State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs: FY2014 Budget and Appropriations
Susan B. Epstein
Specialist in Foreign Policy
Alex Tiersky
Analyst in Foreign Affairs
Marian L. Lawson
Specialist in Foreign Assistance Policy
August 22, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43043

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2014 Budget and Appropriations

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 $51.84 billion,
which is about 0.8% below the FY2013 post-sequester estimated funding level of $52.24 billion.
Within this total, $3.81 billion is designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding,
which is 68% below FY2013 estimated OCO funding of $11.91 billion. Of the total request,
$16.88 billion is for State Department Operations and related agencies, a 4.5% decline from the
FY2013 funding estimate. About $35.1 billion is for Foreign Operations, a 1.6% increase from
the FY2013 estimate. This report provides a brief overview of the FY2014 State Department,
Foreign Operations and Related Programs funding request, as well as top-line analysis of pending
House and Senate State-Foreign Operations appropriations proposals. It does not provide
information or analysis on specific provisions in the House and Senate legislation.
A table in the Appendix provides side-by-side account-level funding data for FY2012, FY2013,
the FY2014 request, and the pending FY2014 House and Senate proposals. The FY2013 funding
data used as a point of comparison throughout this report represent post-sequestration estimates
provided by the Department of State and reflect across-the-board rescissions. These data are not
yet available for all accounts, or for country allocations. The funding table in the Appendix will
be updated as more information becomes available.

Congressional Research Service

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2014 Budget and Appropriations

Contents
FY2014 State-Foreign Operations Overview .................................................................................. 1
Congressional Action ....................................................................................................................... 2
FY2014 State Operations Request Overview .................................................................................. 3
State Operations Key Issues ............................................................................................................ 4
Diplomatic Security ................................................................................................................... 4
Management and Human Resources of the Department of State .............................................. 5
Expeditionary Diplomacy and Key Regional Initiatives ........................................................... 6
FY2014 Foreign Operations Request Overview .............................................................................. 7
Foreign Operations Key Issues ........................................................................................................ 9
Support for Middle East and North Africa Transitions .............................................................. 9
Overseas Contingency Operations........................................................................................... 10
Food Aid Reform ..................................................................................................................... 11
Humanitarian Assistance ......................................................................................................... 12
Ongoing Administration Initiatives ......................................................................................... 12

Figures
Figure 1. State & Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2012, FY2013, FY2014 Request
and the FY2014 House and Senate Proposals .............................................................................. 3

Tables
Table 1. Status of State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2014 ............................................ 2
Table 2. State Department & Related Programs: Total Funding and Select Accounts .................... 4
Table 3. Foreign Aid by Appropriations Title, FY2012 Actual and FY2014 Request ..................... 8
Table 4. Top 10 Recipients of U.S. Foreign Assistance, FY2012 Actual
and FY2014 Request .................................................................................................................... 9
Table 5. Overseas Contingency Operations Funding in Foreign Operations Accounts,
FY2012, FY2013 Request, and FY2014 Request....................................................................... 11
Table A-1. State Department, Foreign Operations and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2012-FY2014 Request ........................................................................................................... 14
Table A-2. International Affairs (150) Function Account, FY2012-FY2014 ................................. 26

Appendixes
Appendix. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, by Account ................................................ 14

Congressional Research Service

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2014 Budget and Appropriations

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 26

Congressional Research Service

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2014 Budget and Appropriations

