The FY2014 State and Foreign Operations
Budget Request

Susan B. Epstein
Specialist in Foreign Policy
Marian Leonardo Lawson
Analyst in Foreign Assistance
Alex Tiersky
Analyst in Foreign Affairs
May 2, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43043
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

The FY2014 State and Foreign Operations Budget Request

Summary
On April 10, 2013, the Obama Administration submitted to Congress its budget request for
FY2014. The request for State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs totals $51.97 billion
(2.7% below the FY2012 actual funding level of $53.43 billion, including the Foreign Service
Retirement and Disability Fund and before rescissions), of which $3.81 billion is for Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) funding (66% below FY2012 actual OCO funding of $11.2
billion). Of the total request, $16.87 billion is for State Department Operations and related
agencies (a 6.3% decline from FY2012 funding) and $35.1 billion is for Foreign Operations (a
0.9% decline from the FY2012 level).
Comparisons in this report will be with FY2012 actual funding levels, since the final FY2013
funding levels are not yet available and the Administration has yet to provide definitive guidance
on how savings in the FY2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L.
113-6) are to be credited in relation to the sequestration ordered on March 1, 2013. In addition,
the FY2013 estimates do not include the additional across-the-board percentage rescission
calculated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as required by Section 3004 in
Division G of P.L. 113-6, in order to meet the FY2013 spending limits of the Budget Control Act
of 2011, as amended.
This report provides a brief overview of the FY2014 State Department, Foreign Operations and
Related Programs funding request.

Congressional Research Service

The FY2014 State and Foreign Operations Budget Request

Contents
FY2014 State-Foreign Operations Overview .................................................................................. 1
The Budget Control Act and State-Foreign Operations Appropriations .................................... 1
FY2014 State Operations Overview ................................................................................................ 2
State Operations Key Issues ............................................................................................................ 3
Diplomatic Security ................................................................................................................... 3
Management and Human Resources of the Department of State .............................................. 3
Expeditionary Diplomacy and Key Regional Initiatives ........................................................... 4
FY2014 Foreign Operations Overview ............................................................................................ 5
Foreign Operations Key Issues ........................................................................................................ 7
Support for Middle East and North Africa Transitions .............................................................. 7
Overseas Contingency Operations............................................................................................. 8
Food Aid Reform ....................................................................................................................... 9
Humanitarian Assistance ......................................................................................................... 10
Ongoing Administration Initiatives ......................................................................................... 10

Tables
Table 1. State Department & Related Programs: Total Funding and Select Accounts* .................. 2
Table 2. Foreign Aid by Appropriations Title, FY2012 Actual and FY2014 Request ..................... 6
Table 3. Top 10 Recipients of U.S. Foreign Assistance, FY2012 Actual
and FY2014 Request .................................................................................................................... 7
Table 4.Overseas Contingency Operations Funding in Foreign Operations Accounts,
FY2012, FY2013 and FY2014 Request ....................................................................................... 9
Table A-1. State, Foreign Operations and Related Accounts Appropriations, FY2012
Enacted, FY2013 CR Enacted, FY2013 CR Net Sequestration, and the FY2014
Request, by Account ................................................................................................................... 12

Appendixes
Appendix. State, Foreign Operations and Related Accounts Appropriations, FY2012-
FY2014 Request, by Account ..................................................................................................... 12

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 16

Congressional Research Service

The FY2014 State and Foreign Operations Budget Request

FY2014 State-Foreign Operations Overview
The Administration’s FY2014 request of $51.97 billion for State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs represents about 1.4% of the total budget request for FY2014. It is 5.3% less than the
FY2013 request and 12.9% less than the FY2012 request. (See Table A-1 in the Appendix.)
The State Department and related agencies request of $16.87 billion (including the mandatory
Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund), represents a decline of 10.3% from the FY2012
requested level of $18.8 billion. About $35.1 billion is for foreign operations accounts, which is a
2.8% reduction from the FY2012 requested funding of $36.1 billion (excluding related
international commissions within the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations). However, the
FY2014 foreign operations request includes funding for Food for Peace programs that are
currently funded through the Department of Agriculture appropriation. As a result, the FY2014
request for Agriculture programs within the 150 budget would decrease by 89%, from $1.65
billion to $185 million, from the FY2012 level. Excluding the shifted Food for Peace funds, the
foreign operations request is about 5% lower than the FY2012 enacted level.
The Budget Control Act and State-Foreign Operations
Appropriations

Automatic spending reductions for FY2013, required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA,
P.L. 112-25, amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, P.L. 112-240), will be met
through sequestration at the program, project, and activity (PPA) level. This sequestration process
is currently under way. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) initially estimated foreign
affairs sequestration to be about 5% of the FY2013 Department of State and Foreign Operations
discretionary funding.1 Section 3004 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6), requires an increase in rescissions if OMB estimates that additional
rescissions are needed to avoid exceeding the BCA spending limits. OMB announced in an April
4, 2013, letter that an additional 0.032% across-the-board rescission for the security category,
including State-Foreign Operations appropriations, is necessary. Later in April, OMB determined
that $719 million in funding credits are to be provided to the Department of State because some
accounts were reduced below the required sequestration levels in the FY2013 full-year
appropriation act (P.L. 113-6).
As determined by the BCA, for some Department of State, U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), and foreign aid activities, sequestration and rescissions are applied at the
account level, such as USAID Operating Expenses. For others, such as Development Assistance
(DA), Foreign Military Financing (FMF), Economic Support Fund (ESF), and Global Health
Programs (GHP), reductions are at the country allocation level. Overseas Contingency Operations
(OCO) funds can be sequestered, but do not count toward spending caps. While final post-
sequestration funding levels for FY2013 are yet to be determined, preliminary estimates are used
in this report when available. According to the Administration, sequestration could cut as much as
$2.6 billion from the FY2013 Department of State and USAID funding levels. Reductions for

