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
Specialist in Foreign Assistance Policy
December 8, 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 policymaking. (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 original request for State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs totaled $48.62
billion, including $5.91 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding. The
Administration amended this request on June 27, 2014, by increasing OCO funds and updating
export assistance estimates, thus raising the overall total to $50.08 billion. The Administration
further amended the request in November 2014, for emergency funding to address the Ebola
crisis in Africa and for civilian activities to counter the threat posed by the Islamic State (IS). The
amended FY2015 request totals $53.47 billion, or 8.8% more than the FY2014-enacted level.
Of the total FY2015 request, as amended, about 14.6% is designate as OCO (compared to 13.3%
in FY2014) and about 5% is designated as emergency funding. About $17.18 billion is for State
Department Operations and related agencies, an 8.3% increase from the FY2014 funding estimate
of $15.86 billion. For Foreign Operations, the Administration requested $36.32 billion, a 7.7%
increase from the FY2014 estimate of $33.72 billion.
Key aspects of the Administration request 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 twice-amended OCO request that would provide funding to the frontline states
of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan; an additional $1.353 billion, including $278
million for estimated costs of a U.N. peacekeeping mission in the Central African
Republic within the new Peacekeeping Response Mechanism (PKRM); an
additional $75 million within Foreign Military Financing (FMF) for security
reform in Europe; $1 billion to enhance counterterrorism and crisis response
activities within a Counterterrorism Partnership Fund; and $520 million to assist
Syrian opposition groups and address humanitarian needs related to IS attacks in
Iraq and Syria.
• $2.892 billion for humanitarian and health care activities related to the Ebola
virus outbreak, including a $792 million contingency fund to increase flexibility
in addressing future Ebola-related needs.
• 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
Congressional Research Service
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
• 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.
The House and Senate Appropriations Committees reported FY2015 SFOPs bills out of
committee on June 27 and June 9, respectively. The House committee bill (H.R. 5013)
recommends $48.45 billion in total, including $5.19 billion designated as OCO. The Senate
committee bill (S. 2499) recommends a funding total of $47.18 billion, with $8.63 billion
designated as OCO. Both bills were reported before the Administration amended the OCO
request, twice, and requested emergency funds to address the Ebola outbreak. Committee
recommendations are compared to FY2014 funding estimates and the FY2015 request (as
amended, when noted) throughout this report, but it is important to note that the request was
significantly amended after the committee action took place, due to evolving world events, and
the numbers are not necessarily comparable.
Since the House and Senate were unable to pass regular appropriations bills before the end of the
fiscal year, they passed H.J.Res. 124, Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015 (CR), on
September 17 and 18, 2014, respectively. The President signed the CR into law (P.L. 113-164) on
September 19, 2014. The CR funds government agencies and programs at an across-the-board
reduction of .0554% below the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), funding rate
through December 11, 2014. OCO funds are not subject to the reduction. The CR includes some
anomalies, including one for foreign affairs that would provide the Department of State with the
ability to exceed the rate for operations that would otherwise apply to funds in a number of
accounts to sustain assistance for Ukraine and other independent states in that region for
programs, such as international broadcasting, economic, and security assistance.
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
Operations, OCO, appropriations). It has declined each year since FY2012, 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 FY2014 estimated funding, the amended
FY2015 request, and pending FY2015 House and Senate proposals.
This report tracks the FY2015 State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
appropriations process. It will be updated to reflect congressional action. Estimates of FY2015
levels based on the continuing resolution through December 11, 2014, are not available.
Congressional Research Service
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
Contents
FY2015 Chronology ........................................................................................................................ 1
Current Request and Past Trends ..................................................................................................... 2
The FY2015 State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS)
Appropriations Request .......................................................................................................... 2
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) .......................................................................... 3
The Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative ............................................................... 5
Funding Trends .......................................................................................................................... 5
State Operations and Related Agencies ........................................................................................... 7
State Operations: FY2015 Key Issues ....................................................................................... 9
Frontline States .................................................................................................................... 9
International Organizations/Peacekeeping ........................................................................ 10
Diplomatic Security........................................................................................................... 12
Management and Human Resources of the Department of State ...................................... 14
Foreign Operations ........................................................................................................................ 15
Foreign Operations: FY2015 Key Issues ................................................................................. 19
U.S. Support for Democratic Transitions in the Middle East and North Africa ................ 19
Overseas Contingency Operations Assistance to Frontline States .................................... 20
Syria/Humanitarian Assistance ......................................................................................... 21
Food Aid Reform ............................................................................................................... 22
New and Ongoing Administration Assistance Initiatives .................................................. 22
Figures
Figure 1. Composition of the FY2015 Foreign Affairs Budget Request ......................................... 3
Figure 2. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Funding Trends,
FY2006-FY2015 Request, as Amended ....................................................................................... 7
Figure 3. Composition of State Operations & Related Agencies: FY2015 Request, as
Amended ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4. FY2015 Proposed “Security” Spending ......................................................................... 13
Figure 5. Department of State New Positions Requested, FY2015 ............................................... 15
Figure 6. Bilateral Aid by Region, FY2014 Estimate and FY2015 Request ................................. 18
Tables
Table 1. Status of State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2015 ............................................ 2
Table 2. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Funding Trends,
FY2006-FY2015 Request ............................................................................................................. 6
Table 3. State Department and Related Accounts: Total Funding and Select Accounts .................. 9
Table 4. Diplomatic Security Funding: Selected Accounts ............................................................ 13
Congressional Research Service
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
Table 5. Foreign Aid by Type, FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015 Request and House and
Senate Committee-Passed Bills .................................................................................................. 16
Table 6. Top 15 Aid Recipients by Country, FY2014 Est. & FY2015 Original Request ............... 19
Table 7. Overseas Contingency Operations Funding in Foreign Operations Accounts,
FY2012-FY2015 Request ........................................................................................................... 21
Table A-1. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2014-FY2015 ......................................................................................................................... 25
Table B-1. International Affairs Budget, FY2014-FY2015 ........................................................... 33
Appendixes
Appendix A. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, by Account ............................................. 25
Appendix B. International Affairs (150) Function Account, FY2014 Estimate, FY2015
Request, House and Senate Recommendations .......................................................................... 33
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 34
Congressional Research Service
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
FY2015 Chronology
November Amendments to the Request. On November 5 and 10, 2014, the Administration
submitted amendments to its FY2015 budget request to address the Ebola crisis and the threat
posed by the Islamic State (IS), respectively. The Administration requested an additional $2.89
billion in emergency funding through international affairs accounts for activities related to Ebola,
including a $792 million contingency fund. An additional $520 million was requested for the
international affairs OCO budget to support efforts to defeat IS and address humanitarian needs
related to IS attacks. Together with the June 2014 OCO amendment, these amendments increase
the total FY2015 State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs request to $53.49 billion.
Continuing Resolution (CR). The House and Senate were unable to pass regular appropriations
bills before the end of the fiscal year and, therefore, passed H.J.Res. 124, Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2015, on September 17 and 18, respectively. The President signed the
CR into law (P.L. 113-164) on September 19, 2014. The CR funds government agencies and
programs at an across-the-board reduction of .0554% below the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2014 (P.L. 113-76), funding rate through December 11, 2014. OCO funds are not subject to the
reduction. The CR includes some anomalies, with one for foreign affairs: Section 145 provides
the Department of State with the ability to exceed the rate for operations that would otherwise
apply to funds in a number of accounts—International Broadcasting Operations, Economic
Support Fund (ESF), Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs
(NADR), International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE), and Foreign Military
Financing (FMF)—to sustain assistance for Ukraine and other independent states in that region.