FY2014 State-Foreign Operations Overview
The Administration’s FY2014 request of $51.84 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 about 0.8% less than the FY2013 post-sequester funding estimate. Unless
otherwise noted, all of the FY2013 funding levels in this report reflect estimated funding levels
after both sequestration and across-the-board rescissions are applied.
The State Department and related agencies request of $16.88 billion (including the mandatory
Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund) represents a decline of 4.5% from the estimated
FY2013 funding level of $17.68 billion. About $35.1 billion is requested for foreign operations
accounts, which is a 1.6% increase from the FY2013 estimated funding of $34.56 billion.
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 decreases dramatically from the
FY2013-enacted funding of $1.6 billion1 to $185 million. Excluding the shifted Food for Peace
funds, the foreign operations request is about 2.5% lower than the FY2013 estimate.
Overseas Contingency Operations
Since FY2012, the Administration’s international affairs budget has distinguished between what it
has interchangeably called “core,” “base,” or “enduring,” 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.”2
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. The FY2014 request continues this pattern. Of the total funding requested
for State-Foreign Operations in FY2014, $3.81 billion was designated as OCO.
The Budget Control Act and State-Foreign Operations Appropriations
Sequestration 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), together with an additional 0.032% across-the-board rescission resulting from
Section 3004 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6), reduced FY2013
Department of State and Foreign Operations discretionary funding by an estimated 2% from the enacted level. 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 are subject to sequester, but do not count toward spending caps. This report uses FY2013
post-sequester funding estimates when available. Country al ocations for FY2013 are not yet available, so this report
compares country and regional funding requests for FY2014 to the FY2012 funding level.
The sequestration process will again be triggered in FY2014 if Congress does not either enact appropriations
legislation that is consistent with the caps established by the BCA for FY2014, or repeal or amend the BCA.

1 A post-sequester estimate is not yet available for this account.
2 From Executive Budget Summary, Function 150 & Other International Programs, Fiscal Year 2014, p. 97.
Congressional Research Service
1

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2014 Budget and Appropriations

Significant differences in House and Senate budget al ocations for FY2014 suggest that Congress wil have considerable
difficulty in complying with the BCA in the FY2014 appropriations cycle, and the sequestration process will continue
to impact funding across the federal government. 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.
Congressional Action
On July 25, 2013, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed its FY2014 State-Foreign
Operations spending bill, S. 1372. The House Appropriations Committee approved H.R. 2855, a
State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill for FY2014, on July 30, 2013. The House bill
includes $40.78 billion in spending, net of rescissions, or about 21.3% below the FY2014 request
and 21.9% below the FY2013 funding estimate. The Senate bill totals $49.49 billion, which is
4.5% less than requested and 5.3% less than FY2013 funding. (See Table 1 below.)
Table 1. Status of State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2014
(funding in billions of current U.S. dollars)
Committee
Public
302(b) Allocationsa
Action Floor
Action
Conference
Law
House Senate House
Senate
House Senate House Senate Agreement
H.R.
S.
2855
1372
5/21 6/20 7/30
7/25

$40.78 $47.87 $40.78
$49.49

a. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 established a congressional budget
process. The act, as amended, includes a requirement that the House and Senate allocate funds to the
Appropriations Committee, which are then divided among the 12 subcommittees, as required by Section
302(b).
The steepest cuts in the House bill would be applied to the Foreign Operations accounts (-23.7%
from the request and -22.5% from FY2013), though State Department accounts would also be
reduced significantly (-12.4% from the request and -16.4% from FY2013). The Senate bill, in
contrast, proposes relatively minimal reductions to foreign operations accounts (-2.3% from the
request and -0.8% from the FY2013 estimate), but somewhat larger cuts for the State Department
and related programs (-2.5% from the request and -7% from FY2013). Both the House and Senate
bills designate about $6.5 billion as OCO funding, or 71% more than the $3.8 billion requested as
OCO for FY2014 (Figure 1). Account level data for each proposal is available in the Appendix.
Congressional Research Service
2

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2014 Budget and Appropriations

Figure 1. State & Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2012, FY2013, FY2014
Request and the FY2014 House and Senate Proposals
(in billions of current U.S. dollars)

