State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

Susan B. Epstein
Specialist in Foreign Policy
Alex Tiersky
Analyst in Foreign Affairs
Marian L. Lawson
Actg Section Research Mgr
May 27, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43569


State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

Summary
The annual State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs appropriations bill (also referred to
here as “foreign affairs appropriations” or “foreign affairs funding”) is the primary legislative
vehicle through which Congress reviews the U.S. international affairs budget and influences
executive branch foreign policy making. (Foreign relations authorization and foreign assistance
authorization legislation, required by law prior to State Department and foreign aid expenditures,
are also available to Congress to influence foreign policy, but Congress has not passed either
since FY2003 and FY1985, respectively. Instead, Congress has waived the requirement within the
appropriations laws.)
On March 4, 2014, the Obama Administration submitted to Congress its budget request for
FY2015. The request for State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs totals $48.62 billion,
which is 1.3% below the FY2014 estimated funding level of $49.29 billion. Within the request,
$5.91 billion is designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding, which is 9.3%
below the FY2014 estimated OCO funding of $6.52 billion. Of the total request, $16.81 billion is
for State Department Operations and related agencies, a 6.0% increase from the FY2014 funding
estimate of $15.86 billion. Much of the requested increase is for U.S. Contributions to
International Organizations (CIO) and Contributions to International Peacekeeping (CIPA)
accounts. For Foreign Operations, the Administration is requesting $31.81 billion, a 6.1%
decrease from the FY2014 estimate of $33.87 billion.
Key issues that may interest some Members of the 113th Congress include
• $4.59 billion requested for enduring diplomatic security funding to continue
implementing post-Benghazi Accountability Review Board recommendations in
FY2015, 4.7% more than estimated for these same accounts in FY2014;
• a 9% lower request for OCO funding that, in addition to providing funding to the
frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, would provide funding for
Syria and $150 million for a new Peacekeeping Response Mechanism (PKRM);
• $1.53 billion to support democratic transitions in the Middle East and North
Africa, including humanitarian assistance related to the conflict in Syria;
• support for the Administration’s ongoing development initiatives: Global Health,
Global Climate Change, and Feed the Future, as well as $114.3 million for new
Africa initiatives; and
• an additional request for a new government-wide Opportunity, Growth, and
Security Initiative that would provide more than $760 million to foreign affairs
programs, beyond the regular budget request.
After enacting appropriations for FY2014 with continuing resolutions in late 2013-early 2014,
Congress completed action on, and the President signed, the Consolidated Appropriations Act
(H.R. 3547/P.L. 113-76) on January 17, 2014. The FY2014 State Department, Foreign Operations
and Related Programs (SFOPS) funding is estimated to be $49.29 billion (net rescissions), down
2.5% from the FY2013 level of $50.57 billion (net rescissions).
Total funding for the State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs over the past
10 years has ranged from a low of $35.85 billion (including supplemental appropriations) in
FY2006 to a high of $53.00 billion in FY2012 (including war-related Overseas Contingency
Congressional Research Service

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

Operations, OCO, appropriations). It has declined each year since FY2012 (including the FY2015
request), attributable, perhaps, to passage of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25).
Appendix A (State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs) and Appendix B
(function 150) tables provide side-by-side account-level funding data for FY2013 actual funding,
FY2014 estimates, and the FY2015 request.
This report tracks the FY2015 State Department, Foreign Operations and Related Programs
appropriations process. It will be updated to reflect congressional action.

Congressional Research Service

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

Contents
Recent Actions ................................................................................................................................. 1
Current Request and Past Trends ..................................................................................................... 1
The FY2015 State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS)
Appropriations Request .......................................................................................................... 2
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) .......................................................................... 3
The Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative ............................................................... 4
Funding Trends .......................................................................................................................... 4
State Operations and Related Agencies ........................................................................................... 6
State Operations: FY2015 Key Issues ....................................................................................... 7
Frontline States .................................................................................................................... 7
International Organizations/Peacekeeping .......................................................................... 8
Diplomatic Security............................................................................................................. 8
Management and Human Resources of the Department of State ...................................... 10
Foreign Operations ........................................................................................................................ 12
Foreign Operations: FY2015 Key Issues ................................................................................. 14
U.S. Support for Democratic Transitions in the Middle East and North Africa ................ 14
Overseas Contingency Operations Assistance to Frontline States .................................... 15
Syria/Humanitarian Assistance ......................................................................................... 15
Food Aid Reform ............................................................................................................... 16
New and Ongoing Administration Assistance Initiatives .................................................. 17

Figures
Figure 1. Composition of the FY2015 Foreign Affairs Budget Request ......................................... 2
Figure 2. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Funding Trends,
FY2006-FY2015 Request ............................................................................................................. 5
Figure 3. Composition of State Operations & Related Agencies: FY2015 Request ........................ 6
Figure 4. FY2015 Proposed “Security” Spending ......................................................................... 10
Figure 5. Department of State New Positions Requested, FY2015 ............................................... 11
Figure 6. Bilateral Aid by Region, FY2014 Estimate and FY2015 Request ................................. 13

Tables
Table 1. Status of State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2015 ............................................ 1
Table 2. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Funding Trends,
FY2006-FY2015 Request ............................................................................................................. 5
Table 3. State Department and Related Accounts: Total Funding and Select Accounts .................. 6
Table 4. Diplomatic Security Funding: Selected Accounts ............................................................ 10
Table 5. Foreign Aid by Appropriations Title, FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015 Request .............. 12
Table 6. Top 15 U.S. Aid Recipients by Country, FY2014 Est. & FY2015 Request ..................... 14
Congressional Research Service

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

Table 7. Overseas Contingency Operations Funding in Foreign Operations Accounts,
FY2012-FY2015 Request ........................................................................................................... 15
Table A-1. State Department, Foreign Operations and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2013-FY2015 ......................................................................................................................... 19
Table B-1. International Affairs Budget, FY2013-FY2015 ........................................................... 27

Appendixes
Appendix A. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, by Account ............................................. 19
Appendix B. International Affairs (150) Function Account, FY2013-FY2015 ............................. 27

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 27

Congressional Research Service

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

Recent Actions
The Obama Administration submitted its FY2015 budget request, including for International
Affairs (function 150), to Congress on March 4, 2014. The International Affairs function 150
budget is similar, but not identical to the State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs (SFOPS) appropriations.1 The request for State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs (also referred to in this report as foreign affairs funding) totals $48.62 billion, which is
1.3% below the FY2014 estimated funding level of $49.26 billion. Of the total request, $16.81
billion is for State Department Operations and related agencies, a 6.0% increase from the FY2014
funding estimate of $15.86 billion. For Foreign Operations, the Administration is requesting
$31.81 billion, a 6.1% decrease from the FY2014 estimate of $33.87 billion.
In March and April, 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) Administrator Rajiv Shah testified on the request before the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees, as well as the House Foreign Affairs and the Senate Foreign
Relations Committees. As of May 27, 2014, neither appropriations committee had considered
FY2015 State, Foreign Operations legislation.
The House agreed to $48.45 billion for State-Foreign Operations 302(b) allocations; the Senate
passed $48.48 billion for the SFOPS 302(b) allocations (see Table 1).
Table 1. Status of State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2015
(funding in billions of current U.S. dollars)
Committee
Public
302(b) Allocationsa
Action Floor
Action
Conference/Agreement
Law
House Senate House
Senate
House
Senate
House
Senate
Agreement
4/8/14 5/22/2014







$48.45 $48.48








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). Al ocations are budget authority and include House-passed OCO funds of $5.9 billion and Senate-
passed OCO funds of $8.6 billion.
Current Request and Past Trends
The State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations fund a variety of U.S.
foreign affairs programs and activities. These include State Department and U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) operations, bilateral economic and security assistance,