June OCO Amendment. On June 27, the Administration amended its OCO request, asking for
an additional $1.35 billion in State-Foreign Operations OCO funds (out of a total $65.8 billion
OCO request, mostly for Department of Defense programs) for peacekeeping and
counterterrorism activities.
Committee Action. On June 19, 2014, the Senate Appropriations Committee introduced and
passed S. 2499, an SFOPS appropriation for FY2015 that totaled $47.18 billion. The House
Appropriations Committee introduced and passed an FY2015 SFOPS appropriation, H.R. 5013,
on June 27, which recommended total funding of $48.45 billion. (See Appendix A for account-
by-account Request, House and Senate comparisons.)
302(b) Allocations. On April 8, 2014, the House agreed to a $48.45 billion allocation for State-
Foreign Operations accounts for FY2015; the Senate approved an SFOPS allocation of $48.48
billion (see Table 1) on May 22.
Hearings. 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. On July 17, 2014, Deputy Secretary of State for
Management and Resources Heather Higginbottom testified before the House Budget Committee
regarding the amended OCO request. On November 11, 2014, Deputy Secretary Higginbottom
testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee on the State Department response to the
Ebola crisis.
Congressional Research Service
1
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
Budget Submission. The Obama Administration submitted its original FY2015 budget request,
including for International Affairs (function 150),1 to Congress on March 4, 2014. Of the total
FY2015 foreign affairs request, $17.09 billion is for State Department Operations and related
agencies, a 7.8% increase from the FY2014 funding estimate of $15.86 billion. For Foreign
Operations, the Administration is requesting $32.99 billion, a 2.2% decrease from the FY2014
estimate of $33.72 billion.
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 6/27/14 6/19/14
$48.45 $48.48 $48.45
$47.18
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).
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,
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 amended FY2015 foreign affairs request (about 1% of the total FY2015 budget request)
would increase overall SFOPS funding by 8.8% from the FY2014 funding estimate. It would
increase State Department and related activities (about one-third of the foreign affairs request) by
8.3% and increase foreign aid activities (about two-thirds of the request) by 7.7%. The amended
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)2 portion of the FY2015 request is 14.6%, compared to
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.
2 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding has been defined by the Administration as extraordinary, temporary
funding requested primarily for the frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, but the designation has been
applied more broadly by Congress. See discussion on OCO below.
Congressional Research Service
2
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
13.3% in FY2014, and 5% of the amended request is designated as emergency funding. In
addition to its budget request, the Administration proposed a new Opportunity, Growth, and
Security Initiative that, it said, would provide funds in a budget-neutral way for furthering its
other priorities. Figure 1 provides a breakout of the total 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 figure reflects the June 2014 and November 2014 amendments to the request. The blue portion of
the chart is funding under State Department Operations; the portion in purple 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. Percentages are calculated as a portion of total foreign affairs funding before offsetting
col ections from export promotion activities are applied.
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
For the FY2015 foreign affairs budget, the Administration is requesting $7.785 billion (as
amended) for OCO—more than double the $3.8 billion requested in FY2014, and 19% more than
Congress appropriated for that year (after rescissions). The Administration would expand OCO
use in FY2015 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) intended to provide more flexibility to address
peacekeeping missions in Africa and other regions experiencing conflict.
The House committee bill, H.R. 5013, includes $5.9 billion in OCO funds, stating that OCO
funds should be phased out over time. The House Appropriations Committee would provide OCO
funds beyond Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to include Middle East and North Africa,
counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and humanitarian crises resulting from conflict.
Congressional Research Service
3
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
The Senate committee proposal, S. 2499, includes $8.6 billion in OCO funds and specifically
states that OCO funds would be available beyond Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to also include
Syria, Jordan, Central America, and for extraordinary costs of U.S. response for humanitarian
crises in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia, among other purposes.
History of OCO in International Affairs. Congress passed emergency supplemental
appropriations for international affairs each year between FY2006 and FY2010, primarily for
civilian activities related to U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 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 95% of what Congress enacted in FY2012. (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). The
OCO designation has significant budget implications, as OCO funds are subject to sequestration,
but do not count against the spending caps established by law (see text box below).
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
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
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
4
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
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. This proposed $56 billion fund
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, Administration
officials assert. 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.
Neither the House nor the Senate has addressed this proposal as part of the FY2015
appropriations process. Funding proposed through the Opportunity, Growth, and Security
Initiative is not part of the FY2015 funding levels discussed elsewhere in this report.
Funding Trends
The SFOPS 10-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 total foreign affairs funding declined
after FY2012, the enduring funds are estimated to increase slightly after the FY2013
sequestration. The decline in total foreign affairs funds since FY2012 suggests that even as the
Congressional Research Service
5
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
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 totals that include temporary OCO funds.) Regardless, it is likely that the recent-year decline
in foreign affairs funding can be attributed to the BCA and a scaled-down presence in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The FY2015 request, as amended, shows a slight uptick for enduring funds and a
large increase for OCO/emergency funds. Both House and Senate bills, however, which were
approved before the Administration’s request was amended, would provide funding below the
FY2014 enduring and total estimates. (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 42.64 42.82
$
Supp/
4.47 5.66 5.66 1.83b 2.34 0.00 11.20 10.82 6.52 10.65
OCO $
Total
35.85 37.07 40.18 52.13 51.78 48.80 53.00 50.57 49.16 53.47
Sources: Congressional Budget Justifications, Foreign Operations, Summary Tables, FY2008-FY2015; emergency
and OCO amended requests of June 26, 2014, November 5, 2014, and November 10, 2014; CRS calculations.
Notes: Each year total reflects post-rescission (and post-sequestration for FY2013) and includes the mandatory
Foreign Service Retirement Fund. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
a. The FY2009 actual enduring includes supplemental funding from P.L. 110-252, P.L. 110-5, P.L. 111-8.
b. This figure was forward funding from FY2009 supplemental (P.L. 111-32).
Congressional Research Service
6
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
Figure 2. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Funding
Trends, FY2006-FY2015 Request, as Amended
(in billions of current U.S. dollars)
$60
60
ACTUAL
$50
50
Supp/OCO
$40
40
Enduring $
$30
30
$20
20
$10
10
$0
0
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
EST.
REQ.
Source: Congressional Budget Justifications, Foreign Operations, Summary Tables, FY2008-FY2015; the
amendments to the request dated June 26, 2014, November 5, 2014, and November 10, 2014; CRS calculations.
State Operations and Related Agencies
The Administration’s FY2015 request, as amended, would increase funding for the State
Department and Related Accounts category by 8.3% over FY2014 estimated levels, to $17.18
billion. Both “base” (or “enduring”) funding and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
funding would grow under the proposal, by 5.3% and 27.3%, respectively. In addition, the
FY2015 request, as amended, includes $41 million in emergency funding. The overall
composition of this portion of the request is shown in Figure 3.
Congressional Research Service
7
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
Figure 3. Composition of State Operations & Related Agencies: FY2015 Request, as
Amended
Source: CRS calculations from the FY2015 Department of State budget presentation documents and June 2014
and November 2014 amendments.