Source: FY2012 data are from the FY2014 CBJ; FY2013 data are from tables provided to CRS by the State
Department; FY2014 House data are from H.Rept. 113-185; Senate data are from S.Rept. 113-81.
FY2014 State Operations Request Overview
The Administration has requested $16.88 billion for the State Department and related agencies in
FY2014. The request seeks $12.18 billion for administration of foreign affairs accounts that
include the mandatory Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund, a 9.4% decrease from the
FY2013 estimated funding level. The decrease is largely attributable to a $2.3 billion reduction in
OCO Iraq operations funds as the U.S. presence and footprint in that country are reduced. (See
Table 2 below.)
The Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP) account, the operating account of the
Department of State, would see a 12% decline from the FY2013 post-sequester estimate. This is
largely due to a $3.1 billion decrease in requested OCO funding in that account. Non-OCO or
“enduring” funding for D&CP would actually rise by 12% from the FY2013 estimated funding
level.
The request for Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance, the State Department’s second-
largest administrative account, calls for $2.65 billion to continue efforts to provide for more
secure facilities abroad. While this represents a 6% reduction from the FY2013 post-sequester
funding estimate, it is a 60.6% increase from the FY2012 actual level. Among other large
accounts, total contributions to International Organizations and Peacekeeping Operations would
rise by about 8.3% compared to the FY2013 post-sequester estimate, while funding for
international broadcasting activities would increase by about 2.8% and funds for Educational and
Cultural Exchange Programs would decline by about 1%.
Congressional Research Service
3

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2014 Budget and Appropriations

Table 2. State Department & Related Programs: Total Funding and Select Accounts
(in billions of current U.S. dollars)
FY2013 post-
% change,
sequester
FY2013 to

FY2012 Actual
estimate FY2014
Request
FY2014 Req.
Total, State & Related
18.01
17.68
16.88
- 4.5%
Programs
Diplomatic and Consular
10.86 9.66 8.48 -
12.2%
Programs
Embassy Security
1.65 2.82 2.65 -6.0%
Construction and
Maintenance
Educational and Cultural
0.60 0.57 0.56 -
1.8%
Exchange Programs
Contributions to Int.
3.38 3.39 3.67 +8.3%
Organizations/
Peacekeeping
International
Broadcasting
0.75 0.71 0.73 +
2.8%
Other
0.77 0.53 0.79 +49.1%
Source: Department of State, FY2014 Congressional Budget Justification Executive Summary; CRS calculations.
Notes: Totals include mandatory funding for the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund. Percentage
change calculations use the detailed account numbers in the Appendix, not the rounded numbers presented in
the table. “Other” includes accounts and commissions not included in the table.
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, 2013.3 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.4
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

3 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.
4 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
4

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2014 Budget and Appropriations

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) is 6% less
than the FY2013 post-sequester estimate, but 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 decrease 15% from the
FY2013 post-sequester estimate to $1.61 billion, but remain 108% above the FY2012 funding
level, 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 decrease by 3% from FY2013, 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.
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.5 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.6 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.

5 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.
6 FY2013 post-sequestration levels are not yet available for this account.
Congressional Research Service
5

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2014 Budget and Appropriations

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 States
State Operations resources for the frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan would all
decrease under the Administration’s FY2014 budget request, compared to FY2012.7
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.
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, compared to FY2012 funding.
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

7 FY2013 post-sequester country allocations are not yet available.
Congressional Research Service
6

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2014 Budget and Appropriations

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, compared to FY2012, 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, compared to
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 Request Overview
The Foreign Operations budget funds most traditional foreign aid programs, including bilateral
economic aid, multilateral aid, security assistance, and export promotion programs. It has not
traditionally funded food aid. 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 1.5% increase from
the FY2013 estimated funding. 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 2.3% below
the FY2013 estimate. Breaking the request down by appropriations title shows proposed shifts in
foreign assistance programming at the broad level (Table 3):
• Bilateral Economic Assistance, including funding for independent agencies,
makes up about 64.5% of the FY2014 foreign assistance request. Bilateral aid
would increase by 2.9% over FY2013 estimates, 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.
• Security assistance accounts for about 24% of the proposed foreign aid budget,
with proposed funding at 6% less than the FY2013 post-sequester estimate.
Almost every security assistance account would be reduced compared to FY2013
estimates. However, total enduring security assistance funds would increase 11%
from FY2013, reflecting an Administration effort to shift security assistance
away from OCO for frontline states and into enduring activities.
• Multilateral aid makes up about 9% of the foreign aid budget request, and would
increase by about 13% over FY2013 estimated levels. Increases are spread over
many accounts.
Congressional Research Service
7

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2014 Budget and Appropriations

Table 3. Foreign Aid by Appropriations Title, FY2012 Actual and FY2014 Request
(in millions of current U.S. dol ars)
FY2013 post-
% change,
FY2012
sequester
FY2014
FY2013 to