1 The Office of Management and Budget, OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration for Fiscal
Year 2013
, March 1, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
1

The FY2014 State and Foreign Operations Budget Request

State operations and foreign assistance could be about $850 million and about $1.7 billion,
respectively. The Administration states the FY2014 budget request did not assume sequestration.
(For more detail, see CRS Report R42994, The Budget Control Act, Sequestration, and the
Foreign Affairs Budget: Background and Possible Impacts
, by Susan B. Epstein.)
FY2014 State Operations Overview
The Administration has requested $16.87 billion for the State Department and related agencies in
FY2014. It includes $12.18 billion for administration of foreign affairs accounts that include the
mandatory Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund, a 6.3% decrease from the FY2012
actual funding level. A large portion of the decrease is attributable to a $2.3 billion reduction in
OCO Iraq operations funds as the U.S. presence and footprint in that country are reduced.
The Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP) account, the operating account of the
Department of State, would see a 21.9% decline from FY2012 in overall funding under the
Administration’s request. This is largely due to a $3.1 billion decrease in requested OCO funding
in that account; enduring D&CP would actually rise by 11%. The request for Embassy Security,
Construction and Maintenance, the State Department’s second-largest administrative account,
calls for $2.65 billion, a 60.6% increase from the FY2012 actual level, largely to provide for more
secure facilities abroad. Among other large accounts, Contributions to International Organizations
would rise by 8.6%, while funding for international broadcasting activities and funds for
Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs would decline by 2.7% and 6.7%, respectively.
Table 1. State Department & Related Programs: Total Funding and Select Accounts*
(in billions of current U.S. $)

FY2012 Actual
FY2014 Request
% change
Total, State & Related Programs
18.01
16.87
- 6.3
Diplomatic and Consular
10.86 8.48
- 21.9
Programs
Embassy Security Construction
1.65 2.65
+ 60.6
and Maintenance
Educational and Cultural Exchange
0.60 0.56 - 6.7
Programs
Contributions to Int.
3.38 3.67
+ 8.6
Organizations/ Peacekeeping
International Broadcasting
0.75
0.71
- 2.7
Source: Department of State, FY2014 Congressional Budget Justification Executive Summary.
*Totals include mandatory funding for the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund.
Congressional Research Service
2

The FY2014 State and Foreign Operations Budget Request

State Operations Key Issues
Diplomatic Security
The dangers to U.S. diplomats abroad have been underscored by a number of recent attacks on
U.S. facilities and personnel. These include the death of the U.S. Ambassador and three other
U.S. personnel in an attack in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012; attacks on U.S.
embassies in Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, and Yemen, on the same day; the bombing of U.S. Embassy
Ankara on February 1, 2012; and the death of U.S. Foreign Service Officer Anne Smedinghoff in
Afghanistan on April 6, 2013.2 The protection of U.S. government employees and facilities
abroad under Chief of Mission authority from terrorist, criminal, or technical attack is the
responsibility of the Secretary of State.3
The Accountability Review Board on the Benghazi attack urged State to work with Congress to
increase resources for diplomatic security and allow for more flexibility in the application of
those resources. In December 2012, the Secretary of State presented an Increased Security
Proposal to Congress, which requested authority to transfer $1.3 billion in OCO funds previously
appropriated for Iraq operations towards diplomatic security needs. Of that, $553 million would
be for additional Marine security guards worldwide, $130 million for 151 new diplomatic security
personnel and $736 million for improved security at overseas facilities. While the transfer
authority was not provided by the 112th Congress, Section 1707 of the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 (H.R. 933, P.L. 113-6) provided additional funding for
diplomatic security ($918 million for Worldwide Security Protection, to remain available until
expended; and $1.3 billion for Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance), while
rescinding $1.1 billion in unobligated balances from FY2012 OCO funds.
The Administration’s FY2014 request seeks to sustain the initiatives launched under the FY2013
Increased Security Proposal, including expansion of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and
further growth in the number of Marine Security Guard detachments deployed to diplomatic
facilities. The request seeks $2.2 billion for construction of new secure diplomatic facilities, a
combination of enduring funding, OCO funding, and other agency contributions. The request for
Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance of $2.65 billion (including OCO) represents a
60.6% increase from the FY2012 actual level. Within this account, Worldwide Security Upgrades
funding (for bricks and mortar security needs, including construction of secure new embassy
compounds) would grow by 108% to $1.61 billion, while Ongoing Operations would increase by
18%. Worldwide Security Protection funds (for security programs including a worldwide guard
force), under Diplomatic and Consular Programs, would rise by 37%, to $2.18 billion.
Management and Human Resources of the Department of State
Many observers suggest that the Department of State chronically faces significant personnel
shortfalls, a situation worsened in recent years by a growing number of overseas positions to fill.