Notes: D&CP = Diplomatic and Consular Programs; WSP = Worldwide Security Protection.
Figure 3 shows funding levels for selected State operations accounts for FY2013, FY2014, the
FY2015 amended request, and pending House and Senate bills. 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.
The pending House and Senate bills would both fully fund the Administration’s ESCM request.
The House’s measure would provide a 3% increase in D&CP funds from FY2014 levels (rather
than the 4.5% growth requested by the Administration), while the Senate measure would reduce
D&CP by 2%.
In addition, the “Related Programs” category would be cut by 21% under the FY2015 request,
which included 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). Both H.R. 5013 and S. 2499 would fund the “Related Programs” category at a
higher level than the Administration’s request, rejecting proposed reductions of funding to the
National Endowment for Democracy and the Asia Foundation. While Senate appropriators would
also reject reductions to funding for the East-West Center, the House measure proposes to zero
out the Center’s funding altogether.
Congressional Research Service
8
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
Table 3. State Department and Related Accounts: Total Funding and Select Accounts
(in billions of current U.S. dollars)
FY2015
FY2015
FY2013
FY2014
Request (as
FY2015 House
Senate (S.
Actual
Estimated
amended)
(H.R. 5013)
2499)
Total, State,
17.87 15.86 17.18
15.74 13.70
Broadcasting & Relt’d
Agencies
Diplomatic and
9.65 7.97 8.38
8.25 7.81
Consular Programs
Embassy Security
2.82 2.67 2.28
2.32
2.28
Construction and
Maintenance
Contributions to Int.
3.39 3.11 4.50
3.11 1.51a
Organizations/
Peacekeeping
Educational and
0.57 0.57 0.58
0.57 0.59
Cultural Exchange
Programs
Related Programs
0.18
0.21
0.16
0.18
0.21
International
0.71 0.73 0.73
0.74 0.72
Broadcasting
Source: CRS calculations based on Department of State, FY2015 Congressional Budget Justification as amended,
H.R. 5013, S. 2499.
Note: Figures include Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding.
a. The Senate committee bill would fund contributions for international peacekeeping through a Foreign
Operations account rather than through State Operations.
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 has been
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
Congressional Research Service
9
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
included $250 million in OCO funding for a new permanent consulate in Basrah, a key oil
industry hub.
The extent of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan remained undetermined at the time the
Department of State prepared its budget request. The request assumed 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, was for $961 million, a 15% increase over FY2014 estimated
levels but a 40% drop from FY2013 actual funding. The requested funding would have allowed
additional security measures to be put in place should U.S. military forces have pulled out by the
end of 2014, according to State officials.
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.
The likelihood of rapid change in staffing and programmatic requirements in the frontline states
led House appropriators to avoid designating specific funding recommendations by country for
the frontline states in H.R. 5013. The House committee report directs the Administration “to
refine its plans for programs, facilities, and staff in consultation with the Committees on
Appropriations.”5 Regarding Afghanistan, Section 7044 of the bill would forbid the use of
funding for positions not notified to the committees or for additional contractors, unless
“necessary to protect such facilities or the security, health, and welfare of United States
personnel.” It also would require a report detailing Department of State/USAID transition and
security plans.
Among its provisions regarding the frontline states, S. 2499 (the Senate committee measure)
specifies that any funds spent on property for new diplomatic facilities in the frontline states are
subject to prior consultation and regular notification of the Committees on Appropriations. The
bill would not provide funds for a New Consulate Compound (NCC) in Basrah, Iraq, as requested
by the Administration. Senate appropriators note that “no agreement has been reached on an
appropriate site,” and specify that the funding requested for Basrah—$250 million—could instead
be used for general security purposes or operations in Iraq.
International Organizations/Peacekeeping
The International Organizations accounts, including Contributions to International Organizations
(CIO), Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA), and a new Peacekeeping
Response Mechanism (PKRM) proposed by the Administration, would see a 54% jump in
funding under the FY2015 request, to $4.50 billion. This includes $35 million requested on
November 5 to support the UN Mission for Emergency Ebola Response (UNMEER). The U.S.
share of assessed contributions to the UN regular budget is 22%; other UN members are to
contribute the remaining 78% of the mission’s costs, estimated at about $160 million through the
end of 2015. The increase of $1.39 billion for the accounts over FY2014 estimated levels is
5 H.Rept. 113-499, p. 5.
Congressional Research Service
10
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
largely intended for peacekeeping purposes, including operations in Mali, Darfur, Somalia, and
Central African Republic.
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 House measure would provide 11.7% less than originally requested for Contributions to
International Organizations, or $1.34 billion, while the Senate measure recommends all but
roughly $2.45 million of the original request—it reduces funding for the U.S. contribution to the
Organization of American States because of concern about what it deems the OAS’s opaque
personnel practices and insufficient cost-cutting.8
The Administration’s 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, as amended, includes a $428 million Peacekeeping Response
Mechanism (PKRM), a new proposal intended to support urgent peacekeeping needs, including
$278 million for a recently authorized U.N. peacekeeping mission in the Central African
Republic. 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. Together, these peacekeeping
requests represent a nearly 77% increase over FY2014 estimated funding.
House appropriators recommend funding the CIPA account at the FY2014 estimated level of
$1.77 billion. The Senate measure, on the other hand, would fully fund the Administration’s
request for $2.52 billion for assessed contributions to peacekeeping operations, although it
recommends moving funding previously found under the State Operations CIPA account to a
Foreign Operations account under the International Security Assistance title (title IV) and
Overseas Contingency Operations (title VIII). The Senate committee report explains the move by
stating “U.N. peacekeeping missions are a critical component of furthering U.S. security interests
globally
.”
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.
8 S.Rept. 113-195.
Congressional Research Service
11
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
Neither H.R. 5013 nor S. 2499 would fund the PKRM requested by the Administration. Instead,
the Senate committee measure recommends additional funding for the Complex Crisis Fund
(CCF) as well as transfer authority to meet unanticipated peacekeeping requirements (see below).
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
for security threats continue.9 In its FY2015 budget request, the Administration sought funding to
continue to implement the initiatives launched under the Increased Security Proposal10 and meet
the post-Benghazi Accountability Review Board’s (ARB’s) recommendations. The request
included 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 was $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 was 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 met 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 featured $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
9 See CRS Report R43195, Securing U.S. Diplomatic Facilities and Personnel Abroad: Legislative and Executive
Branch Initiatives, by Alex Tiersky.
10 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.
Congressional Research Service
12
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
been DS Bureau D&CP funding in previous years to the WSP account, which offers greater
flexibility.11
Table 4. Diplomatic Security Funding: Selected Accounts
(in billions of current U.S. dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2015 House
FY2015 Senate
Actual
Estimated
Request
(H.R. 5013)
(S. 2499)
Worldwide Security
2.25 2.77 3.12 3.12
3.12
Protection (WSP)
Worldwide Security
0.67 1.61 1.47 1.49
1.22
Upgrades (WSU)
Diplomatic Security
0.51 0.18 0.09
(not specified)
(not specified)
(DS) in D&CP
Total 3.43
4.56
4.68
(not specified)
(not specified)
Source: CRS calculations from the FY2015 Department of State budget presentation documents, H.R. 5013, and
S. 2499. The Administration’s June and November 2014 amendments did not impact the diplomatic security
funding request.