1 Function 150 includes funding that is not in the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs
appropriation: foreign food aid programs (P.L. 480 Food for Peace and McGovern-Dole International Food for
Education and Child Nutrition Programs) are in the Agriculture Appropriations, and the Foreign Claim Settlement
Commission and the International Trade Commission are in the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations. In
addition, the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs appropriation measure includes funding
for certain international commissions that are not part of the International Affairs Function 150 account.
Congressional Research Service
1


State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

contributions to international organizations and multilateral financial institutions, public
diplomacy, such as educational and cultural exchanges and international broadcasting, and certain
international commissions.
The FY2015 State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs (SFOPS) Appropriations Request

The FY2015 foreign affairs request (about 1% of the total FY2015 budget request) would reduce
overall SFOPS funding by 1.3% from the previous year. It would increase State Department and
related activities (about ⅓ of the foreign affairs request) by 6% and decrease foreign aid activities
(about ⅔ of the request) by 6.1%. The Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)2 portion of the
FY2015 request is 9.3% below what Congress appropriated for FY2014. In addition to its budget
request, the Administration is proposing a new Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative that,
it says, would provide funds in a budget-neutral way for furthering its other priorities. Figure 1
provides a breakout of the FY2015 SFOPS appropriations budget request.
Figure 1. Composition of the FY2015 Foreign Affairs Budget Request

Source: Congressional Budget Justification, Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs,
Fiscal Year 2015, and CRS calculations.
Note: The total figure of $48.62 billion equals State Department Operations, Foreign Operations and Related
Programs, including $158.9 million for mandatory retirement accounts. The blue portion of the chart is funding
under State Department Operations; the portion in orange is within Foreign Operations. Embassy Security
includes Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) within the Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP) and
Worldwide Security Upgrades (WSU) within the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM)
account.

2 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding is extraordinary, temporary funding requested primarily for the
frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. See discussion on OCO below.
Congressional Research Service
2

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
For the FY2015 foreign affairs budget, the Administration is requesting $5.9 billion for OCO −
55% more than it requested in FY2014, but 9.3% less than Congress appropriated for that year.
The Administration would expand OCO uses beyond Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to include
support for the Syrian opposition and Syrian refugees. The Administration is also seeking OCO
funds for a new Peacekeeping Response Mechanism (PKRM) for more flexibility to address
peacekeeping missions in Africa and other regions experiencing conflict.
Congress passed emergency supplemental appropriations between FY2006 and FY2010. No
supplementals were part of the FY2011 foreign affairs budget. In FY2012, the Administration
requested foreign affairs OCO funds for the first time.3 That year the Administration requested
$8.7 billion for OCO for the frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Congress
appropriated $11.2 billion, however, for frontline states, as well as for other uses, such as
Peacekeeping Operations in Somalia, Economic Support Funds (ESF) for Somalia and Yemen,
and Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related Programs (NADR) for Kenya. The
FY2015 request for OCO is about half of what was enacted in FY2012 and 9% below the
FY2014 estimated level (see Table 2).
Since FY2012, the Administration’s foreign affairs budget has distinguished between what it has
interchangeably called “enduring”, “base,” or “ongoing” 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.”4
Congress has adopted this approach, but has defined OCO more broadly. In each of the last three
years, Congress appropriated more OCO funding for foreign affairs than was requested, and for a
broader range of countries and activities. Within the foreign affairs budget in FY2012, the Obama
Administration requested $8.7 billion for OCO, and Congress enacted $11.2 billion. In FY2013,
the Administration requested $8.2 billion for OCO, but Congress enacted $10.8 billion (net
rescissions). The FY2014 request continued this pattern; the Administration requested $3.8 billion
of OCO funds for foreign affairs, while Congress appropriated $6.5 billion (net rescissions). OCO
funds are subject to sequestration, but do not count against the spending cap.
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
other foreign aid activities, sequestration and rescissions were 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 were at the country allocation level. Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) funds were subject to sequester, but did not count toward spending caps.
The sequestration process could have been triggered again after January 15, 2014, if Congress had not enacted
appropriations legislation consistent with budget caps or repealed or amended the BCA. On December 12 and 18,
2013, respectively, the House and Senate agreed to the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA, H.J.Res. 59, P.L. 113-67), which

3 The Department of Defense requested and received OCO funds for several years prior to FY2012.
4 From Executive Budget Summary, Function 150 & Other International Programs, Fiscal Year 2014, p. 97.
Congressional Research Service
3

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

established less stringent spending caps for FY2014 and FY2015 than the BCA, easing the way for an appropriations
agreement for both years. However, the BBA did not repeal the BCA sequestration process. For FY2014, Congress
passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2014 that funded the government within the revised statutory limits
and avoided sequestration. Unless Congress repeals the BCA, sequestration could be triggered any year through
FY2021 if spending breaches the budget cap. For FY2015, both House and Senate Budget Committee Chairpersons
have said they will abide by the overall budget cap of $1.041 trillion agreed to in the BBA. For more detailed
information, see CRS Report R42994, The Budget Control Act, Sequestration, and the Foreign Affairs Budget: Background
and Possible Impacts
, by Susan B. Epstein.
The Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative
The Obama Administration added to its FY2015 budget a new government-wide proposal
referred to as the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative. It is a $56 billion fund that would
be divided equally between defense and nondefense expenditures. The cost of the initiative would
be offset largely with targeted spending cuts and closed tax loopholes. According to the
Administration, this initiative, if passed, would provide some additional funding (over $750
million) beyond the regular international affairs request to address specific foreign affairs
priorities that have been restricted by sequestration. Proposed funding for the initiative would
provide the following:
• $350 million to the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), above the
requested $1 billion, to develop overseas economic environments and help U.S.
businesses be more competitive;
• $300 million within the Global Health Programs (GHP) account to encourage
more funding from other donors to the Global Fund for fighting AIDS, TB, and
Malaria;
• funds for Maternal and Child Health activities within GHP to provide extra
momentum toward ending preventable maternal and child deaths;
• $80 million in multilateral aid for the Global Agriculture and Food Security
Program;
• $29.9 million for the Board for International Broadcasting’s satellite transmission
program, which is expected to provide a 31% cost savings;
• an unspecified amount of funding within the Development Assistance (DA)
account to support bilateral and multilateral food security in the Feed the Future
Initiative; and
• support within DA for USAID’s Global Development Lab to encourage science,
technology, innovation, and partnerships that would promote development.
Funding proposed through the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative is not part of the
FY2015 funding levels discussed in this report.
Funding Trends
The SFOPS10-year funding trend indicates that total foreign affairs funding increased 48% from
the low in FY2006 to the high in FY2012. The peak year for enduring funding, however, was
FY2009 when it was 60% higher than in FY2006. While the total foreign affairs funding has
declined each year after FY2012, the enduring funds are estimated to increase slightly after the
Congressional Research Service
4