2 For more information on issues pertaining to diplomatic security, see CRS Report R42834, Securing U.S. Diplomatic
Facilities and Personnel Abroad: Background and Policy Issues
, by Alex Tiersky and Susan B. Epstein.
3 As designated under the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, as amended, 22 U.S.C. §4801
et seq., P.L. 99-399.
Congressional Research Service
3

The FY2014 State and Foreign Operations Budget Request

The ranks of mid-level Foreign Service officers (FSOs) are particularly thin, forcing junior
personnel to serve in assignments meant for personnel of higher rank.4 In the past few years, to
address this deficiency as well as the need to better train its employees, the State Department
increased hiring under its Human Resources Initiative, growing the FS by approximately 18%;
however, hiring slowed significantly in FY2011-FY2012 due to budget constraints.
The Administration’s FY2014 request seeks to grow its Human Resources account (under
Diplomatic & Consular Programs) by 5% over its FY2012 level, to a total of $2.60 billion. While
the Administration’s FY2014 request indicates that it plans 186 new positions at the Department
of State altogether, 151 of these would be funded by consular fees and devoted to meeting
increasing visa demand. The remaining 35 new positions (30 Foreign Service, 5 Civil Service) for
which State seeks appropriated funding would be focused on the high priorities of the “re-
balance” to Asia, and to staffing the Secretary’s Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues. As a
point of comparison, the State Department requested appropriated funding for 121 new positions
in its FY2013 request, and for 133 in its FY2012 request.
Among its initiatives to address workforce needs, the department seeks $81.4 million in FY2014
funding to provide an overseas comparability pay (OCP) adjustment intended to bring the base
pay of Foreign Service personnel posted overseas to levels comparable to their Foreign Service
colleagues serving in Washington, DC, who receive locality pay. OCP advocates argue that the
discrepancy affects morale and retention of FSOs and acts as a financial disincentive to serve
overseas, including by its cumulative impact on retirement pay. The requested funding would
provide a third and final tranche of OCP adjustment; two-thirds of the gap was addressed through
prior year funding. The department’s similar FY2013 request for OCP adjustment was not
supported by appropriators.
Expeditionary Diplomacy and Key Regional Initiatives
Reduced Resources for the Frontline States5
State Operations resources for the frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, would all
decrease under the Administration’s FY2014 budget request.
In Iraq, the Department of State became the lead agency for all U.S. programs after the departure
of U.S. military forces in late 2011. An initially ambitious presence has been dramatically
curtailed in the last year, due to a number of factors including resource constraints and what some
observers suggest were overly ambitious initial plans and Iraq’s intent to assert its independence
from U.S. tutelage. It also reduces further the department’s footprint by closing the Erbil
Diplomatic Support Center (to be replaced by a new consulate) and handing over other sites to the
Iraqi government, thereby reducing sustainment and security contract costs. Including foreign
assistance, the Administration requests $1.18 billion for its activities in Iraq, including $0.65
billion in Ongoing Operations OCO funding. The request is $2.4 billion lower than the FY2012
actual level.

4 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Department of State: Foreign Service Midlevel Staffing Gaps Persist Despite
Significant Increases in Hiring
, GAO-12-721, June 2012, p. 1, http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591595.pdf.
5 Department of State, Office of Resource Planning and Budget Information, April 15, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
4

The FY2014 State and Foreign Operations Budget Request

The U.S. presence in Afghanistan is also evolving as the international combat mission is slated to
end in 2014. The President’s overall budget request for Afghanistan is $3.1 billion, including $2.2
billion in assistance and $0.9 billion to support decreasing numbers of civilian personnel under
the State Department presence in Kabul and in four key regions. Ongoing Operations OCO
funding under the request would decrease by $0.71 billion from FY2012 levels, although
Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) OCO funding would increase to $0.37 billion, a jump of
96%.
Funds requested for Pakistan, including foreign assistance, total $1.3 billion. OCO funding for
Ongoing Operations ($0.04 billion) and WSP ($0.02 billion) both decrease under the FY2014
proposal, by 61% and 50%, respectively.
The “Rebalancing” to Asia
In the fall of 2011, the Obama Administration announced its intent to expand and intensify the
already significant U.S. role in the Asia-Pacific, particularly in Southeast and South Asia. Goals
underpinning this “rebalancing”—or “pivot”—to Asia include tapping into the economic
dynamism of the region and influencing the development of the Asia-Pacific’s norms and rules,
particularly as China’s regional influence grows. To this end, the Administration has, among other
actions, announced new military deployments to and partnerships with Australia, Singapore, and
the Philippines; joined the East Asia Summit; and secured progress in negotiations with 10 other
nations to form a Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement.
With some critics suggesting that the “rebalancing” has, to date, been overly focused on military
deployments and initiatives, the FY2014 request emphasizes the State Department’s role in
resourcing the re-balancing to Asia. In addition to a 7% increase in foreign assistance to the
region, the department seeks 29 new positions (of which 22 are Foreign Service) with the
intention of deploying additional Economic and Political/Military officers at key posts across
Asia. The request seeks $1.2 billion overall for Asia and the Pacific, including $0.77 billion in
assistance and $0.42 billion for operations in support of initiatives such as new facilities in China,
Laos, Papua New Guinea, and Burma. Still, the requested 4.4% increase in FY2014 enduring
State Operations funding for the East Asia and Pacific Bureau from FY2012 is smaller than
proposed increases for the Africa Bureau at +9.4% and the Near East Bureau without Iraq at
+11.8%.
FY2014 Foreign Operations Overview
The Foreign Operations budget funds most traditional foreign aid programs, with the exception of
food aid, including bilateral economic aid, multilateral aid, security assistance, and export
promotion programs. Funding for U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
operations is also part of the foreign operations budget. The FY2014 request of $35.095 billion
for these programs would be about a 1% decrease from the FY2012 enacted appropriation.
However, this total includes funding for food aid programs that are not currently funded through
foreign operations accounts. Excluding the roughly $1.5 billion in food aid shifted to these
accounts, the FY2014 foreign operations request is about 5% below the FY2012 funding.
Breaking the request down by appropriations title shows proposed shifts in foreign assistance
programming at the broad level (Table 3):
Congressional Research Service
5