Notes: Includes OCO funding levels. Additional embassy and diplomatic security funding is channeled through
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.
Notes: Does not include November 2014 budget request amendments. ISP = Increased Security Proposal;
WSP = Worldwide Security Protection; WSU = Worldwide Security Upgrades.
11 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
13
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
The House appropriators’ measure would fully provide for the Administration’s WSP request and
exceed its request for WSU by nearly $50 million.12 The Senate Appropriations Committee, for its
part, would also fully fund the WSP request. However, S. 2499 would not designate $250 million
of WSU OCO funds for a New Consulate Compound (NCC) in Basrah, Iraq, as requested by the
Administration, because “no agreement has been reached on an appropriate site.” Instead, Senate
appropriators would include that amount as undesignated Embassy Security, Construction, and
Maintenance funding, and specify that the resources requested for Basrah could instead be used
for general security purposes or operations in Iraq.13 Neither bill specifies an amount for the
Bureau of Diplomatic Security within the Diplomatic & Consular Programs account.
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,
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.14 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 funding 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; 4 positions for the Intelligence and Research Bureau; and 3 positions for the
Secretary’s Coordinator for Cyber Issues office.
12 H.Rept. 113-499, p. 18.
13 S.Rept. 113-195.
14 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
14
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
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. The
Administration’s June 2014 OCO amendment did not impact the request for new positions.
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.
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, DC, 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.
Neither the House nor the Senate committee measures would fully meet the Administration’s
request for Human Resources funding. H.R. 5013 would provide nearly $3 million less than
requested, while S. 2499 is $64 million below the request. Senate appropriators also explicitly
ruled out funding for the new positions requested by the Administration,15 and instead indicated
that they would consider reprogramming proposals, looking particularly favorably on funding
mechanisms based on savings or reduced redundancy and inefficiency.
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
15 Other than those positions mentioned in S.Rept. 113-195.
Congressional Research Service
15
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
promotion programs. Funding for U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
administration is also part of the foreign operations budget. The FY2015 amended request of
$36.32 billion for these programs would be a 7.7% increase from the FY2014 estimated
appropriation. Table 5 shows foreign operations and total foreign aid funding by type for
FY2013, FY2014, and the FY2015 amended request and pending House and Senate bills:
Table 5. Foreign Aid by Type, FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015 Request and House and
Senate Committee-Passed Bills
(in billions of current U.S. dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2015
FY2015
Actual
Estimate
Request
House
Senate
USAID Administration
1.45
1.31
1.59
1.33
1.53
Bilateral Economic Aid
(including independent agencies and
22.43 22.08 23.63 21.82 21.46
Treasury programs)
Security Assistance
8.79
8.51
9.21
8.51
9.96
Multilateral Aid
2.88
2.96
3.24
2.44
3.20
Export Promotion, net
-1.34
-1.15
-1.35
-1.38
-1.38
Total Foreign Operations
34.21
33.72
36.32
32.72
34.78
+ Food Aid from Ag bil
1.53
1.65
1.59
1.66
1.65
Total Foreign Aid Request:
35.74
35.37
37.91
34.38
36.43
Source: FY2015 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Congressional Budget
Justification; H.R. 5013; S. 2499; H.R. 4800; S. 2389; November 5 and 10 letters from the President to the
Speaker of the House amending the FY2015 budget request; CRS calculations.
Notes: 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 appeared to include a significant boost over current year
funding for USAID Operating Expenses, the Administration explained that the increase is
intended to offset anticipated decreases in other funding sources, including recoveries,
reimbursement, and trust funds, and would allow for continued operations at the current level
rather than growth. While the Administration originally proposed reductions in bilateral economic
aid, largely driven by a 27.8% cut in International Disaster Assistance (IDA) and a 33.1% cut in
Migration and Refugee Assistance (for which the Administration explained that actual available
resources would not be reduced because of anticipated carry-over funding from previous years),
supplemental requests have since brought the FY2015 bilateral economic aid request to 7% above
FY2014. Much of the increase is in the IDA and USAID Global Health accounts for funds to
address the Ebola crisis. Security Assistance would also have been reduced under the original
request, but would increase 8% with the additional FMF and Counterterrorism Partnership Fund
spending proposed in the July 2014 amended OCO request and the November 2014 OCO
amendment requesting additional FMF to counter IS. Multilateral Aid would increase as a result
of an International Monetary Fund quota increase (+$315 million), partly offset by a proposed cut
to the International Development Association (-4.8%) and no request for the Global Agriculture
and Food Security Program ($133 million in FY2014).
House appropriators stayed close to current year spending levels for most types of aid, with the
exception of multilateral assistance, which would be cut significantly ( -17.6%). Senate
Congressional Research Service
16
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
appropriators would increase USAID administrative funding (+16.8%), similar to the
Administration’s proposal, provide slightly less than current year funding for bilateral economic
aid (-2.8%), and more than the current funding levels for multilateral aid (+8.1%). The Senate
committee-approved bill also includes significantly more security assistance (+17.0%) under
Foreign Operations than the current budget, but this in large part reflects the bill’s shift of
assessed contributions to peacekeeping activities from the State Operations to Foreign Operations
section of the bill. Peacekeeping funds (including both assessed and voluntary contributions)
recommended by Senate appropriators total $2.86 billion, compared to $2.25 billion proposed by
House appropriators, the Administration’s amended request of $3.35 billion, and current year
funding of $2.20 billion. Both the House and Senate legislation were approved by committee
before the Administration made multiple amendments to its request in response to world events,
so comparisons between the congressional proposals and the Administration’s request are of
questionable value.
Aid by Country and Region. Under the original FY2015 request, bilateral aid allocated by
region (excluding humanitarian aid and the Millennium Challenge Corporation) would vary 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
1.6%. Europe and Eurasia would have seen a decrease of 6.3% under the original request, but the
amended request for European security assistance would provide an increase of 7.6%. Only the
Western Hemisphere would see significant reductions (-10.1%) from current year regional
spending under the request. The proportional allocation of aid among regions would not change
significantly (Figure 6). Nevertheless, these portions could change with the inclusion in the
amended request of a $1 billion Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, nearly $3 billion to fight the
Ebola virus, and additional funds to fight IS. Regional and country allocations for these proposed
funds have not been specified.
The House and Senate appropriators did not provide comprehensive information on country and
regional allocation in their pending bills. However, the House committee report notably rejects
the Administration’s proposed cuts to Western Hemisphere countries and increases aid to the
region by no less than $120 million above the Administration request to address needs related to
the surge of undocumented migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. House appropriators also
included funding above the original request to support democracy in the Ukraine and former
countries of the Soviet Union.16 Senate appropriators included an additional $100 million to
address the migrant surge.17
16 H.Rept. 113-499, pp.5,7.
17 S.Rept. 113-195, p.12. The Administration requested supplemental FY2014 funds to address the migrant issues,
among other things.
Congressional Research Service
17
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
Figure 6. Bilateral Aid by Region, FY2014 Estimate and FY2015 Request
(in billions of U.S. dollars)
20.00
1.48
1.33
18.00
Western
2.61
2.96
16.00
Hemisphere
14.00
South & Central
Asia
12.00
6.87 6.99
Near East
10.00
8.00
0.52
Europe & Eurasia
0.57
0.80
0.81
6.00
East Asia Pacific
4.00
7.04
6.93
Africa
2.00
-
2014 Est.
2015 Req.
Source: FY2015 International Affairs Budget Justification; FY2014 al ocation tables provided by the State
Department; June 26 amendment to the FY2015 Overseas Contingency Operations request.