State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

FY2013 sequestration. The decline in total foreign affairs funds since FY2012 suggests that even
as the enduring funds increase there is a trade-off between enduring and OCO money in order to
reduce the overall total. (Some argue, however, that enduring funding trends are more accurate a
measure than when the temporary OCO funds are included in the totals.) Regardless, it is likely
that the recent-year decline in foreign affairs funding can be attributable to the BCA and a scaled-
down presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. (See Table 2 and Figure 2 below.)
Table 2. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Funding
Trends, FY2006-FY2015 Request
(in billions of current U.S. dollars)
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15

actual
actual
actual
actuala
actual
actual
actual
actual
est.
req.
Enduring
31.38 31.41 34.52 50.30 49.44 48.80 41.80 39.75 42.77 42.71
$
Supp/
4.47 5.66 5.66 1.83b 2.34 0.00 11.20 10.82 6.52 5.91
OCO $
Total
35.85 37.07 40.18 52.13 51.78 48.80 53.00 50.57 49.29 48.62
Source: Congressional Budget Justifications, Foreign Operations, Summary Tables, FY2008-FY2015 and CRS
calculations.
Notes: Each year total reflects post-rescission (and post-sequestration for FY2013) and includes the mandatory
Foreign Service Retirement Fund.
a. The FY2009 actual enduring includes supplemental funding from P.L. 110-252, P.L. 1101-5, P.L. 111-8.
b. This figure was forward funding from FY2009 supplemental (P.L. 111-32).
Figure 2. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Funding
Trends, FY2006-FY2015 Request
(in billions of current U.S. dollars)

Source: Congressional Budget Justifications, Foreign Operations, Summary Tables, FY2008-FY2015 and CRS
calculations.
Congressional Research Service
5


State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

State Operations and Related Agencies
The Administration seeks to grow funding for the State Department and Related Accounts
category by 6% over FY2014 estimated levels, to $16.81 billion. Both “base” (or “enduring”)
funding and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding would grow under the proposal,
by 5.3% and 11.2% respectively. The overall composition of this portion of the request is shown
in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Composition of State Operations & Related Agencies: FY2015 Request

Source: CRS calculations from the FY2015 Department of State budget presentation documents.
Notes: D&CP = Diplomatic and Consular Programs; WSP = Worldwide Security Protection.
Table 3 shows funding levels for selected State operations accounts for FY2013, FY2014 and the
FY2015 request. Among the top-line accounts, the Administration of Foreign Affairs category
decreases by less than 1% from the FY2014 estimated funding level, to a proposed $11.61 billion
level. Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP), the Department’s main operating account,
would grow by 4.5%, to $8.34 billion. The State Department’s second largest administrative
account is Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance (ESCM); the FY2015 proposal calls
for $2.28 billion, a 14.8% decrease from the FY2014 estimated level of $2.67 billion.
In addition, the “Related Programs” category would be cut by 21% under the FY2015 request;
this includes significant proposed cuts to funding appropriated for the East-West Center, the Asia
Foundation, and National Endowment for Democracy (cuts of 35%, 29%, and 23% respectively).
Table 3. State Department and Related Accounts: Total Funding and Select Accounts
(in billions of current U.S. dollars)
FY2014
% change, FY14
FY2013
Actual
Estimated FY2015
Request
to FY15 request
Total, State, Broadcasting &
17.87 15.86 16.81 +6.0%
Relt’d Agencies
Diplomatic and Consular
9.65 7.97 8.34 +4.5%
Programs
Embassy Security
2.82 2.67 2.28 -14.8%
Construction and
Maintenance
Congressional Research Service
6

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

FY2014
% change, FY14
FY2013
Actual
Estimated FY2015
Request
to FY15 request
Contributions to Int.
3.39 3.11 4.19 +34.8%
Organizations/
Peacekeeping
Educational and Cultural
0.57 0.57 0.58 +1.6%
Exchange Programs
Related Programs
0.18
0.21
0.16
-21.1%
International Broadcasting
0.71
0.73
0.72
-1.7%
Source: CRS calculations based on Department of State, FY2015 Congressional Budget Justification.
Note: Figures include Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding.
State Operations: FY2015 Key Issues
The following sections outline a number of elements within the State Operations account request,
which the Department refers to as “Diplomatic Engagement” in its FY2015 presentation to
Congress.
Frontline States
In its FY2015 budget proposal, the Department seeks to continue shifting operational funding for
the frontline states from OCO to enduring funding accounts, contending that the likely long-term
presence and activities of the Department in these countries makes predictable, non-emergency
funding streams essential for planning and operational purposes.
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, and an initially ambitious diplomatic presence was
dramatically curtailed in the last two years. Under the FY2015 proposal, new funding requested
for State operations in Iraq would increase by 12% from FY2014 levels, to $1.2 billion. The
FY2015 funding request is nearly twice the FY2013 actual level and more than double the
FY2013 enduring funding. Officials explain that more appropriated funds are being requested
because less carryover funding is available in FY2015 than in previous years. The request
includes $250 million in OCO funding for a new permanent consulate in Basrah, a key oil
industry hub.
Although the future of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan remains undetermined, the
Department of State’s budget assumes a continued civilian presence in various parts of the
country, including the Embassy in Kabul, consulates in Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif, and some
presence in Jalalabad and Kandahar. The overall FY2015 request for State Operations in the
country, prepared under the assumption some U.S. troops would remain,5 is for $961 million, a
15% increase over FY2014 estimated levels but a 40% drop from FY2013 actual funding. The
requested funding would allow additional security measures to be put in place should U.S.
military forces pull out by the end of 2014, according to State officials; however, the planned
diplomatic posture may be revised under such a scenario.

5 State Department briefing for congressional staff, March 6, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
7

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

Pakistan, the third frontline state, would see its funding levels for State Operations decrease by
5% under the FY2015 proposal, from an estimated $140.4 million in FY2014 to $120 million.
While base funding would grow by 56% as State shifts to a long-term diplomatic platform, OCO
funding would be reduced by 44%. Operational funding totals for Pakistan are declining because
prior year efforts to put into place permanent facilities and security to support the U.S. diplomatic
presence are now completed, according to State officials.
International Organizations/Peacekeeping
The International Organizations accounts, including both Contributions to International
Organizations (CIO) and Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA), would
see a 35% jump in funding under the FY2015 proposal, to $4.19 billion. Of the total increase of
$1.08 billion for the two accounts over FY2014 estimated levels, 69.7% would be for
peacekeeping, including U.N. peacekeeping operations in Mali, Darfur, and Somalia.
The CIO account funds the U.S. share of the assessed budgets of 45 international
intergovernmental organizations, including the United Nations.6 The FY2015 request seeks $1.5
billion under this category, a 13.2% increase from FY2014 estimated levels that would boost
funding to the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, NATO, and the
International Labor Organization. The CIO request does not include funds for the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) due to UNESCO member states’
decision to admit “Palestine” as a member. Administration officials suggest they will continue to
seek a waiver from Congress to fund the organization.7
The CIPA request of $2.52 billion would increase that account by 43% from FY2014 estimated
levels; the request funds U.S. assessed contributions to the special accounts for 11 U.N.
peacekeeping operations and three international war crimes tribunals. In addition, the
Administration’s FY2015 request includes a $150 million Peacekeeping Response Mechanism
(PKRM), a new proposal intended to support urgent—but as yet undefined—peacekeeping needs.
The OCO funds requested for the PKRM would allow State to support contingency operations
without taking funds from other peacekeeping efforts in progress or returning to the Congress for
off-cycle budgetary requests, officials suggest.
Diplomatic Security
In the wake of the September 11, 2012 attack on U.S. personnel in Benghazi, Libya,
congressional and executive branch efforts to better prepare U.S. diplomats and facilities abroad

6 For more background on U.N. funding, see CRS Report RL33611, United Nations System Funding: Congressional
Issues
, by Marjorie Ann Browne.
7 State Department briefing for congressional staff, March 5, 2014. The Obama Administration and many Members of
Congress vehemently opposed UNESCO member states’ decision to admit “Palestine” as a member. They argued that
Palestinian statehood can only be realized through direct negotiation between Israelis and Palestinians rather than
through membership in U.N. entities. The United States withheld approximately $80 million in FY2012 through
FY2014 funding to UNESCO. Two laws enacted in the 1990s prohibit funding to U.N. entities that admit the Palestine
Liberation Organization as a member, or grant full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not
have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood. For more information, see CRS Report R42999, The United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
, by Luisa Blanchfield and Marjorie Ann
Browne.
Congressional Research Service
8