The FY2014 State and Foreign Operations Budget Request

• Bilateral Economic Assistance, including funding for independent agencies,
makes up about 64.5% of the FY2014 foreign assistance request. Bilateral aid
would increase by 2.6% over FY2012 levels, largely as a result of the proposed
shift of food aid out of the agriculture bill and into bilateral assistance accounts.
The $580 million requested for a new Middle East and North Africa Incentive
Fund also contributes to the increase, though it would be balanced by a $688
million cut to the Economic Support Fund account.
• Security assistance accounts for about 24% of the proposed foreign aid budget,
with proposed funding at 12.6% less than the FY2012 enacted level. Almost
every security assistance account would be reduced compared to FY2012 totals.
However, all the accounts would see an increase in enduring funds, reflecting an
Administration effort to shift security assistance away from OCO to frontline
states and into enduring activities.
• Multilateral aid makes up about 9% of the foreign aid budget request, and would
increase by about 8% over FY2012-enacted levels. Increases are spread over
many accounts.
Table 2. Foreign Aid by Appropriations Title, FY2012 Actual and FY2014 Request
(in millions)
FY2012

Actual
FY2014 Request
% change
USAID
Administration
1,528,00 1,571,34 +2.8%
Bilateral Economic Aid
22,194.80
22,770.04
+2.6%
Security Assistance
9,749.58
8,524,38
-12.6%
Multilateral
Aid
2,966.29 3,196.44 +7.8%
Export Promotion, net
(1,015.43)
(967.14)
+4.8%
Total Foreign Operations*
35,423,24
35,095.45
-0.9%
+ Food Aid from Ag bil
1,650.00
185.13
-88.8%
Total Foreign Aid Request:
37,073,24
35,280,56
-4.8%
Source: FY2014 International Affairs Budget, Executive Summary; CRS calculations.
Notes: FY12 data does not reflect rescissions. Independent agencies and Treasury Department accounts under
Bilateral Economic Assistance. Does not include the International Trade Commission and the Foreign Claims
Settlement Commission, which were included in the Foreign Operations total in FY2014 budget request
materials.
*Totals do not include funding for related international commissions within Commerce, Justice, Science
appropriations.
Many of the top 10 recipients of foreign assistance would be the same under the FY2014 request
as in FY2012 (Table 4). The list is dominated by strategic allies in the Middle East and Southeast
Asia, as well as top global health program recipients in Africa. Israel would continue to be the top
U.S. aid recipient, at $3.1 billion, a $25 million increase over FY2012 funding. Afghanistan
would again rank second among recipients, though with a slightly smaller allocation compared to
FY2012. Iraq would drop out of the top five, with elimination of the Police Development
Congressional Research Service
6

The FY2014 State and Foreign Operations Budget Request

Program driving a 55% funding cut, while Nigeria would move up to number five with a
proposed allocation of $693 million, or 7% more than actual FY2012 funding. Together, the top
10 recipients would account for about 37% of total bilateral economic and security assistance
funds in the FY2014 budget proposal.
Table 3. Top 10 Recipients of U.S. Foreign Assistance, FY2012 Actual
and FY2014 Request
(in millions)
FY2012 Actual

FY2014 Req. Est.
1. Israel
$3,075

1. Israel
$3,100
2. Afghanistan
$2,286

2. Afghanistan
$2,200
3. Pakistan
$1,821

3. Egypt
$1,600
4. Egypt
$1,556

4. Pakistan
$1,200
5. Iraq
$1,270

5. Nigeria
$693
6. Jordan
$776
6. Jordan
$671
7. Ethiopia
$707
7. Iraq
$573
8. Nigeria
$647
8. Kenya
$564
9. South Sudan
$620
9. Tanzania
$553
10. South Africa
$542
10. Uganda
$456
Source: FY2014 data from the Executive Summary, International Affairs Budget, FY2014. FY2012 data is
calculated from data provided in FY2014 budget materials provided by the State Department as wel as
http://www.foreignassistance.gov.
Note: FY2013 estimates are not included because country-level funding data is not yet available.
Foreign Operations Key Issues
Support for Middle East and North Africa Transitions
Political transitions and unrest in the Middle East and North Africa may have significant
implications for U.S. national security goals, including protecting global oil supplies, enhancing
intelligence/military cooperation, ensuring military access and force projection, and promoting
Arab-Israeli peace. The rise of new leaders in the region represents both risks and opportunities,
as the Administration and lawmakers consider how to respond in a manner that best promotes
U.S. strategic interests and democratic values.
Last year, the Administration requested an appropriation of $770 million (of which $700 million
was new funding) to create a new Middle East North Africa Incentive Fund (MENA IF) that
would provide flexible resources to meet diverse and rapidly evolving needs in the region.
Congress neither authorized nor appropriated any MENA IF funding in FY2013 continuing
resolutions. In the 112th Congress, House and Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations bills
differed over MENA IF. A Senate bill would have funded it at $1 billion while a corresponding
House measure would not fund it at all, proposing instead $200 million for Middle East response
Congressional Research Service
7