Note: The FY2015 figures reflect only a portion of the amended request. An additional $75 million in FMF funds
are allocated to Europe, but the $1 billion request for the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, as well as
additional funding requested to address the Ebola virus and to counter ISIL, cannot be al ocated by region at this
point.
The top aid recipient countries under the original FY2015 request (Table 6) were fairly consistent
with FY2014 allocation estimates. As in FY2014 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 original request would be the ranking of Iraq, which has been a top
recipient since the 2003 U.S. invasion, but would fall just under the top 15 in FY2015 with the
requested allocation of $309 million. However, the request was made before the security situation
in Iraq deteriorated in the midst of an IS insurgency, and a large portion of the additional funds
requested for activities to fight IS would likely support activities in Iraq. Similarly, the amended
request for increased funds to fight Ebola may move some of the countries hardest hit by the virus
onto the top recipients list.
Congressional Research Service
18
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
Table 6. Top 15 Aid Recipients by Country, FY2014 Est. & FY2015 Original 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.
Note: The FY2015 figures do not reflect amendments to the request, for which country-level al ocation data is
not currently available, but which would likely boost funding levels in some of the countries listed above.
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 did not request a separate MENA IF account, but instead
requested funds for MENA response through a variety of established accounts. The request
included a total of $1.53 billion for MENA through the Migration and Refugee Assistance
(MRA), International Disaster Assistance (IDA), Economic Support Fund (ESF), International
Congressional Research Service
19
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
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) was expected to be used
for Syria regional response, $225 million for reform activities, and $50 million for contingencies.
The Administration’s June 2014 amendment to the OCO request included the addition of $1
billion in foreign operations funds for a Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, which is largely
intended to address instability in the MENA region related to the crisis in Syria, but may be used
to support counterterrorism capacity building in other regions. The November 2014 request for an
additional $520 million to counter IS focuses on the MENA region as well.
While not recommending a total funding level for the region, the FY2015 House and Senate
committee reports note that their funding recommendations for several Foreign Operations
accounts reflect evolving needs in the Middle East and North Africa, including the crisis in Syria,
refugee assistance to Jordan and other neighboring countries, and the deteriorating security
situations in Iraq and Libya. Senate appropriators also recommend $5 million for a multi-donor
MENA Transition Fund.
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 funding beyond the
frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The foreign operations OCO funding request
for FY2015, as amended, totals $5.47 billion and includes funds for Syria/MENA response,
peacekeeping in Somalia and Central African Republic, and security assistance to bolster
European self-defense capabilities, among other things. This would be a 6.6% increase from
current year Foreign Operations OCO funding estimates, with the increase largely attributed to
ramped-up activities to counter IS in Iraq and Syria.
In their pending FY2015 proposals, House and Senate appropriators took notably different
approaches to OCO designation, with the House committee coming in only slightly above the
Administration’s original request of $3.89 billion and the Senate committee designating a much
larger portion of foreign operations funds, $6.87 billion, as OCO (both bills were reported before
the Administration revised its Foreign Operations OCO request upward to $5.47 billion). Much of
the discrepancy reflects the Senate committee’s application of the OCO designation to a much
larger portion of humanitarian assistance (IDA and MRDA) than the House committee, as well as
the Senate committee moving assessed contribution to peacekeeping operations from the State
Operations to the Foreign Operations titles of the bill (see pp. 9-10).
A significant portion of the Administration’s OCO request was made by amendment after
committee approval of the House and Senate legislation, making it difficult to accurately compare
the Administration’s request to congressional action.
Congressional Research Service
20
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
Table 7. Overseas Contingency Operations Funding in Foreign Operations Accounts,
FY2012-FY2015 Request
(in billions of current U.S. dollars)
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2015
FY2015
Actual
Actual
Est.
Req.
House
Senate
Foreign Operations OCO, total
6.58
7.33
5.13
5.47
4.09
6.87
-
Iraq
1.36 0.53 0.35 n.a. n.a. n.a.
-
Afghanistan
2.28 2.19 0.95 n.a. n.a. n.a.
-
Pakistan
2.00 1.05 0.61 n.a. n.a. n.a.
-
Other
0.94 3.56 3.22 n.a. n.a. n.a.
As % of total Foreign Ops funding
18.3%
21.7%
15.2%
15.1%
12.5%
19.7%
Source: Country al ocation table provided to CRS by the State Department in late March 2014; June 27 and
November 10 amendments to the Administration’s FY2015 OCO request.
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 United States had
provided over $1.70 billion in Syria-related humanitarian assistance, including aid to neighboring
countries that have taken in refugees, and the need is not expected to diminish in the near future.18
In addition to Syria, the Administration anticipated at the time of the request an ongoing need for
humanitarian assistance in South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and for unforeseen
conflicts and emergencies.
For FY2015, the Administration originally 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). The original requested amount would have been a 24.8% decrease
from the total FY2014 estimated appropriation for these accounts, but the Administration asserted
that anticipated carryover funds from FY2014, the result of large MRA and IDA increases in
FY2013 and FY2014, would enable the United States to meet anticipated humanitarian needs.
However, with the growing humanitarian needs created by the Ebola epidemic in Africa and the
deteriorating environment in Iraq and Syria, the Administration requested an additional $1.49
billion in IDA funds in November 2014. The amended humanitarian assistance request totals
$6.29 billion, or 23% more than the FY2014 funding estimate.
Both the House and Senate committees recommended significantly more than the
Administration’s original requested for humanitarian accounts in their FY2015 proposals, and
slightly more than the amended request. The House recommendation totals $6.376 billion and the
Senate $6.362 billion, both consistent with FY2014 funding.
18 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
21
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
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.
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. 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-
based food assistance to address emergencies, asserting that this authority would allow food aid
to reach 2 million more beneficiaries without increasing funding.
The FY2015 House and Senate Agriculture appropriations bills, as reported by committee, both
include $1.466 billion for Food for Peace, matching the FY2014 enacted funding. For more
information on food aid, see CRS Report R41072, International Food Aid Programs: Background
and Issues, by Randy Schnepf.
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 included $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.
The House committee report does not mention any of these initiatives, while the Senate
committee report recommends $15 million for YALI and includes language supporting Power
Congressional Research Service
22
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
Africa and requiring the Administration to report to Congress on the initiative’s objectives and the
metrics used to measure progress.
Global Health Initiative. The original request included $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 asserted that the requested funds are focused on creating an AIDS-free generation,
ending preventable maternal and child death, and preventing the spread of infectious 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 included significant reductions for Vulnerable Children (-34.1%), Tuberculosis (-
19.1%), and Pandemic Influenza (-31.0%) activities. In November 2014, the Administration
amended its Global Health Programs request to add $340 million for Ebola response, bringing the
total GHP request to $8.39 billion. It is not clear how the additional funding would be allocated
by sector.
Both House and Senate appropriators included more funding than requested for global health in
FY2015, recommending $8.31 billion and $8.14 billion, respectively, but still less than FY2014
funding. As in past years, the most notable divergence in sub-allocations between the proposals is
for reproductive health and family planning funding, for which the Senate committee
recommends $539 million, consistent with the Administration’s request, while the House
committee recommends $461 million, or 14% less.19 In contrast, the House committee report
recommends $300 million (5%) more than the Senate report for global HIV/AIDS programs.