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

for security threats continue.8 In its FY2015 budget, the Administration seeks funding to continue
to implement the initiatives launched under the Increased Security Proposal9 and meet the post-
Benghazi Accountability Review Board’s (ARB) recommendations. The request includes
approximately $3.1 billion in Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) funds, to provide security
personnel with technical tools and training; and approximately $1.5 billion in Worldwide Security
Upgrades (WSU) funds to upgrade and maintain safe, secure diplomatic facilities.
Within the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) request is $986.5 million
to provide for the Department of State’s share of the Capital Security Cost Sharing (CSCS)
program, an interagency shared funding mechanism designed to ensure each U.S. government
agency represented abroad is paying its fair share of construction costs for new and more secure
facilities. The amount requested is down from the $1.4 billion appropriated for this purpose for
FY2014, a result of higher assessed contributions from other agencies into the common account.
Department officials underline that the CSCS request meets the full $2.2 billion level called for
by the post-Benghazi Accountability Review Board. The requested CSCS program funding would
support the development of new diplomatic facilities in Sri Lanka, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia,
Mexico, and Papua New Guinea.
The request also features $44 million to fund recurring costs for the 151 additional Diplomatic
Security (DS) personnel the Department of State has sought to hire after the Benghazi attacks.
According to the Department, it hired 113 employees under this category in FY2013, including
75 new DS agents; the 38 remaining employees are to be hired in FY2014.
Table 4 summarizes recent funding for the three accounts containing the bulk of funding for
diplomatic security measures: Worldwide Security Protection funding (for security programs
including a worldwide guard force), Worldwide Security Upgrades funding (for bricks and mortar
security needs, including construction of secure new embassy compounds), and Diplomatic
Security Bureau D&CP funding. The FY2015 request transfers a significant portion of what had
been DS Bureau D&CP funding in previous years to the WSP account, which offers greater
flexibility.10

8 See CRS Report R43195, Securing U.S. Diplomatic Facilities and Personnel Abroad: Legislative and Executive
Branch Initiatives
, by Alex Tiersky.
9 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, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 (H.R.
933, P.L. 113-6) provided $918 million for WSP and $1.3 billion for ESCM, while rescinding $1.1 billion in
unobligated balances from FY2012 OCO funds. H.R. 3547, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, exceeded the
Administration’s request for ESCM of $2.4 billion by $25 million in OCO funds, to be used to harden high-risk posts.
It also provided a total of $2.77 billion for WSP.
10 For more details on these accounts and funding, see CRS Report R42834, Securing U.S. Diplomatic Facilities and
Personnel Abroad: Background and Policy Issues
, by Alex Tiersky and Susan B. Epstein.
Congressional Research Service
9


State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

Table 4. Diplomatic Security Funding: Selected Accounts
(in billions of current U.S. dollars)
% change
(FY14 to FY15

FY2013 Actual
FY2014 Estimated
FY2015 Request
request)
Worldwide Security
2.25 2.77 3.12
+12.7%
Protection (WSP)
Worldwide Security
0.67 1.61 1.47 -
9.1%
Upgrades (WSU)
Diplomatic Security
0.51 0.18 0.09 -47.5%
(DS) in D&CP
Total 3.43
4.56
4.68
+2.6%
Source: CRS calculations from the FY2015 Department of State budget presentation documents.
Notes: Includes OCO funding levels. Other embassy and diplomatic security funding is within two other
subaccounts: Counterterrorism within the Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP), and Diplomatic Security
within Border Security Program (BSP). See CRS Report R42834, Securing U.S. Diplomatic Facilities and Personnel
Abroad: Background and Policy Issues
, by Alex Tiersky and Susan B. Epstein.
Figure 4 illustrates that under the FY2015 request, approximately 42% of the Department of
State’s operational funding would go to security-related accounts, a percentage that has seen
significant growth in recent years (from roughly 22% as recently as FY2008).
Figure 4. FY2015 Proposed “Security” Spending
(as percentage of Administration of Foreign Affairs)

Source: CRS calculations from the FY2015 Department of State budget presentation documents.
Note: ISP = Increased Security Proposal; WSP = Worldwide Security Protection; WSU = Worldwide Security
Upgrades.
Management and Human Resources of the Department of State
Many observers suggest that the Department of State has historically faced chronic personnel
shortfalls, a situation worsened in recent years by a growing number of overseas positions to fill,
Congressional Research Service
10


State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

especially in the frontline states. The ranks of mid-level Foreign Service officers are particularly
thin, forcing junior personnel to serve in assignments meant for personnel of higher rank.11 In the
past few years, to address these gaps as well as the need to better train its employees, the State
Department, with the support of Congress, increased hiring, growing the Foreign Service by
almost 20% since the end of FY2008 and the Civil Service by 7 %; however, hiring slowed
significantly since FY2011-FY2012 due to budget constraints.
The Administration’s FY2015 request for human resources initiatives (under Diplomatic &
Consular Programs) is the same as it requested in FY2014, a total of $2.60 billion—a reduction of
5% from FY2014 estimated levels. While the Administration’s FY2015 request indicates that it
plans 206 new positions at the Department of State altogether, 153 of these would be funded by
consular fees and devoted to work such as meeting increasing visa demand. The request for the
remaining 53 new positions for which State seeks appropriated funding is described by
Department officials as a much more modest personnel request than in recent years. As a point of
comparison, the State Department requested appropriated funding for 35 new positions in its
FY2014 request, for 121 new positions in its FY2013 request, and for 133 in its FY2012 request.
If funded, these new positions would be focused on the following priorities, as indicated in
Figure 5: 23 positions for Economic Statecraft activities (including increased staffing in the
Secretary’s Chief Economist Office) at a cost of $9.1 million; 11 positions for the Bureau of
Energy Resources; four positions for the Intelligence and Research Bureau; and three positions
for the Secretary’s Coordinator for Cyber Issues office.
Figure 5. Department of State New Positions Requested, FY2015
(as percentage of total new positions requested)

Source: CRS calculations from the FY2015 Department of State budget presentation documents.
Note: PD = Public Diplomacy.
In support of the Administration’s policy of rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region, the Human
Resources request also includes three Public Diplomacy positions in the Foreign Service in
China, Indonesia, and Mongolia at a cost of $1.3 million. By comparison, the Department
requested 29 new positions focused on the Asia-Pacific in its FY2014 budget proposal.