Actual
estimate
Request
FY2014 Req.
USAID
Administration 1,528.00
1,450.80 1,571.34 +8.3%
Bilateral Economic Aid
22,194.80
22,133.45
22,770.04
+2.9%
Security
Assistance
9,749.59
9,070.95 8,524.39 -6.0%
Multilateral
Aid
2,966.29
2,819.35 3,196.44 +13.4%
Export Promotion, net
(1,015.44)
(913.00)
(966.76)
-5.9%
Total Foreign Operationsa 35,423.24
34,561.55 35,095.45 +1.5%
+ Food Aid from Ag bil
1,650.00
1,536.55
185.13
-88.0%
Total Foreign Aid
37,073.24
36,098.10
35,280.58
-2.3%
Source: FY2014 International Affairs Budget, Executive Summary; CRS calculations.
Notes: FY12 data do 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.
a. 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).8 The top recipient 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 Program driving a 55% funding cut, while Nigeria would move up to
number five with a proposed allocation of $693 million, a 7% increase over actual FY2012
funding intended to bolster health and conflict prevention programs. Together, the top 10
recipients would account for about 37% of total bilateral economic and security assistance funds
in the FY2014 budget proposal.

8 Country level allocations are not yet available for FY2013.
Congressional Research Service
8

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2014 Budget and Appropriations

Table 4. Top 10 Recipients of U.S. Foreign Assistance, FY2012 Actual
and FY2014 Request
(in millions of current U.S. dol ars)
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 are
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 FY2013 country-level funding data are 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
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.
Congressional Research Service
9

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2014 Budget and Appropriations

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
As described earlier, since FY2012, the Administration’s international affairs budget has
distinguished between what it has interchangeably called “core,” “base,” or “enduring,” 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.”9 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 (country-
level OCO funding levels are not yet available for FY2013). 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.
• 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.

9 From Executive Budget Summary, Function 150 & Other International Programs, Fiscal Year 2014, p. 97.
Congressional Research Service
10

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2014 Budget and Appropriations

Table 5 compares requested and enacted foreign operations OCO from FY2012, the FY2013
request, and the FY2014 request.
Table 5. Overseas Contingency Operations Funding in Foreign Operations Accounts,
FY2012, FY2013 Request, and FY2014 Request
(in millions of current U.S. dol ars)
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
82.00
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: 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 recent years, appropriations to these two programs
totaled more than $1.5 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.
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
Congressional Research Service
11

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2014 Budget and Appropriations

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 (post-sequester estimate), with the increased
funds designated as OCO. The Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account increased from
$1.975 billion to $2.704 billion (post-sequester estimate), 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 27% below the
FY2013 post-sequester estimate, 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 3% increase over the FY2013 post-sequester estimate. Several
programs would see mostly modest increases over FY2012 funding: Malaria
(+3%), Maternal and Child Health (+12%), and Family Planning and
Reproductive Health (+1%). Others would see significant cuts: Tuberculosis (-
19%), Pandemic Influenza (-19%), Neglected Tropical Diseases (-4%), and
USAID HIV/AIDS (-6%), though FY2013 allocations for these subaccounts are
not yet available. 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.
Congressional Research Service
12

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2014 Budget and Appropriations

• 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 (FY2013 data are
not available). 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 (FY2013 data are not yet available), 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.10 With FY2013 funds, the United States has met the
specific international climate change commitments which initially drove the
initiative.

10 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
13

Appendix. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, by Account
Table A-1. State Department, Foreign Operations and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2012-FY2014 Request
(in millions of current U.S. dol ars)
FY2012
actual (of
FY2013 estimate Post-
which is
sequestration & rescissions
FY2014 Senate