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 requested $1.00 billion for Feed the Future, a 4.5% increase over the FY2013
funding (FY2014 data are not yet available). The Administration’s request was 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 9 aligned countries to sustain documented progress in
reducing poverty and malnutrition.
The FY2015 House committee report does not specify a funding level for Feed the Future
programs or for food security and agricultural development generally. The Senate committee
report recommends $1.00 billion for this purpose.
Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI). The GCCI is designed to promote environmentally
sustainable, climate resilient development. The initiative would receive nearly level funding in
FY2015 under the Administration proposal, with a requested $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
19 These figures include only family planning and reproductive health activities funded through the Global Health
Programs account. Additional funding for these activities is often provided through the Economic Support Fund and
U.S. contributions to the U.N. Population Fund.
Congressional Research Service
23
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
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 implementing the President’s Climate Action Plan and increasing U.S. leverage in
negotiating an international climate agreement in 2015.
The House committee report identifies no specific allocations for bilateral climate change
activities for FY2015, and includes no funding for multilateral climate change programs. The
Senate committee report recommends $193.3 million for adaptation and mitigation, $123.5
million for sustainable landscapes, and $189.45 million for clean energy, in addition to funding
multilateral climate change programs.
Congressional Research Service
24
Appendix A. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, by Account
Table A-1. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2014-FY2015
(in millions of current U.S. dol ars)
2015 Request
FY2014 Estimate
(as amended 6/27/14, 11/5/14 and
FY2015 House
FY2015 Senate
(P.L. 113-76)
11/10/14)
(H.R. 5013)
(S. 2499)
OCO/
Enduring OCO Total Enduring Emergency Total Enduring OCO Total Enduring OCO Total
Title I. State, Broadcasting &
14,046.49 1,817.70 15,864.19
14,790.54 2,314.03 OCO
17,175.99 13,909.60 1,826.17 15,735.77 11,936.64 1,757.90 13,698.04
Related Agencies, TOTAL
+71.42 EE
Administration of Foreign Affairs,
9,947.76 1,732.88
11,680.65
9,743.46
1,879.73 OCO
11,659.61
9,737.68 1,826.16 11,563.85
9,434.81 1,683.50 11,118.31
Subtotal
+36.42 EE
Diplomatic & Consular Program
6,605.70 1,391.11
7,996.81
6,783.04
1,562.03 OCO
8,380.49
6,740.18 1,508.46
8,248.64
6,461.17 1,350.80
7,814.97
+35.42 EE
(of which Worldwide Security
[1,867.25] [900.27]
[2,767.52]
[2,128.12]
[989.71]
[3,117.82] [2,128.12]
[989.71] [3,117.83]
[2,128.12]
[989.71] [3,117.83]
Protection)
Capital Investment Fund
76.90
-
76.90
56.40
-
56.40
56.40
-
56.40
56.40
-
56.40
Embassy Security, Construction &
2,399.35
275.00
2,674.35
2,016.90
260.80 OCO
2,277.70
2,063.26
260.80
2,324.06
2,016.90
260.80
2,277.70
Maintenance
(of which Worldwide Security
[1,614.00]
[0.00]
[1,614.00]
[1,217.50]
[250.00]
[1,467.50] [1,467.50]
[250.00] [1,490.50]
[1,217.50]
[0.00] [1,217.50]
Upgrades)
Conflict Stabilization Operationsa
[21.80]
8.50
8.50
[43.90]
-
[43.90]
[41.60]
-
[41.60]
-
15.00
15.00
[21.80]
Ed. & Cultural Exchanges
560.00
8.63
568.63
577.90
-
577.90
568.63
-
568.63
590.77
-
590.77
Office of Inspector General
69.41
49.65
119.06
73.40
56.90 OCO
130.30
73.40
56.90
130.30
73.40
56.90
130.30
Representation Expenses
7.30
-
7.30
7.68
-
7.68
7.68
-
7.68
8.03
-
8.03
CRS-25
2015 Request
FY2014 Estimate
(as amended 6/27/14, 11/5/14 and
FY2015 House
FY2015 Senate
(P.L. 113-76)
11/10/14)
(H.R. 5013)
(S. 2499)
OCO/
Enduring OCO Total Enduring Emergency
Total Enduring OCO Total Enduring OCO Total
Protection of Foreign Missions &
28.20
-
28.20
30.04
-
30.04
30.04
-
30.04
30.04
-
30.04
Officials
Emergency-Diplomatic & Consular
9.24
-
9.24
7.90
-
7.90
7.90
-
7.90
7.90
-
7.90
Services
Repatriation Loans
1.54
-
1.54
1.30
-
2.30
1.30
-
1.30
1.30
-
1.30
+1.00 EE
Payment American Institute
31.22
-
31.22
30.00
-
30.00
30.00
-
30.00
30.00
-
30.00
Taiwan
Foreign Service Retirement
158.90
-
158.90
158.90
-
158.90
158.90
-
158.90
158.90
-
158.90
(mandatory)
International Orgs, Subtotal
3,031.28
74.40
3,105.68
4,035.91
428.00 OCO
4,498.91
3,105.68
-
3,105.68
1,440.52
74.40
1,514.92
+35.00 EE
Contributions to Int’l Orgs
1,265.76
74.40
1,340.16
1,517.35
-
1,552.35
1,340.16
-
1,340.16
1,440.52
74.40
1,514.92
+35.00 EE
Contributions, International
1,765.52
-
1,765.52
2,518.57
-
2,518.57
1,765.52
-
1,765.52
b
b
b
Peacekeeping
Peacekeeping Response Mechanism
-
-
-
-
428.00c
428.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
International Commission subtotal
125.92
-
125.92
115.63
-
115.63
122.73
-
122.73
121.62
-
121.62
Int’l Boundary/U.S.-Mexico
77.44
-
77.44
71.88
-
71.88
77.44
-
77.44
71.88
-
71.88
American Sections
12.50
-
12.50
12.31
-
12.31
12.31
-
12.31
12.56
-
12.56
International Fisheries
35.98
-
35.98
31.45
-
31.45
32.98
-
32.98
37.18
-
37.18
International Broadcast, Subtotal
729.08
4.40
733.48
721.26
6.30 OCO
727.56
743.48
-
743.48
721.26
-
721.26
Broadcasting Operations
721.08
4.40
725.48
716.46
6.30 OCO
722.76
738.68
-
738.68
716.46
-
716.46
Capital Improvements
8.00
-
8.00
4.80
-
4.80
4.80
-
4.80
4.80
-
4.80
Related Approps, Subtotal
200.18
6.02
206.20
162.06
-
162.06
187.81
-
187.81
206.21
-
206.21
Asia Foundation
17.00
-
17.00
12.00
-
12.00
17.00
-
17.00
17.00
-
17.00
CRS-26
2015 Request
FY2014 Estimate
(as amended 6/27/14, 11/5/14 and
FY2015 House
FY2015 Senate
(P.L. 113-76)