11 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.
Congressional Research Service
11

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

Among other personnel-related issues, the Department’s request notably does not include
additional funding for Overseas Comparability Pay (OCP), as it has in previous years. OCP
adjustment is intended to bring the base pay of Foreign Service personnel posted overseas to
levels comparable to their Foreign Service colleagues serving in Washington, D.C. who receive
locality pay. OCP has long been a priority of the Foreign Service rank-and-file, who argue that the
discrepancy affects morale, retention of FSOs, and acts as a financial disincentive to serve
overseas, including by its cumulative impact on retirement pay. The Department sought $81.4
million in FY2014 funding to provide the third portion of a three-phase adjustment, the first two
tranches of which were supported by Congress in previous years. The third OCP phase was not
supported by Congress in FY2013 or FY2014 appropriations.
Foreign Operations
With the exception of food aid, the Foreign Operations budget funds most traditional foreign aid
programs, 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 FY2015 request of $31.81 billion for
these programs would be a 6.1% decrease from the FY2014 estimated appropriation. Table 5
shows foreign operations and total foreign aid funding by appropriations title for FY2013,
FY2014 and the FY2015 request:
Table 5. Foreign Aid by Appropriations Title, FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015 Request
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
% change, FY14
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
to FY15

Actual
Estimate
Request
request
USAID Administration
1.45
1.31
1.57
+19.5%
Bilateral Economic Aid
(including independent agencies and Treasury
22.43 22.03 20.70
-6.1%
programs)
Security Assistance
8.79
8.51
7.81
-8.2%
Multilateral Aid
2.88
3.01
2.89
-4.0%
Export Promotion, net
-1.34
-1.00
-1.16
-
Total Foreign Operations
34.21
33.87
31.81
-6.1%
+ Food Aid from Ag bil
1.53
1.65
1.59
-4.0%
Total Foreign Aid Request:
35.74
35.52
33.40
-5.9%
Source: FY2015 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Congressional Budget
Justification; CRS calculations.
Note: In total, export promotion accounts often bring in more revenue from fees and interest payments than
they expend, resulting in a net gain to the Treasury. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Aid by Type. Although the request appears to include a significant boost for USAID Operating
Expenses, the Administration explains that the increase is intended to offset anticipated decreases
in other funding sources, including recoveries, reimbursement and trust funds, allowing for
continued operations at the current level. Similarly, reductions in bilateral economic aid are
Congressional Research Service
12


State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

largely driven by a 27.8% cut in International Disaster Assistance and a 33.1% cut in Migration
and Refugee Assistance, for which the Administration explains that actual available resources will
not be reduced because of anticipated carry-over funding from previous years. Security
Assistance, in contrast, would see real reductions across most accounts under the Administration
request, and Multilateral Aid would decrease overall as a result of significantly reduced
contributions to International Organizations and Programs (-11.8%), the International
Development Association (-4.8%), and no request for the Global Agriculture and Food Security
Program ($133 million in FY14).
Aid by Country and Region. Under the FY2015 proposal, bilateral aid allocated by region
(excluding humanitarian aid and the Millennium Challenge Corporation) would vary notably in
some instances from current year funding. Aid to South and Central Asia would increase by
13.2% compared to FY2014, while East Asia Pacific and the Near East would see modest
increases of about 1.9% and 1.6%, respectively. Funding for Africa would be reduced by about
1.5%, Europe and Eurasia by 6.3%, and the Western Hemisphere by 10.1%. Nevertheless, the
proportional allocation of aid among regions would not change significantly (Figure 2). Despite
the Administration emphasis on strengthened engagement with East Asia, that region’s share of
regional aid funds would be 4.2% in the Administration’s FY2015 request, almost level with the
region’s 4.1% share in FY2014.
Figure 6. Bilateral Aid by Region, FY2014 Estimate and FY2015 Request
(in billions of U.S. dollars)

Source: FY2015 International Affairs Budget Justification; FY2014 al ocation tables provided by the State
Department.
The top aid recipient countries in the FY2015 request (Table 6) are also fairly consistent with
FY2014 allocations. As in the current and recent years, the top recipient list for FY2015 would
include long-standing strategic partners such as Israel, Egypt and Jordan, frontline states in the
war against terrorism, such as Pakistan, and global health focus countries. One notable change
under the request would be the ranking of Iraq, which has been a top recipient since the 2003 U.S.
Congressional Research Service
13

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

invasion, but would fall just under the top 15 in FY2015 with the requested allocation of $309
million.
Table 6. Top 15 U.S. Aid Recipients by Country, FY2014 Est. & FY2015 Request
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
FY2014 Est.

FY2015 Req.
1. Israel
$3,100
1. Israel
$3,100
2. Egypt
$1,508
2. Afghanistan
$1,595
3. Afghanistan
$1,123
3. Egypt
$1,506
4. Jordan
$1,011
4. Pakistan
$882
5. Pakistan
$933
5. Nigeria
$721
6. Nigeria
$703
6. Jordan
$671
7. Tanzania
$588
7. Tanzania
$590
8. Kenya
$560
8. Kenya
$553
9. South Africa
$490
9. Ethiopia
$483
10. Uganda
$490
10. Uganda
$465
11. Ethiopia
$479
11. West Bank/Gaza
$441
12. Zambia
$406
12. South Africa
$438
13. Mozambique
$406
13. Mozambique
$390
14. Iraq
$373
14. Zambia
$381
15. West Bank/Gaza
$334
15. South Sudan
$331
Source: Country al ocation table provided to CRS by the State Department in late March 2014.
Foreign Operations: FY2015 Key Issues
U.S. Support for Democratic Transitions in the Middle East and North Africa
Ongoing political unrest in the Middle East and North Africa has significant implications for U.S.
national security goals, challenging the Administration and lawmakers to respond in a manner
that best promotes U.S. strategic interests and democratic values. For the last two budget cycles,
the Administration had requested funding ($770 million for FY2013 and $580 million for
FY2014) and authorities to create a Middle East North Africa Incentive Fund (MENA-IF) that
would provide flexible resources to meet diverse and rapidly evolving needs. Congress neither
authorized nor appropriated funds for a MENA-IF account in FY2013, and needs in the region
were met through existing accounts. The FY2014 appropriations bill also did not include funding
for a MENA-IF account, but the explanatory statement accompanying the bill noted that OCO
funds may be used for stabilization and response efforts in the Middle East and North Africa. In
the absence of a designated account, the Administration estimates that it has spent $3.62 billion
on MENA response since January 2011 using funds in existing accounts.
For FY2015, the Administration is not requesting a separate MENA IF account, but is requesting
funds for MENA response through a variety of established accounts instead. The request includes
a total of $1.53 billion for MENA through the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA),
Congressional Research Service
14

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

International Disaster Assistance (IDA), Economic Support Fund (ESF), International Narcotics
Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE), Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related
Programs (NADR), Transition Initiatives (TI) and Complex Crises Fund (CCF) accounts. Of this
amount, $1.255 billion (almost all designated as OCO) is expected to be used for Syria regional
response, $225 million for reform activities, and $50 million for contingencies.
Overseas Contingency Operations Assistance to Frontline States
As discussed earlier in this report, the Administration appears to have embraced the congressional
approach to OCO in the FY2015 request, asking for the OCO designation for activities beyond
the frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. OCO funding for FY2015 is requested for
Syria/MENA response, Somalia peacekeeping, and for a new peacekeeping contingency fund.
Nevertheless, about 63.0% of the OCO funds requested for FY2015 are for the frontline states,
compared to 37.2% of OCO funding appropriated by Congress for FY2014.
For FY2015, the Administration is requesting $3.89 billion in total foreign operations OCO
funds, a 24.2% decline from the estimated FY2014 level. OCO funding for Iraq, Afghanistan and
Pakistan, however, would increase by 28.3% compared to FY2014 levels. While increasing OCO
funds to frontline states, the request would continue a downward trend in both the total amount
and proportion of foreign aid designated as OCO by providing significantly less than FY2014
funding for other purposes. Table 7 compares enacted foreign operations OCO for FY2012,
FY2013, and FY2014 (estimated) with the FY2015 request.
Table 7. Overseas Contingency Operations Funding in Foreign Operations Accounts,
FY2012-FY2015 Request
(in billions of current U.S. dollars)
FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015

Actual
Actual
Est.
Req.
Foreign Operations
OCO, total
6.58
7.33
5.13
3.89
-
Iraq
1.36 0.53 0.35 0.25
-
Afghanistan
2.28 2.19 0.95 1.43
-
Pakistan
2.00 1.05 0.61 0.77
-
Other
0.94 3.56 3.22 1.44
As % of total Foreign
Ops
funding
18.3% 21.7% 15.2% 12.2%
Source: Country al ocation table provided to CRS by the State Department in late March 2014.
Syria/Humanitarian Assistance
Humanitarian assistance has increased as a portion of the foreign operations budget since
FY2013, driven largely by the crisis in Syria, which has resulted in an estimated 2.4 million
refugees and 9.3 million internally displaced persons. As of March 2014, the U.S. had provided
over $1.70 billion in Syria-related humanitarian assistance, including aid to neighboring countries
Congressional Research Service
15