The FY2014 State and Foreign Operations Budget Request

spending. Some lawmakers have expressed significant reservations about the broad spending
authorities sought by the Administration’s MENA-IF proposal as well as assisting some entities
that would be likely candidates for MENA IF assistance.
For FY2014, the Administration has again requested funding for a MENA IF. The request calls
for $580 million, of which $105 million would be for the existing Middle East Partnership
Initiative and USAID Middle East Regional Office. The Administration request does not specify
how the funds would be allocated, but explains that they would be used to cover interventions
such as “support to Syrian opposition, humanitarian assistance, Enterprise Funds, and loan
guarantees” that are already being funded in the region through reallocations of existing funds,
“at great opportunity cost.” The MENA IF, the Administration asserts, would increase flexibility
and transparency with respect to these activities, and “begin to address the imbalance between our
security and economic assistance in the region.”
Overseas Contingency Operations
Since FY2012, the Administration’s budget has distinguished between “core” international affairs
funding and funding to support “overseas contingency operations” (OCO), described in budget
documents as “extraordinary, but temporary, costs of the Department of State and USAID in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan.”6 Congress has adopted this approach, but has defined OCO more
broadly. In each of the last two years, Congress has appropriated more OCO funding than
requested, and for a broader range of countries and activities. In FY2012, Congress increased
foreign operations funds designated as OCO by 52% over the requested level, including funds for
Somalia, Yemen, and Kenya. The FY2013 full-year CR included unrequested OCO funds for
disaster assistance and migration and refugees assistance, without language restricting it by
country.
For FY2014, the Administration continues with its approach, requesting $2.308 billion in foreign
operations OCO funds for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. This represents a 65% decline from
the FY2012 OCO appropriation and a 40% reduction from the FY2013 OCO request. The
downward trend in foreign aid designated as OCO reflects significantly scaled down
programming in Iraq and Pakistan, countered by a slight increase, over FY2012 funding, in
Afghanistan:
Iraq. Termination of the Iraq Police Development Program, once the largest U.S.
assistance program in Iraq, is the justification for a sharp decline in foreign aid
OCO to Iraq, from $1,270 million in FY2012 to $500 million in the FY2014
request. The requested FY2014 OCO funds would support democratic
institutions and civil society, promote economic reform, protect vulnerable
populations, and develop security institutions.
Afghanistan. While the Administration has requested more OCO aid money to
Afghanistan in FY2014 ($1,445 million) than it did in FY2012 or FY2013, the
request is 33% below the FY2012 actual OCO funding. The request would
support a broad range of activities and is intended to uphold U.S. commitments
made at the 2012 Tokyo Conference on Afghanistan.

6 From Executive Budget Summary, Function 150 & Other International Programs, Fiscal Year 2014, p.97.
Congressional Research Service
8

The FY2014 State and Foreign Operations Budget Request

Pakistan. The FY2014 request includes $281.2 million for OCO aid to Pakistan,
a sharp drop from the requests and enacted funding in prior years. The drop
reflects the elimination of the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (for
which significant prior year funding is still available). Civilian assistance
programs would be funded near prior-year levels.
Table 5 compares requested and enacted foreign operations OCO from FY2012, the FY2013
request, and the FY2014 request.
Table 4. Overseas Contingency Operations Funding in Foreign Operations Accounts,
FY2012, FY2013 Request, and FY2014 Request
(in millions of current U.S. $)
FY2012
FY2012
Req.
Actual
FY2013 Req.
FY2014 Req.
Foreign Operations OCO, total
4,316.60
6,573.80
3,882.87
2,308.20
Iraq
2,000.00
1,170.50
1,750.00
500.00

Afghanistan
1,216.60 2,162.80
1,237.87 1,445.00
Pakistan
1,100.00
1,610.10
800.00
281.20
Other
0.00
1,630.50
95.00
0.00
As % of total Foreign Ops funding
10.73%
18.25%
10.76%
6.57%
Source: FY2012 and FY2013 Congressional Budget Justifications, Regional Annex; FY2014 Budget Request.
Note: n.a. = not available. FY2013 country-level funding data is not yet available.
Food Aid Reform
The International Affairs budget has supported international food assistance for decades,
primarily through the Food for Peace (donated U.S. agricultural commodities) and Food for
Education (school feeding and maternal, infant and child nutrition) programs. Unlike most
foreign assistance, these programs have been authorized in farm bills and received appropriations
through the Agriculture appropriations bill. In FY2012 and FY2013, appropriations to these two
programs totaled more than $1.6 billion annually.
Development professionals have long raised concerns about the efficiency and effectiveness of
U.S. food assistance, which is subject to several restrictions. With some exceptions, Food for
Peace commodities must be bought from U.S. producers and shipped on U.S. vessels. In recent
years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture operated a pilot project to evaluate local and regional
procurement of food aid commodities, while USAID carried out cash-based food security
assistance (local and regional purchase, cash vouchers, cash transfers) through the International
Disaster Assistance program (up to $300 million). While most U.S. food aid is used to provide
emergency humanitarian relief, some food aid commodities are provided to U.S.
nongovernmental organizations to be sold (“monetized”) on local or regional markets and the
proceeds used for development programs related to hunger and nutrition. Critics contend that U.S.
procurement and shipping requirements, together with monetization practices, make food aid
highly inefficient and ineffective.
Congressional Research Service
9