11/10/14)
(H.R. 5013)
(S. 2499)
OCO/
Enduring OCO Total Enduring Emergency
Total Enduring OCO Total Enduring OCO Total
U.S. Institute of Peace
30.98
6.02
37.00
35.30
-
35.30
35.30
-
35.30
37.00
-
37.00
Center for Middle East-West
0.09
-
0.09
0.08
-
0.08
0.08
-
0.08
0.08
-
0.08
Dialogue-Trust & Program
Eisenhower Exchange Programs
0.40
-
0.40
0.40
-
0.40
0.40
-
0.40
0.40
-
0.40
Israeli Arab Scholarship Program
0.01
-
0.01
0.03
-
0.03
0.03
-
0.03
0.03
-
0.03
International Centerd
-
-
-
[0.53]
-
[0.53]
-
-
-
-
-
-
East-West Center
16.70
-
16.70
10.80
-
10.80
-
-
-
16.70
-
16.70
National Endowment for
135.00
-
135.00
103.45
-
103.45
135.00
-
135.00
135.00
-
135.00
Democracy
Other Commissions subtotal
12.27
-
12.27
12.22
-
12.22
12.22
-
12.22
12.22
-
12.22
Preservation of America’s Heritage
0.69
-
0.69
0.64
-
0.64
0.64
-
0.64
0.64
-
0.64
Int’l Religious Freedom
3.50
-
3.50
3.50
-
3.50
3.50
-
3.50
3.50
-
3.50
Security & Cooperation Europe
2.58
-
2.58
2.58
-
2.58
2.58
-
2.58
2.58
-
2.58
Cong.-Exec. on People’s Republic
2.00
-
2.00
2.00
-
2.00
2.00
-
2.00
2.00
-
2.00
of China
U.S.-China Economic and Security
3.50
-
3.50
3.50
-
3.50
3.50
-
3.50
3.50
-
3.50
Review
FOREIGN OPERATION,
28,592.41 5,129.59 33,722.00
28,024.78 5,471.40 OCO
36,321.15 28,630.30 4,086.27 32,716.57 27,908.26 6,867.11 34,775.37
TOTAL
2,824.97 EE
Title II. Admin of Foreign
1,222.17
91.04
1,313.21
1,503.93
65.00 OCO
1,593.60
1,267.33
65.00
1,332.33
1,355.47
171.59
1,527.06
Assistance
+24.67 EE
USAID Operating Expenses
1,059.23
81.00
1,140.23
1,318.82
65.00 OCO
1,402.86
1,082.23
65.00
1,147.23
1,170.61
171.59
1,342.20
+19.04 EE
USAID Capital Investment Fund
117.94
-
117.94
130.82
-
130.82
130.82
-
130.82
130.82
-
130.82
USAID Inspector General
45.00
10.04
55.04
54.29
+5.63 EE
59.92
54.29
-
54.29
54.04
-
54.04
CRS-27
2015 Request
FY2014 Estimate
(as amended 6/27/14, 11/5/14 and
FY2015 House
FY2015 Senate
(P.L. 113-76)
11/10/14)
(H.R. 5013)
(S. 2499)
OCO/
Enduring OCO Total Enduring Emergency
Total Enduring OCO Total Enduring OCO Total
Title III. Bilateral Economic
18,190.82 3,894.16 22,084.98
17,917.44 2,968.40 OCO
23,630.54 18,757.18 3,058.10 21,815.28 16,438.14 5,024.88 21,463.02
Assistance
+2,744.7 EE
Global Health Programs (GHP),
8,439.45
-
8,439.45
8,050.00
+340.00 EE
8,390.00
8,307.00
-
8,307.00
8,139.00
-
8,139.00
State + USAID
GHP (State Dept.)
[5,670.00]
-
[5,670.00]
[5,370.00]
-
[5,370.00] [5,670.00]
- [5,670.00]
[5,370.00]
- [5,370.00]
GHP (USAID)
[2,769.45]
-
[2,769.45]
[2,680.00]
+[340.00 EE]
[3,020.00] [2,637.00]
- [2,637.00]
[2,769.00]
- [2,769.00]
Development Assistance
2,507.00
-
2,507.00
2,619.98
-
2,619.98
2,527.70
-
2,527.70
2,421.96
-
2,421.96
876.83
924.17
1,801.00
665.00
725.00e OCO
2,790.97
1,026.83
774.00
1,801.00
660.00 1,235.00
1,895.00
International Disaster Assistance
+1,400.97 EE
(IDA)
Transition Initiatives
48.18
9.42
57.60
67.60
-
67.60
67.60
-
67.60
67.00
-
67.00
Complex Crises Fund
20.00
20.00
40.00
30.00
-
30.00
-
-
-
25.00
217.88
242.88
Development Credit Authority –
[40.00]
-
[40.00]
[40.00]
-
[40.00]
[40.00]
-
[40.00]
[40.00]
-
[40.00]
Admin
Development Credit Authority
8.04
-
8.04
8.20
-
8.20
8.04
-
8.04
8.20
-
8.20
Subsidy
Economic Support Fund
2,982.97 1,656.22
4,639.19
3,398.69
1,778.40f OCO
6,180.82
2,986.61 1,524.63
4,511.24
2,540.48 1,660.00
4,200.48
+1,003.73 EEg
Democracy Fund
130.50
-
130.50
-
-
-
130.50
-
130.50
130.50
-
130.50
Migration & Refugee Assistance
1,774.65 1,284.36
3,059,01
1,582.37
465.00 OCO
2,047.37
2,299.70
759.30
3,059.00
1,039.00 1,912.00
2,951.00
Emergency Refugee and Migration
50.00
-
50.00
50.00
-
50.00
50.00
-
50.00
50.00
-
50.00
Independent Agencies subtotal
1,329.70
-
1,329.70
1,422.10
-
1,422.10
1,329.70
-
1,329.70
1,333.50
-
1,333.50
Inter-American Foundation
22.50
-
22.50
18.10
-
18.10
22.50
-
22.50
22.50
-
22.50
African Development Foundation
30.00
-
30.00
24.00
-
24.00
30.00
-
30.00
30.00
-
30.00
Peace Corps
379.00
-
379.00
380.00
-
380.00
379.00
-
379.00
380.00
-
380.00
CRS-28
2015 Request
FY2014 Estimate
(as amended 6/27/14, 11/5/14 and
FY2015 House
FY2015 Senate
(P.L. 113-76)
11/10/14)
(H.R. 5013)
(S. 2499)
OCO/
Enduring OCO Total Enduring Emergency
Total Enduring OCO Total Enduring OCO Total
Millennium Challenge Corporation
898.20
-
898.20
1,000.00
-
1,000.00
898.20
-
898.20
901.00
-
901.00
Department of Treasury, subtotal
23.50
-
23.50
23.50
-
23.50
23.50
-
23.50
23.50
-
23.50
Treasury Department Technical
23.50
-
23.50
23.50
-
23.50
23.50
-
23.50
23.50
-
23.50
Assistance
Debt Restructuring
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Title IV. Int’l Security
7,366.06 1,144.39
8,510.45
6,766.58 2,438.00 OCO
9,209.99
7,547.29
963.17
8,510.46
8,292.65 1,670.64
9,963.29
Assistance
+5.30 EE
International Narcotics Control &
1,005.61
344.39
1,350.00
721.91
396.00 OCO
1,117.91
1,005.61
344.39
1,350.00
708.00
292.00
1,000.00
Law Enforcement
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism,
630.00
70.00
700.00
605.40
+5.30 EE
610.70
672.80
20.00
692.80
593.78
85.23
679.01
Demining
International Military Education &
105.57
-
105.57
107.47
-
107.47
107.47
-
107.47
104.67
-
104.67
Training
Foreign Military Financing
5,389.28
530.00
5,919.28
5,110.65
862.00h OCO
5,972.65
5,540.26
337.90
5,878.16
4,803.65
507.00
5,310.65
235.60
200.00
435.60
221.15
180.00i OCO
401.15
221.15
260.88
482.03
120.00
225.40
345.40
Peacekeeping Operations
Peacekeeping, assessed
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
1,962.56
556.01
2,518.57
contributions
Counterterrorism Partnership
-
-
-
-
1,000.00 OCO
1,000.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fundj
Middle East and North Africa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.00
5.00
Incentive Fund
Title V. Multilateral Assistance
2,960.75
-
2,960.75
3,188.93
50.30 EE
