotal
World Bank: Global
89.82 89.82
89.82
[90] —
90
Environment Facility
International Clean Technology
184.63 184.63
184.63
186
9
177
Fund
Strategic Climate Fund
49.90
49.90
49.90
50
3
47
World Bank: Int’l.
1,232.53 1,325.00
1,325.00
1,501
75
1,426
Development Association
Int. Bank Recon & Dev

117.36
117.36
208
10
198
Inter-Amer. Dev. Bank - capital

75.00
75.00
80
4
76
Congressional Research Service
8

---

The Budget Control Act, Sequestration, and the Foreign Affairs Budget

FY2011
FY2012 estimate
Sequestration of Appropriations
actuala
(P.L. 112-74)
for FY2013b
Sequestered
approps
FY2013
[funds not
appropriation
sequestered Sequester estimate post

Total Core OCO Total
in brackets] amount sequestration
IADB: Enterprise for Americas
24.95 25.00
25.00
25 1
24
MIF
IADB: Inter-American
20.96 4.67
4.67
[5] —
5
Investment Corporation
Asian Development Bank/Fund
106
206.59
206.59
208
10
198
African Development
109.78 204.92
204.92
214 11
203
Bank/Fund
International Fund for
29.44 30.00
30.00
30 2
28
Agricultural Development
Global Food Security Fund
99.80
135.00
135.00
136
7
129
International Organizations &
351.29 348.71
348.71
351 18
333
Programs
Multilateral Debt Relief

174.50
174.50
[175]
—
175
Title VI. Export Aid,
(149.40) (413.01)
(413.01)
108
6
102
Subtotal
Export-Import Bank (net)
2.58
(266.00)
(266.00)
—
—
—
Overseas Private Investment
(201.88) (197.01)
(197.01)
58
3
55
Corporation (net)
Trade & Development Agency
49.90
50.00
50.00
50
3
47
Foreign Ops TOTAL
33,297.50 29,450.35
6,575.33 36,025.68
36,947
1,834
35,113
State-Broadcasting-
15,929.81 13,362.79
4,627.44 17,990.23
18,091
896
17,195
Related, TOTAL
State-Foreign Operations,
49,227.31 42,813.14 11,202.77 54,015.91
55,038 2,730
52,308
TOTAL
Source: FY2011 and FY2012data are from the FY2013 Congressional Budget Justification; FY2013 data are from
the OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration for Fiscal Year 2013, March 1, 2013.
Notes: Figures in brackets are funds that are appropriated, but not sequestered. Figures in parentheses are
negative numbers.
* denotes $500,000 or less.
a. FY2011 figures reflect a 0.2% across-the-board rescission included in P.L. 112-10.
b. Calculations provided by the Office of Management and Budget, OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint
Committee Sequestration for Fiscal Year 2013, March 1, 2013.
c. In addition to appropriations, D&CP funds include an additional $2,290 million in direct spending authority
that a sequester would reduce by $115 million. The Inter-American Foundation, in addition to
appropriations, gets $6 million in direct spending authority that would be reduced by less than $500,000.
d. Figures are net of offsetting receipts.


Congressional Research Service
9

---

The Budget Control Act, Sequestration, and the Foreign Affairs Budget

Author Contact Information
Susan B. Epstein
Specialist in Foreign Policy
sepstein@crs.loc.gov, 7-6678


Congressional Research Service
10

---