The FY2014 State and Foreign Operations Budget Request

In the FY2014 budget, the Administration requests $1.821 million for international food aid in
three accounts. Under the food aid reform, the Administration proposes to shift $1.1 billion of
Food for Peace funds to the International Disaster and Famine Assistance account for emergency
food response. In FY2014, 55% of this funding, about $600 million, would still be used to
procure and ship U.S. produced commodities. Together with $300 million of IDA funds for cash-
based food security programs, total emergency food aid would be $1.4 billion in FY2014. The
Administration’s budget also proposes to shift $250 million to Development Assistance (DA) for
a Community Development and Resilience Fund (CDRF). Feed the Future funding of $80 million
would be used to augment the CRDF, making its total $330 million. The CDRF would effectively
replace the current $400 million “safe box” for nonemergency development food aid provided in
the 2008 farm bill. Presumably, U.S. NGOs that currently carry out food aid programs would
participate in these CDRF programs. The Administration maintains that by removing cost
inefficiencies of the Food for Peace program, such as monetization, the same level of
nonemergency program activity would be supported and more people would be reached. Finally,
the Administration’s budget proposes to create a new Emergency Food Assistance Contingency
Fund ($75 million) to provide emergency food assistance for unexpected and urgent food needs.
Humanitarian Assistance
Humanitarian assistance is intended to save lives and meet basic human needs in the wake of
natural disasters and conflicts. In FY2012, humanitarian assistance funding totaled $4.563 billion.
The FY2013 full-year continuing resolution increased funding over the FY2012 level for two key
humanitarian assistance accounts. International Disaster & Famine Assistance (IDA) increased
from $1.095 billion to an estimated $1.55 billion, with the increased funds designated as OCO.
The Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account increased from $1.975 billion to $2.740
billion, also with OCO funds. In addition, the Administration transferred previously appropriated
OCO funds for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund to the MRA account to respond
to the crisis in Syria.
The Administration’s FY2014 budget includes $4.131 billion for humanitarian assistance
accounts, including $1.761 billion for MRA, $2.045 billion for IDA, $0.25 billion for Emergency
Refugee and Migration Assistance (of which $0.20 billion is specifically for Syria), and $0.075
billion for a new Emergency Food Assistance Contingency Fund. Of the IDA funds, $0.629
billion are allocated to USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance to respond to natural
disaster, civil strife, food security, and displaced populations. The remaining $1.416 billion is
designated for Food for Peace activities currently funded through the Agriculture appropriation
(see Food Aid above). In total, the humanitarian assistance request is about 9% below the FY2012
enacted level, but this is due in part to $0.25 billion in food aid being moved to the Development
Assistance account.
Ongoing Administration Initiatives
The Obama Administration introduced three major foreign assistance initiatives in 2009 and
2010—the Global Health Initiative, the Food Security Initiative (Feed the Future), and the Global
Climate Change Initiative—which continue to be priorities in the FY2014 budget request.
Global Health Initiative. The request includes $8.315 billion for global health
programs, a 2% increase over the FY2012 funding level. Of this amount, $1.65
billion is for the Global Fund, a 27% increase from FY2012. Several programs
Congressional Research Service
10

The FY2014 State and Foreign Operations Budget Request

would see mostly modest increases over FY2012 funding: Malaria (+3%),
Maternal and Child Health (+12%), Family Planning and Reproductive Health
(+1%). Others would see significant cuts: Tuberculosis (-19%), Pandemic
Influenza (-19%), Neglected Tropical Diseases (-4%), USAID HIV/AIDS (-6%).
The Administration asserts that the requested funding will allow the continuation
and scale-up of HIV/AIDS prevention, care, and treatment activities and meet
pledged commitments to multilateral efforts.
Food Security Initiative. Feed the Future (FtF) is the Administration’s food
security initiative, designed to support long-term country-led agricultural growth
and nutrition plans. For FY2014, the Administration has requested $1.191 billion
for Feed the Future, a 9% increase over the FY2012 funding. The
Administration’s pledge of $3.5 billion for food security assistance, made at the
L’Aquila G-8 summit in 2009, has been exceeded. For FY2014, increased
funding would be channeled to economic resilience activities in regions of Africa
facing chronic food insecurity.
Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI). The GCCI would see a 2% decrease
from FY2012 funding (including a $100 million transfer from ESF) with the
Administration’s FY2014 request of $0.837 billion. Within that total, bilateral
clean energy funding would increase by 7% and adaptation programs by 1%,
while sustainable landscapes funding would be reduced by 10%. Total U.S.
contributions to World Bank climate accounts would decrease by 6% if the $100
million ESF transfer to these funds is calculated into the FY2012 funding total.7
With FY2013 funds, the United States has met the specific international climate
change commitments which initially drove the initiative.


7 These accounts include the Clean Technology Fund, Strategic Climate Fund, and Global Environment Fund (GEF),
but only about half of GEF funding related to climate change and is included in the GCCI funding calculation.
Congressional Research Service
11

The FY2014 State and Foreign Operations Budget Request

Appendix. State, Foreign Operations and Related
Accounts Appropriations, FY2012-FY2014 Request,
by Account

Table A-1. State, Foreign Operations and Related Accounts Appropriations, FY2012
Enacted, FY2013 CR Enacted, FY2013 CR Net Sequestration, and the FY2014
Request, by Account
(in millions of current U.S. $)
FY2013 Full-
year CR
estimate
FY2012 Actual
FY2013
(net
FY2014
(of which is
Enacted (of
sequestration
Request (of

OCO)
which is OCO)
& rescissionsa)
which is OCO)
STATE OPERATIONS &
18,009.31
18,292.64
17,393.26
16,870.93
Related
(4,627.46)
(4,680.20)
(4,436.60)
(1,499.14)
Administration of Foreign Affairs
13,562.25
13,673.73
12,999.70
12,183.34
(4,513.35)
(4,566.10)
(4,340.4)
(1,499.14)
Diplomatic and Consular Programs
10,864.24