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

that have taken in refugees, and the need is not expected to diminish in the near future.12 In
addition to Syria, the Administration anticipates an ongoing need for humanitarian assistance in
South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and for unforeseen conflicts and emergencies.
For FY2015, the Administration has requested humanitarian assistance totaling $4.80 billion,
including $2.05 billion for Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA), $50 million for Emergency
Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA), $1.30 billion for International Disaster & Famine
Assistance (IDA) and $1.40 billion for Food for Peace (food aid funded through the Agriculture
appropriation). Within these totals, $635 million of the IDA funds and $465 million of the MRA
funds are designated as OCO funds for Syria. The request represents a 24.8% decrease from the
total FY2014 estimated appropriation for these accounts, but the Administration asserts that
anticipated carryover funds from FY2014, the result of large MRA and IDA increases in FY2013
and FY2014, will enable the United States to meet currently anticipated humanitarian needs. In
addition, the Administration asserts that proposed changes in Food for Peace authorities would
allow Food for Peace assistance to reach more beneficiaries without increased funding.
Food Aid Reform
The International Affairs budget has supported international food assistance for decades,
primarily through the Food for Peace P.L. 480 Title II program utilizing donated U.S. agricultural
commodities. Unlike most foreign assistance, this program is authorized in farm bills and funded
through the Agriculture appropriations bill.
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, sometimes
taking months to reach their destination. 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 proposal, the Administration proposed several food aid
reforms, including a requirement that only 55% of aid be used to procure and ship U.S. produced
commodities, allowing more aid to be procured regionally or provided as cash, and ending the
practice of monetization. The Administration also proposed that Food for Peace be funded
through Foreign Operations appropriations. The FY2014 appropriation did not adopt these
reforms, but new authorizing legislation in the 2014 Farm Bill (Agricultural Act of 2014, P.L.
113-79), did create more flexibility in the Food for Peace program and create a new local and
regional purchase program authorized at $80 million annually for FY2014 through FY2018.
For FY2015, the Administration requested $1.4 billion for Food for Peace, within the Agriculture
appropriation, of which $1.1 billion is for emergency food needs and $270 million for
development programs. In total, this would be a 4% reduction from the FY2014 food aid
estimate, but the Administration notes that it requested an additional $80 million in the
Development Assistance account for development food aid. In addition, the Administration
requested new authority to use up to 25% of the Food for Peace request ($350 million) for cash-

12 For more information on the U.S. humanitarian response to the situation in Syria, see CRS Report R43119, Syria:
Overview of the Humanitarian Response
, by Rhoda Margesson and Susan G. Chesser.
Congressional Research Service
16

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

based food assistance to address emergencies. The Administration asserts that this authority
would allow food aid to reach 2 million more beneficiaries without increasing funding.
New and Ongoing Administration Assistance Initiatives
The Obama Administration introduced three new Africa initiatives in 2013, joining the three
major ongoing foreign assistance initiatives introduced by the Administration in 2009 and 2010—
the Global Health Initiative, the Food Security Initiative (Feed the Future) and the Global Climate
Change Initiative. The initiatives continue to be priorities in the FY2015 budget request.
Africa Initiatives. The request includes $114.3 million for Africa initiatives, including $77
million for Power Africa, $27.3 million for Trade Africa, and $10 million for the Young African
Leaders Initiative (YALI). Power Africa, led by USAID, aims to increase access to reliable,
affordable and sustainable power. It is designed to leverage the resources of 12 U.S. trade and
development agencies to facilitate project transactions and private sector investment in the power
sector. Total U.S. government resources for Power Africa are expected to total up to $7.8 billion
over five years. Trade Africa focuses on improving trade and investment activities in East Africa,
while YALI seeks to develop the professional and leadership skills of emergent young African
leaders.
Global Health Initiative. The request includes $8.05 billion for global health programs, a 4.6%
decrease from the estimated FY2014 funding and level with FY2013 funding. Of this, $1.35
billion is for the Global Fund, an 18.2% reduction from FY2014 funding. The Administration
asserts that the requested funds are focused on creating an AIDS-free generation, ending
preventable maternal and child death, and preventing the spread of infection diseases. Compared
to FY2014 allocations, Family Planning (+2.7%) and Malaria (+1.4%) programs would see
modest increases, while HIV/AIDS (-5.0%), Nutrition (-12.2%) and Neglected Tropical Diseases
(-13.5%) activities would see reduced funding. Maternal and Child Health (-0.1%) funding would
remain almost level, though a larger proportion would go toward a proposed 14.3% increase for
the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI). The proposal includes significant
reductions for Vulnerable Children (-34.1%), Tuberculosis (-19.1%), and Pandemic Influenza (-
31.0%) activities.
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 FY2015,
the Administration has requested $1.00 billion for Feed the Future, a 4.5% increase over the
FY2013 funding (FY2014 data is not yet available). The Administration’s request is consistent
with U.S. commitments made at G-8 summits in 2012 and 2013. For FY2015, funding would be
used for programs in 19 focus countries and nine aligned countries to sustain documented
progress in reducing poverty and malnutrition.
Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI). The GCCI is designed to promote environmentally
sustainable, climate resilient development. The initiative would receive level funding in FY2015
under the Administration proposal, with a request of $839 million, but the program allocations
would differ considerably from FY2013 (the most recent data available). Bilateral clean energy
funding would increase by 34.7% and adaptation programs by 3.8%, while sustainable landscapes
funding would be reduced by 7.5%. Total U.S. contributions to World Bank climate accounts
would decrease by 12.5%, counting $84 million in bilateral aid transferred for this purpose in
FY2013. According to the Administration, GCCI funding in FY2015 is essential for
Congressional Research Service
17

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

implementing the President’s Climate Action Plan and increasing U.S. leverage in negotiating an
international climate agreement in 2015.


Congressional Research Service
18


Appendix A. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, by Account
Table A-1. State Department, Foreign Operations and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2013-FY2015
(in millions of current U.S. dol ars)
FY2013 Actuals
2014 Estimate
(P.L. 113-6)
(P.L. 113-76)
FY2015 Request
% change
FY2015 vs.

Enduring OCO Total Enduring OCO Total Enduring
OCO
Total
FY2014
Title I. State,
13,267.56
4,604.74
17,872.29
14,046.49
1,817.70
15,864.20
14,790.01
2,021.13
16,811.14
+6.0%
Broadcasting &
Related Agencies,
TOTAL

Administration of Foreign
8,970.92
4,496.37
13,467.29 9,947.76
1,732.89
11,680.65
9,742.93
1,871.13
11,614.06
-0.6%
Affairs, Subtotal
Diplomatic & Consular
6,467.43
3,178.99
9,646.42 6,583.17
1,391.11
7,974.28
6,782.51
1,553.43
8,335.94
+4.5%
Program
















(of which Worldwide







Security Protection)


[1,341.21]
[909.38]
[2,250.59]
[1,867.25]
[900.27]
[2,767.52]
[2,128.12
[989.71]
[3,117.82]
[+12.7%]
Capital Investment
56.37

56.37 76.90 — 76.90
56.40

56.40
-26.7%
Fund
Embassy Security,
1,582.25
1,237.54
2,819.78
2,399.35
275.00
2,674.35
2,016.90
260.80
2,277.70
-14.8%
Construction &



Maintenance







(of which Worldwide





Security Upgrades)

[669.53]
[669.53] [1,614.00]
[1,614.00]
[1,217.50]
[250.00]
[1,467.50]
[-9.1%]
Conflict Stabilization
21.59
8.08
29.67 21.80 8.50 30.30
[$43.90]

[$43.90]
+44.9%
Operationsa
Ed. & Cultural
559.18
14.82
574.00 560.00 8.63 568.63
577.90

577.90
+1.6%
Exchanges
Office of Inspector
59.58
56.94
116.52 69.41
49.65 119.06
73.40
56.90
130.30
+9.4%
General
CRS-19


FY2013 Actuals
2014 Estimate
(P.L. 113-6)
(P.L. 113-76)
FY2015 Request
% change
FY2015 vs.