OCO)
(P.L. 113-6)
FY2014 request
FY2014 House (H.R. 2855)
(S. 1372)
Total
Core
OCO
Total
Core
OCO
Total
Core
OCO
Total
Core
OCO
Total
State,
18,009.31
13,096.26 4,584.50 17,680.76 15,384.07 1,499.14 16,883.20 12,179.24 2,600.56 14,779.80 14,721.49 1,735.06 16,456.55
Broadcasting &
(4,627.46)
Related Agencies
Total
Title I.
13,562.25
8,786.54
4,488.29
13,274.83
10,678.23
1,499.14
12,177.37
8,862.25
2,493.66
11,355.91
10,173.93 1,650.24
11,824.17
Administration of
(4,513.35)
Foreign Affairs,
Subtotal
Diplomatic &
10,864.24
6,48.28
3,178.99
9,663.27
7,282.36
1,199.49
8,484.85
5,666.03
2,171.51
7,837.54
7,089.85 1,024.91
8,114.76
Consular Program
(4,306.36)

Worldwide Security

Protection
(1,591.20)
(2,250.59) (1,791.17)
(390.96) (2,182.13) (1,791.17))
(390.96)
(2,182.14)
(1,867.25) (900.27)
(2,767.52)
Capital Investment
59.38
56.37

56.37
76.90

76.90
76.90

76.90
76.90
76.90
Fund
Embassy Security,
1,652.70
1,581.79
1,237.54
2,819.33
2,399.35
250.00
2,649.35
2,399.35
250.00
2,649.35
2,105.80
558.55
2,664.35
Construction &
(115.70)

Maintenance

Worldwide Security
(775.00)
(1,896.56)
(1,896.56) (1,614.00)
(1,614.00)
(1,614.00)
(1,614.00)
(1,320.45)
(1,320.45)
Upgrades
CRS-14

FY2012
actual (of
FY2013 estimate Post-
which is
sequestration & rescissions
FY2014 Senate

OCO)
(P.L. 113-6)
FY2014 request
FY2014 House (H.R. 2855)
(S. 1372)
Total
Core
OCO
Total
Core
OCO
Total
Core
OCO
Total
Core
OCO
Total
Conflict
30.32
8.08

8.08
45.20

45.20
0.00

0.00
0.00 8.50
8.50
Stabilization
(8.50)
Operations
Ed. & Cultural
598.80
553.68
14.82
568.50
562.66

562.66
438.84
12.50
451.34
595.00 8.63
603.63
Exchanges
(15.60)
Office of
129.09
59.58
56.94
116.52
69.41
49.65
119.06
59.41
59.65
119.06
69.41 49.65
119.06
Inspector General
(67.18)
Representation
8.03
6.93

6.93
6.93

6.93
6.93

6.93
7.30
7.30
Allowances
Protection of
27.75
25.63

25.63
25.63

25.63
25.64

25.64
28.20
28.20
Foreign Missions
& Officials
Emergency-
9.07
8.83

8.83
8.83

8.83
8.83

8.83
9.65
9.65
Diplomatic &
Consular Services
Repatriation Loans
1.67
1.37

1.37
1.37

1.37
1.37

1.37
1.70
1.70
Payment
21.78

20.04
36.22

36.22
20.05

20.05
31.22
31.22
American Institute
Taiwan
Foreign Service
158.90

158.9
158.90

158.90
158.90

158.90
158.90
158.90
Retirement
(mandatory)
International
3,379.18
3,290.22
96.21
3,386.43
3,668.11

3,668.11
2,352.46
74.40
2,426.86
3,477.07 74.40
3,551.47
Orgs, Subtotal
(101.30)
Contributions to
1,551.00
1,376.33
96.21
1,472.54
1,573.45

1,573.45
671.63
74.40
746.03
1,382.41 74.40
1,456.81
Int’l Orgs
(101.30)
CRS-15

FY2012
actual (of
FY2013 estimate Post-
which is
sequestration & rescissions
FY2014 Senate

OCO)
(P.L. 113-6)
FY2014 request
FY2014 House (H.R. 2855)
(S. 1372)
Total
Core
OCO
Total
Core
OCO
Total
Core
OCO
Total
Core
OCO
Total
Contributions,
1,828.18
1,913.89

1,913.89
2,094.66

2,094.66
1,680.83

1,680.83
2,094.66
2,094.66
International
Peacekeeping
International
124.17
112.96