(4,306.36)
9,739.78
9,211.20
8,481.85
Worldwide Security Protection
1,591.20
(3,210.65)
(2,991.20)
(1,199.49)

2,273.44
2,193.40
2,182.13
Capital Investment Fund
59.38
59.38
56.40
76.90
Embassy Security Construction &
Maintenance
2,898.82
Worldwide Security Upgrades
1,652.70
(1,272.20)
2,819.30
2,649.35
(115.70)
1,949.90
(1,270.60)
(250.00)

775.00

1,910.70
1,614.00
Conflict Stabilization Operations
30.32
30.32
8.10
(8.50)
(8.50)
(8.10) 45.20
Office of the Inspector General
129.09
121.05
114.60
119.06
(67.18)
(59.15)
(55.80)
(49.65)
Educational and Cultural Exchange
598.80
598.80
568.50
Programs
(15.60)
(15.60)
(14.80) 562.66
Representation
Al owances
8.03 7.30 6.90 7.68
Protection of Foreign Missions and
Officials
27.75 27.00 25.60 28.20
Emergencies in Diplomatic,
Consular
Affairs
9.07 9.30 8.80 9.65
Repatriation Loans Program
1.67
1.45
1.40
1.70
American Institute in Taiwan
21.78
21.11
20.00
36.22
International Chancery Center
0.52
0.52

5.97
Foreign Service Retirement and
Disability (mandatory)
158.90 158.90 158.90 158.90
Congressional Research Service
12

The FY2014 State and Foreign Operations Budget Request

FY2013 Full-
year CR
estimate
FY2012 Actual
FY2013
(net
FY2014
(of which is
Enacted (of
sequestration
Request (of

OCO)
which is OCO)
& rescissionsa)
which is OCO)
International Organizations
3,379.18
3,557.50
3,386.40
(101.30)
(101.30)
(96.20) 3,668.11
Contributions to International
1,551.00
1,551.00
1,472.50
Organizations
(101.30)
(101.30)
(96.20) 1,573.45
Contributions to Int’l Peacekeeping
Activities
1,828.18 2,006.50 1,913.90 2,094.66
Related
Programs
153.18 153.18 145.46 131.75
The Asia Foundation
17.00
17.00
16.10
17.00
Center Middle East-West Dialogue
0.84
0.84
0.80
0.09
Eisenhower
Exchange
Fel owship
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.40
Israeli Arab Scholarship Program
0.38
0.38
0.36
0.01
East-West
Center
16.70 16.70 15.90 10.80
National Endowment Democracy
117.76
117.76
111.80
103.45
International
Commissions

124.17 117.71 111.20 120.96
Int’l Boundary /Water Commission
76.18
71.17
67.20
77.02
American
Sections
11.69 11.92 11.30 12.50
Int’l Joint Commission
7.01


7.66
Int’l Boundary Commission
2.28


2.45
Border Environment Coop.
Commission

2.40


2.39
Int’l Fisheries Commission
36.30
34.62
32.70
31.44
Broadcasting Board of
751.53
751.53
Governors
(4.40)
(4.40) 713.50 731.08
International Broadcasting
744.50
744.50
Operations
(4.40)
(4.40) n.a.
722.58
Capital
Improvements
7.03 7.03 n.a. 8.50
U.S. Institute of Peace
39.00
38.99
(8.41)
(8.40) 37.00 35.69
FOREIGN OPERATIONS
35,423.24
36,059.37
34,492.67
35,095.45
(6,575.33)
(7,642.28)
(7,302.10)
(2,308.20)
U.S. Agency for International
1,528.00
1,528.00
1,450.8
1,571.34
Development
(259.50)
(259.50)
(246.6)
(71.00)
USAID Operating Expenses
1,347.30
1,347.30
1,279.30
1,399.20
(255.00)
(255.00)
(242.30)
(71.00)
USAID Capital Investment Fund
129.70
129.70
123.10
117.94
USAID Inspector General
51.00
51.00
48.40
(4.50)
(4.50)
(4.30) 54.20
Congressional Research Service
13

The FY2014 State and Foreign Operations Budget Request

FY2013 Full-
year CR
estimate
FY2012 Actual
FY2013
(net
FY2014
(of which is
Enacted (of
sequestration
Request (of

OCO)
which is OCO)
& rescissionsa)
which is OCO)
Bilateral Economic Assistance
20,830.10
21,719.32
20,774.27
21,427.83
(3,834.52)
(5,083.96)
(4,925.10)
(1,382.20)
Global Health Programs
8,172.66
8,476.45
8,062.84
8,315.00
Development
Assistance
2,519.95 2,833.40 2,701.90 2,837.81
International Disaster Assistance
1,095.00
1,599.66
1,550.40
(270.00)
(774.66)
(767.20) 2,045.00
Emergency Food Aid Contingency



75.00
Transition Initiatives
93.70
56.69
53.80
(43.55)
(6.55)
(6.20) 57.60
Complex Crisis Fund
50.00
40.00
38.00
(40.00)
(30.00)
(28.50) 40.00
Development Credit Authority–
Subsidy
[40.00] [40.00]
n.a. [40.00]
Development Credit Authority–
Admin.
8.30 8.30 7.90 8.20
Economic Support Fund
6,146.70
5,763.90
5,520.80
5,458.25
(3,151.96)
(3,119.90)
(2,981.80)
(1,382.20)
Democracy Fund
114.77
114.77
109.00

Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and
Central Asia
626.72
0.00
0.00

Migration and Refugee Assistance
1,975.10
2,798.95
2,703.83
(329.00)
(1,152.85)
(1,141.40) 1,760.96
Emergency Migration and Refugee
Assist. 27.20
27.20
25.80
250.00
Middle East & North Africa
Incentive Fund

0.00

580.00
Independent
Agencies
1,325.70 1,325.70 1,258.60 1,319.10
Peace
Corps
375.00 375.00 356.00 378.80
Millennium Challenge Corporation
898.20 898.20 852.70 898.20
Inter-American
Foundation
22.50 22.50 21.40 18.10
African Development Foundation
30.00
30.00
28.50
24.00
Department of Treasury
39.00
39.00
(1.55)
(1.55) 37.00 23.50
Treasury Technical Assistance
27.00
27.00
(1.55)
(1.55) n.a.
23.50
Debt Restructuring
12.00
12.00
n.a.

International Security
9,749.58
9,567.09
9,074.6
8,524.38
Assistance
(2,479.76)
(2,297.27)
(2,130.4)
(855.00)
Congressional Research Service
14

The FY2014 State and Foreign Operations Budget Request

FY2013 Full-
year CR
estimate
FY2012 Actual
FY2013
(net
FY2014
(of which is
Enacted (of
sequestration
Request (of

OCO)
which is OCO)
& rescissionsa)
which is OCO)
Int’l Narcotics Control and Law
1,635.71
2,004.71
1,941.80
1,473.73
Enforcement
(574.60)
(943.61)
(934.40)
(344.00)
Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism,
711.27
710.77
674.90
Demining and Related Programs
(121.16)
(120.66)
(114.60) 616.13
Peacekeeping Operations
509.82
383.82
364.40
(207.00)
(81.00)
(77.00) 347.00
Int’l Military Education and Training
105.79 105.79 100.40 105.57
Foreign Military Financing
6,312.00
6,312.00
5,993.10
5,956.96
(1,102.00)
(1,102.00)
(1,046.90)
(511.00)
Pakistan Counterinsurgency
452.00
Capability Fund
(452.00) 0.00 0.00

Global Security Contingency Fund
23.00
50.00
(23.00)
(50.00) –
25.00
Multilateral Economic Assist
2,966.29
2,788.26
2,810.40
3,196.44
Int’l Organizations and Programs
343.91
348.71
331.10
320.65
Global Environment Facility
89.82b 129.40
n.a. 143.75
Int’l Clean Technology Fund
184.63c 184.63
n.a. 215.70
Strategic Climate Fund
49.90d 49.90 n.a. 68.00
Int’l Bank for Recon. and
Development
117.36 186.96
n.a. 186.96
Int’l Development Association
1,325.00
1,358.50
n.a.
1,358.50
Inter-American Development Bank
75.00
111.15
n.a.
102.02
Inter-American Investment Corp
4.67
0.00
n.a.

Enterprise for the Americas—MIF
25.00 15.00 n.a. 6.30
Asian Development Fund
100.00
100.00
n.a.
115.25
Asian Development Bank
106.59
106.59
n.a.
106.59
African Development Bank
32.42
32.42
n.a.
32.42
African Development Fund
172.50
0.00
n.a.
195.00
Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative
174.50
0.00
n.a.
175.30
Int’l Fund for Ag Development
30.00
30.00
n.a.
30.00
Global Ag and Food Security
135.00
135.00
n.a.
135.00
Middle East North Africa Transition
Fund


5.00
Export and Investment
Assistance

-1,015.43 -908.00 -913.00 -967.14
Export-Import
Bank
-799.70 -754.00 -753.70 -831.60
Congressional Research Service
15

The FY2014 State and Foreign Operations Budget Request

FY2013 Full-
year CR
estimate
FY2012 Actual
FY2013
(net
FY2014
(of which is
Enacted (of
sequestration
Request (of

OCO)
which is OCO)
& rescissionsa)
which is OCO)
Overseas Private Investment
Corporation
-265.73 -204.00 -206.80 -198.20
Trade and Development Agency
50.00
50.00
47.50
62.66
TOTAL State & Foreign Ops
53,432.55
54,352.01
51,885.93
51,966.38
(11,202.79)
(12,322.48)
(11,738.70)
(3,807.34)
Title VII. General Provisions
(Rescissions) (513.70)
(1,109.70)
n.a.
n.a.
Total, net of rescissions
53,293.51
51,885.93
51,966.38
52,918.85
(11,212.78)
(11,738.70)
(3,807.34)
Source: Executive Budget Summary, Function 150 & Other International Programs, Fiscal Year 2014.
Notes: State Department total includes the mandatory Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund. Negative
numbers reflect net revenues from receipts/offsetting col ections. Lower negative numbers result in a need to
increase the appropriation. MIF = Multilateral Investment Fund. n.a. = not available.
a. These numbers, provided by the Department of State, April 12, 2013, are preliminary estimates and not the
final FY2013 funding levels.
b. Does not reflect a $30 million transfer from ESF in FY2012.
c. Does not reflect a $45 million transfer from ESF in FY2012.
d. Does not reflect a $25 million transfer from ESF in FY2012.

Author Contact Information

Susan B. Epstein
Alex Tiersky
Specialist in Foreign Policy
Analyst in Foreign Affairs
sepstein@crs.loc.gov, 7-6678
atiersky@crs.loc.gov, 7-7367
Marian Leonardo Lawson

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


Congressional Research Service
16