Enduring OCO Total Enduring OCO Total Enduring
OCO
Total
FY2014
Representation
7.66

7.66 8.03 — 8.03
7.68

7.68
-4.4%
Expenses
Protection of Foreign
25.63

25.63 28.20 — 28.20
30.04

30.04
+6.5%
Missions & Officials
Emergency-Diplomatic
8.55

8.55 9.24 — 9.24
7.90

7.90
-14.5%
& Consular Services
Repatriation Loans
1.65

1.65 1.54 — 1.54
1.30

1.30
-15.6%
Payment American
22.13

22.13 31.22 — 31.22
30.00

30.00
-3.9%
Institute Taiwan
Foreign Service
158.90

158.90 158.90 — 158.90
158.90

158.90
0%
Retirement
(mandatory)
International Orgs,
3,290.13
96.21
3,386.33 3,031.28 74.40 3,105.68
4,035.91
150.00
4,185.91
+34.8%
Subtotal
Contributions to Int’l
1,376.34
96.21
1,472.54 1,265.76 74.40 1,340.16
1,517.35

1,517.35
+13.2%
Orgs
Contributions,
1,913.79

1,913.79 1,765.52
— 1,765.52
2,518.57

2,518.57
42.7%
International
Peacekeeping
Peacekeeping


— —
— —

150.00
150.00

Response Mechanism
International
112.96

112.96 125.92 — 125.92
115.63

115.63
-8.2%
Commission subtotal
Int’l Boundary/U.S.-
68.78

68.78 77.44
77.44
71.88

71.88
-7.2%
Mexico
American Sections
11.31

11.31 12.50
12.50
12.31

12.31
-1.5%
International Fisheries
32.87

32.87 35.98
35.98
31.45

31.45
-12.6%
International Broadcast,
709.31
4.18
713.49 729.08 4.40 733.48
721.26

721.26
-1.7%
Subtotal
CRS-20


FY2013 Actuals
2014 Estimate
(P.L. 113-6)
(P.L. 113-76)
FY2015 Request
% change
FY2015 vs.

Enduring OCO Total Enduring OCO Total Enduring
OCO
Total
FY2014
Broadcasting
702.63
4.18
706.81 721.08 4.40 725.48
716.46

716.46
-1.2%
Operations
Capital Improvements
6.67

6.67 8.00 8.00
4.80

4.80
-40.0%
Related Approps,
173.66
7.99
181.65 200.18 6.02 206.20
162.59

162.59
-21.1%
Subtotal
Asia Foundation
16.14

16.14 17.00
17.00
12.00

12.00
-29.4%
U.S. Institute of Peace
29.04
7.99
37.03 30.98 6.02 37.00
35.30

35.30
-4.6%
Center for Middle
0.10

0.10 0.09 — 0.09
0.08

0.08
-11.1%
East-West Dialogue-
Trust & Program
Eisenhower Exchange
0.19

0.19 0.40 — 0.40
0.40

0.40
0%
Programs
Israeli Arab
0.01

0.01 0.01 — 0.01
0.03

0.03
+20.0%
Scholarship Program
International Centerb
0.52

0.52 0
— 0
0.53

0.53

East-West Center
15.86

15.86 16.70 — 16.70
10.80

10.80
-35.3%
National Endowment
111.80

111.80 135.00 — 135.00
103.45

103.45
-23.4%
for Democracy
Other Commissions
10.58

10.58 12.27 — 12.27
12.22

12.22
-0.4%
subtotal
Preservation of
0.57

0.57 0.69 — 0.69
0.64

0.64
-7.2%
America’s Heritage
Int’l Religious Freedom
2.77

2.77 3.50 — 3.50
3.50

3.50
0%
Security &
2.31

2.31 2.58 — 2.58
2.58

2.58
0%
Cooperation Europe
Cong.-Exec. on
1.80

1.80 2.00 — 2.00
2.00

2.00
0%
People’s Republic of
China
CRS-21


FY2013 Actuals
2014 Estimate
(P.L. 113-6)
(P.L. 113-76)
FY2015 Request
% change
FY2015 vs.

Enduring OCO Total Enduring OCO Total Enduring
OCO
Total
FY2014
U.S.-China Economic
3.13

3.13 3.50 — 3.50
3.50

3.50
0%
and Security Review











FOREIGN
26,883.79 7,327.13
34,210.93 28,742.31 5,129.59 33,871.90
27,921.29
3,891.40
31,812.69
-6.1%
OPERATIONS,
TOTAL
Title II. Admin of
1,204.35
246.46
1,450.81 1,222.17 91.04 1,313.21
1,503.93
65.00
1,568.93
+19.5%
Foreign Assistance
USAID Operating
1,037.07
242.18
1,279.25 1,059.23 81.00 1,140.23
1,318.82
65.00
1,383.82
+21.4%
Expenses
USAID Capital
123.13

123.13 117.94
117.94
130.82

130.82
+10.9%
Investment Fund
USAID Inspector
44.15
4.27
48.42 45.00
10.04 55.04
54.29

54.29
-1.4%
General
Title III. Bilateral
17,240.65
5,189.53
22,430.18 18,140.81 3,894.16 22,034.97
17,917.44
2,778.40
20,695.84
-6.1%
Economic
Assistance
Global Health
8,065.89

8,065.89 8,439.45
— 8,439.45
8,050.00

8,050.00
-4.6%
Programs (GHP), State
+ USAID
GHP (State Dept.)
[5,439.83]

[5,439.83] [5,670.00]
— [5,670.00]
[5,370.00]

[5,370.00]
[-5.3%]
GHP (USAID)
[2,626.06]

[2,626.06] [2,769.45]
— [2,769.45]
[2,680.00]]

[2,680.00]
[-3.2%]
Development
2,717.67

2,717.67 2,507.00
— 2,507.00
2,619.98

2,619.98
+4.5%
Assistance
International Disaster
799.47
750.93
1,550.40 876.83
924.17
1,801.00
665.00
635.00
1,300.00
-27.8%
Assistance (IDA)
Transition Initiatives
47.60
21.22
68.83 48.18 9.42 57.60
67.60

67.60
+17.4%
Complex Crises Fund
9.50
43.50
52.99 20.00
20.00 40.00
30.00

30.00
-25.0%
CRS-22


FY2013 Actuals
2014 Estimate
(P.L. 113-6)
(P.L. 113-76)
FY2015 Request
% change
FY2015 vs.