112.96
120.96

120.96
111.71

111.71
132.96
132.96
Commission
Int’l
76.18
68.78

68.78
77.02

77.02
68.92

68.92
80.82
80.82
Boundary/U.S.-
Mexico
American Sections
11.69
11.31

11.31
12.50

12.50
11.34

11.34
12.80
12.80
International
36.30
32.87

32.87
31.44

31.44
31.45

31.45
39.34
39.34
Fisheries
International
751.53
713.49

713.49
731.08

731.08
698.58
32.50
731.08
725.08 4.40
729.48
Broadcast,
(4.40)
Subtotal
Broadcasting
744.50
706.82

706.82
722.58

722.58
691.58
32.50
724.08
717.08 4.40
721.48
Operations
(4.40)
Capital
7.03
6.67

6.67
8.50

8.50
7.00

7.00
8.00
8.00
Improvements
Related Approps,
192.18
182.47

182.47
173.41

173.41
141.97

141.97
200.18 6.02
206.20
Subtotal
Asia Foundation
17.00
16.14

16.14
17.00

17.00
13.00

13.00
17.00
17.00
U.S. Institute of
39.00
37.03

37.03
35.69

35.69
10.71

10.71
30.98 6.02
37.00
Peace
(8.41)
Center for Middle
0.84
0.80

0.80
0.09

0.09
0.09

0.09
0.09
0.09
East-West
Dialogue-Trust &
Program
CRS-16

FY2012
actual (of
FY2013 estimate Post-
which is
sequestration & rescissions
FY2014 Senate

OCO)
(P.L. 113-6)
FY2014 request
FY2014 House (H.R. 2855)
(S. 1372)
Total
Core
OCO
Total
Core
OCO
Total
Core
OCO
Total
Core
OCO
Total
Cong.-Exec. on
2.00
1.80

1.80
2.00

2.00
2.00

2.00
2.00
2.00
People’s Republic
of China
U.S.-China
3.49
3.13

3.13
3.50

3.50
3.50

3.50
3.50
3.50
Economic and
Security Review
Foreign Ops
35,423.24
27,235.89 7,325.66 34,561.55 32,637.35 2,308.20 35,095.45 22,855.31 3,919.44 26,774.75 29,509.41 4,780.04 34,289.45
TOTAL
(6,575.33)
Title II. U.S.
1,528.00
1,204.35
246.45
1,450.80
1,500.34
71.00
1,571.34
1,105.05
250.74
1,355.79
1,449.26 70.35
1,519.61
Agency for
259.50)
International
Development
USAID Operating
1,347.30
1,037.07
242.18
1,279.25
1,328.20
71.00
1,399.20
942.95
240.70
1,183.65
1,284.32 65.35
1,349.67
Expenses
(255.00)
USAID Capital
129.70
123.13

123.13
117.94

117.94
117.94

117.94
117.94
117.94
Investment Fund
USAID Inspector
51.00
44.15
4.27

54.20

54.20
44.16
10.04
54.20
47.00 5.00
52.00
General
(4.50)
Title III. Bilateral
22,194.80
17,224.84
4,908.61
22,133.45
22,388.22
1,382.20
22,770.42
14,873.70
2,432.35
17,306.05
18,190.20 3,959.50
22,149.7
Economic
(3,834.52)
Assistance,
Subtotal
Global Health
8,172.66
8,061.49

8,061.49
8,315.00

8,315.00
8,175.00

8,175.00
8,455.00
8,455.00
Programs (GHP),
State + USAID
GHP (State Dept.)
[5,334.31]
[5,439.33]

[5,439.83] [5,670.00]

[5,670.00]
[5,670.00]

[5,670.00]
[5,670.00]
[5,670.00
GHP (USAID)
[2,498.00]
[2,621.25]

[2,621.66] [2,645.00]

[2,645.00]
[2,505.00]

[2,505.00]
[2,785.00]
[2,785.00]
CRS-18

FY2012
actual (of
FY2013 estimate Post-
which is
sequestration & rescissions
FY2014 Senate

OCO)
(P.L. 113-6)
FY2014 request
FY2014 House (H.R. 2855)
(S. 1372)
Total
Core
OCO
Total
Core
OCO
Total
Core
OCO
Total
Core
OCO
Total
Middle East North
—
—