Enduring OCO Total Enduring OCO Total Enduring
OCO
Total
FY2014
Development Credit
[40.00]

[40.00] [40.00] — [40.00]
[40.00]

[40.00]
0%
Authority –Admin
Development Credit
7.88

7.88 8.04 — 8.04
8.20

8.20
+2.0%
Authority Subsidy
Economic Support
2,573.59
3,293.89
5,867.47 2,932.96
1,656.22 4,589.18
3,398.69
1,678.40
5,077.09
+10.6%
Fund
Democracy Fund
108.96

108.96 130.50 — 130.50
0.00

0.00
-100%
Migration & Refugee
1,590.15
1,078.52
2,668.67 1,774.65
1,284.35 3,059.00
1,582.37
465.00
2,047.37
-33.1%
Assistance
Emergency Refugee
25.82

25.82 50.00 — 50.00
50.00

50.00
0%
and Migration
Independent Agencies
1,258.57

1,258.57 1,329.7
1,329.7
1,422.1

1,422.1
+6.9%
subtotal
Inter-American
21.36

21.36 22.50 — 22.50
18.10

18.10
-19.6%
Foundation
African Development
28.48

28.48 30.00 — 30.00
24.00

24.00
-20.0%
Foundation
Peace Corps
356.02

356.02 379.00 — 379.00
380.00

380.00
+0.3%
Millennium Challenge
852.73

852.73 898.20 — 898.20
1,000.00

1,000.00
+11.3%
Corporation
Department of Treasury,
35.55

35.55 23.50
23.50
23.50

23.50
0%
subtotal
Treasury Department
24.16

24.16 23.50 — 23.50
23.50

23.50
0%
Technical Assistance
Debt Restructuring
11.39

11.39 —
— —




Title IV. Int’l
6,900.35
1,891.15
8,791.50 7,366.06
1,144.39 8,510.45
6,766.58
1,048.00
7,814.58
-8.2%
Security Assistance
CRS-23


FY2013 Actuals
2014 Estimate
(P.L. 113-6)
(P.L. 113-76)
FY2015 Request
% change
FY2015 vs.

Enduring OCO Total Enduring OCO Total Enduring
OCO
Total
FY2014
International Narcotics
1,005.61
853.07
1,858.68 1,005.61 344.39 1,350.00
721.91
396.00
1,117.91
-17.2%
Control & Law
Enforcement
Nonproliferation,
560.27
114.59
674.86 630.00 70.00 700.00
605.40

605.40
-13.5%
Anti-Terrorism,
Demining
International Military
100.43

100.43 105.57 — 105.57
107.47

107.47
+1.8%
Education & Training
Foreign Military
4,946.53
720.80
5,667.33 5,389.28 530.00 5,919.28
5,110.65
537.00
5,647.65
-4.6%
Financing
Peacekeeping
287.51
202.69
490.20 235.60
200.00 435.60
221.15
115.00
336.15
-22.8%
Operations
Pakistan
0.00

0.00 0.00 — 0.00
0.00

0.00

Counterinsurgency
Capability Fund
(PCCF)
Title V. Multilateral
2,875.21

2,875.21 3,010.75
— 3,010.75
2,889.94

2,889.94
-4.0%
Assistance
World Bank: Global
124.84

124.84 143.75 — 143.75
136.56

136.56
-5.0%
Environment Facility
International Clean
175.28

175.28 184.63 — 184.63
201.25

201.25
+9.0%
Technology Fund
Strategic Climate Fund
47.37

47.37 49.90 — 49.90
63.18

63.18
+26.6%
World Bank: Int’l.
1,351.02

1,351.02 1,355.00
— 1,355.00
1,290.60

1,290.60
-4.8%
Development
Association
Int. Bank Recon & Dev
180.99

180.99 186.96 — 186.96
192.92

192.92
+3.2%
Inter-Amer. Dev. Bank
107.11

107.11 102.00 — 102.00
102.02

102.02
0%
- capital
CRS-24


FY2013 Actuals
2014 Estimate
(P.L. 113-6)
(P.L. 113-76)
FY2015 Request
% change
FY2015 vs.

Enduring OCO Total Enduring OCO Total Enduring
OCO
Total
FY2014
IADB: Enterprise for
15.00

15.00 6.30 — 6.30
0.00

0.00
-100%
Americas MIF
Asian Development
94.94

94.94 109.85 — 109.85
115.25

115.25
+4.9%
Fund
Asian Development
101.19

101.19 106.59 — 106.59
112.19

112.19
+5.3%
Bank – capital
African Development
163.45

163.45 176.34 — 176.34
195.00

195.00
+10.6%
Fund
African Development
30.72

30.72 32.42 — 32.42
34.12

34.12
+5.2%
Bank - capital
International Fund for
28.48

28.48 30.00 — 30.00
30.00

30.00
0%
Agricultural
Development
Global Food Security
128.17

128.17 133.00 — 133.00
0.00

0.00
-100%
Fund
Transfer to


— 50.00 — 50.00




multilateral trust funds
International
326.65

326.65 344.02 — 344.02
303.44

303.44
-11.8%
Organizations &
Programs
Multilateral Debt


— —
— —
92.40

92.40

Reliefc
Middle East North


— —
— —
5.00

5.00

Africa Transition Fund
Int’l Monetary Fund


— —
— —
16.00

16.00

Title VI. Export
(1,336.77)

(1,336.77) (997.48)

(997.48)
(1,156.60)

(1,156.60)

Assistance
CRS-25


FY2013 Actuals
2014 Estimate
(P.L. 113-6)
(P.L. 113-76)
FY2015 Request
% change
FY2015 vs.

Enduring OCO Total Enduring OCO Total Enduring
OCO
Total
FY2014
Export-Import Bank
(1,053.14)

(1,053.14) (841.50)
— (841.50)
(1,021.20)

(1,021.20)

(net)
Overseas Private
(331.10)

(331.10) (211.06)
— (211.06)
(203.10)

(203.10)

Investment
Corporation (net)
Trade & Development
47.47

47.47 55.07 — 55.07
67.70

67.70
+22.9%
Agency
State, Foreign Ops
40,151.35
11,931.87
52,083.22 42,788.58 6,947.29
49,735.87
42,711.3
5,912.53
48,623.83
-2.2%
& related
Programs, TOTAL
Add Ons/ Rescissions
(400.00)
(1,109.70)
(1,509.70)
(450.30)
(450.30)




State-Foreign Ops
39,751.35 10,822.17 50,573.52 42,765.58 6,519.99 49,285.57
42,711.3
5,912.53
48,623.83
-1.3%
Total, Net of
Rescissions

Source: Congressional Budget Justification, Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, Fiscal Year 2015 and CRS calculations.
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. “Enduring” funding is also sometimes referred to as “base” or “ongoing” funding in budget documents. Numbers may not add due to
rounding.
a. For FY2015, funding for Conflict Stabilization Operations is within the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account.
b. The International Center is funded through the D&CP account in the FY2014 consolidated appropriation.
c. Includes Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI) funds both for the World Bank IDA and the African Development Bank.

CRS-26

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations

Appendix B. International Affairs (150) Function
Account, FY2013-FY2015

Table B-1. International Affairs Budget, FY2013-FY2015
(in millions of current U.S. dol ars)
% Change
FY2015
FY2015 vs.

FY2013 Actual
FY2014 estimate
request
FY2014
State-Foreign
Operations, excluding
commissions
a 50,449.98
49,147.38 48,495.93 -1.3%
Commerce-Justice-
Science





Foreign Claim Settlement
Commission 1.90
2.10 2.33
+11.0%
Int’l Trade Commission
78.87
83.00
86.46
+4.2%
Agriculture


P.L. 480 and McGovern-
Dole 1,533.86
1,651.13 1,585.13 -4.0%
Total International
Affairs (150)

52,064.61
50,883.61 50,169.85
-1.4%
Source: Congressional Budget Justification, Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs,
Fiscal Year 2015 and CRS calculations.
a. 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.

Author Contact Information

Susan B. Epstein
Marian L. Lawson
Specialist in Foreign Policy
Actg Section Research Mgr
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
27