—
5.00

5.00
0.00

0.00
0.00 5.00
5.00
Africa Transition
Fund
Title VI. Export
-1,015.43
-913.00

-913.00
-1,117.04

-1,117.04
-1,182.92

-1,182.92
-1,117.44
-1,117.44
Aid, Subtotal
Export-Import
-799.70
-753.70

-753.70
-959.50

-959.50
-984.50

-984.50
-959.90
-959.90
Bank (net)
Overseas Private
-265.73
-206.80

-206.80
-220.20

-220.20
-245.91

-245.91
-220.20
-220.20
Investment
Corporation (net)
Trade &
50.00
47.50

47.50
62.66

62.66
47.49

47.49
62.66
62.66
Development
Agency
Title VII. General

7.00

7.00
-772.63

-772.63
-1,254.00
1,254.00
Provisions (add

ons/ rescissions)
State-Foreign Ops
53,432.55
40,332.15 11,910.16 52,242.31 48,026.41 3,807.34 51,835.75 35,034.55 6,520.00 40,781.92 42,976.9
6,515.10 49,492.00
Total, Net of
(11,202.70)
Rescissions
Title VIII.
Overseas
Contingency
While listed in a separate title in FY2013 legislation, OCO-designated funding has been listed here in the OCO columns above, in the appropriate account lines, to
Operations
allow for easier year to-year and bill-to-bill comparison of account totals.
Source: FY2012 data are from the FY14 CBJ; FY13 data are from tables provided to CRS by the State Department; FY14 House data are from H.Rept. 113-185; Senate
data are from S.Rept. 113-81.
Notes: Shaded columns indicate fiscal year totals. Figures in brackets are subsumed in the larger account above and are not counted against the total. Figures in
parentheses are negative numbers. “Core” funding is also sometimes referred to as “base” or “enduring” funding in budget documents.
a. Senate funding for the international center is within the D&CP account.
CRS-24

b. Although no funding was requested through the AEECA account for FY2013, funding for many programs and activities currently supported by this account was
requested in the ESF, GHP and INCLE accounts.
c. Includes MDRI funds both for the World Bank IDA and the African Development Bank.

CRS-25

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2014 Budget and Appropriations

Table A-2. International Affairs (150) Function Account, FY2012-FY2014
(in millions of current U.S. dol ars)
FY2013 post

sequestration/

FY2012
rescission
FY2014

Actual
Estimatea
Request House Senate
State-Foreign Operations,
excluding commissionsb 53,296.54 52,118.77
51,702.52
40,657.94
49,346.77
Commerce-Justice-
Science

Foreign Claim Settlement
Commission 2.00
1.90
2.22
2.10
2.20
Int’l Trade Commission
80.00
78.87
85.10
79.00
85.10
Agriculture

P.L. 480 and McGovern-Dole
1,650.00
1,536.55
185.13c
1,329.98 1,651.13
Total International Affairs
(150) 55,028.54
53,736.09
51,974.97
42,069.02
51,085.20
Source: FY2014 International Affairs Congressional Budget Justification; State-Foreign Operations H.Rept. 113-
185; S.Rept. 113-81; Commerce, Justice, Science H.Rept. 113-171; S.Rept. 113-78; Agriculture H.Rept. 113-116;
S.Rept. 113-46; and CRS calculations.
a. Funding levels in this column reflect funding estimates after sequestration and after the across the board
rescissions required by Section 3004 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013
(P.L. 113-6).
b. While funding for certain international commissions are appropriated in the State-Foreign Operations bill,
they are not part of the International Affairs Function 150 Account.
c. Reflects appropriation request for P.L. 480 title II grants to be within the FY2014 Foreign Operations
request.

Author Contact Information

Susan B. Epstein
Marian L. Lawson
Specialist in Foreign Policy
Specialist in Foreign Assistance Policy
sepstein@crs.loc.gov, 7-6678
mlawson@crs.loc.gov, 7-4475
Alex Tiersky

Analyst in Foreign Affairs
atiersky@crs.loc.gov, 7-7367

Congressional Research Service
26