3,239.23
2,442.60
-
2,442.60
3,200.75
-
3,200.75
World Bank: Global Environment
143.75
-
143.75
136.56
-
136.56
136.56
-
136.56
136.56
-
136.56
Facility
CRS-29
2015 Request
FY2014 Estimate
(as amended 6/27/14, 11/5/14 and
FY2015 House
FY2015 Senate
(P.L. 113-76)
11/10/14)
(H.R. 5013)
(S. 2499)
OCO/
Enduring OCO Total Enduring Emergency
Total Enduring OCO Total Enduring OCO Total
International Clean Technology
184.63
-
184.63
201.25
-
201.25
-
-
-
201.25
-
201.25
Fund
Strategic Climate Fund
49.90
-
49.90
63.18
-
63.18
-
-
-
63.18
-
63.18
World Bank: Int’l. Development
1,355.00
-
1,355.00
1,290.00
-
1,290.00
1,290.00
-
1,290.00
1,285.00
-
1,285.00
Association
Int. Bank Recon & Dev
186.96
-
186.96
192.92
-
192.29
186.96
-
186.96
192.92
-
192.92
Inter-Amer. Dev. Bank - capital
102.00
-
102.00
102.02
-
102.02
102.02
-
102.02
102.02
-
102.02
IADB: Enterprise for Americas MIF
6.30
-
6.30
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.00
-
10.00
Asian Development Fund
109.85
-
109.85
115.25
-
115.25
109.85
-
109.85
100.10
-
100.10
Asian Development Bank – capital
106.59
-
106.59
112.19
-
112.19
106.59
-
106.59
112.19
-
112.19
African Development Fund
176.34
-
176.34
195.00
-
195.00
176.34
-
176.34
175.00
-
175.00
African Development Bank - capital
32.42
-
32.42
34.12
-
34.12
32.42
-
32.42
34.12
-
34.12
International Fund for Agricultural
30.00
-
30.00
30.00
-
30.00
30.00
-
30.00
30.00
-
30.00
Development
Global Food Security Fund
133.00
-
133.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
International Organizations &
344.02
-
344.02
303.44
+50.30 EE
353.74
271.27
-
271.21
351.00
-
351.00
Programs
Multilateral Debt Reliefk
-
-
-
92.40
-
92.40
-
-
-
92.40
-
92.40
Middle East North Africa
-
-
-
5.00
-
5.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
Transition Fund
Int’l Monetary Fund, quota increase
-
-
-
315.00
-
315.00
-
-
-
315.00
-
315.00
Title VI. Export Assistance
(1,147.39)
- (1,147.39)
(1,352.10)
-
(1,352.10)
1,384.10
-
1,384.10
1,378.75
-
1,378.75
Export-Import Bank (net)
(969.40)
-
(969.40)
(1,166.60)
-
(1,021.20) (1,179.25)
- (1,179.25)
(1,176.75)
- (1,176.75)
Overseas Private Investment
(233.06)
-
(233.06)
(253.20)
-
(203.10)
(262.43)
-
(262.43)
(262.00)
-
(262.00)
Corporation (net)
CRS-30
2015 Request
FY2014 Estimate
(as amended 6/27/14, 11/5/14 and
FY2015 House
FY2015 Senate
(P.L. 113-76)
11/10/14)
(H.R. 5013)
(S. 2499)
OCO/
Enduring OCO Total Enduring Emergency
Total Enduring OCO Total Enduring OCO Total
Trade & Development Agency
55.07
-
55.07
67.70
-
67.70
57.57
-
57.57
60.00
-
60.00
State, Foreign Ops & related
42,638.90 6,947.29 49,586.19
42,815.32 7,785.43 OCO
53,467.14 42,539.90 5,912.43 48,452.33 39,844.90 8,625.00 48,469.90
Programs, TOTAL
+2,866.39 EE
Add Ons/ Rescissions
(427.29)l
(427.29)
-
-
-
-
-
- (1,287.00)m
- (1,287.00)
State-Foreign Ops Total, Net
42,638.90 6,520.00 49,158.89
42,815.32 7,785.43 OCO
53,467.14 42,539.90 5,912.43 48,452.33 38,557.90 8,625.00 47,182.90
of Rescissions
+2,866.39 EE
Source: Congressional Budget Justification, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, Fiscal Year 2015 and CRS calculations.
Notes: EE = Ebola Emergency request. 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 Senate committee bill would fund contributions for international peacekeeping through a Foreign Operations account, listed below, rather than through State
Operations.
c. The Administration requested $150 million for this purpose in the original March 2014 budget submission, then revised the request to $428 million in a June 27,
2014, OCO request amendment. The additional $278 million was requested for estimated costs of a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Central African Republic that was
authorized by the U.N. Security Council in April 2014.
d. The International Center is funded through the D&CP account in the FY2014 consolidated appropriation.
e. Of these OCO funds, $90 million were added by the November 2014 ISIL amendment to the request.
f.
Of these OCO funds, $100 million were added by the November 2014 ISIL amendment to the request.
g. The Ebola supplemental funding request includes $211.73 million for immediate identified needs as well as $792 million for a contingency fund to address future
needs.
h. The Administration requested $537 million for FMF OCO in the original March 2014 budget request, then revised the request to $612 million in a June 27, 2014,
OCO request amendment. The additional $75 million was requested to build the capacity of European partners for territorial defense and to engage in security
sector reform. An additional $250 million of FMF OCO was requested in the November 2014 ISIL amendment.
i.
Of this total, $65 million was added by the November 2014 ISIL amendment.
CRS-31
j.
This account was not included in the Administration’s original March 2015 FY2015 budget submission, but proposed in a June 27, 2014, amendment to the OCO
request. The funds are requested to enhance counterterrorism and crisis response activities, including a Syria Stabilization Initiative.
k. Includes Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI) funds both for the World Bank IDA and the African Development Bank.
l.
This rescission is from D&CP OCO funds.
m. This rescission total includes $1,261 million from IMF emergency quota funds from P.L. 111-32, $30 million from unexpended Export-Import Bank funding, and a $4
million increase for the Fulbright University Vietnam.
CRS-32
Appendix B. International Affairs (150) Function Account, FY2014 Estimate,
FY2015 Request, House and Senate Recommendations
Table B-1. International Affairs Budget, FY2014-FY2015
(in millions of current U.S. dol ars)
FY2014 estimate
FY2015 request
House
Senate
State-Foreign Operations, excluding
49,020.70
53,339.27 48,317.38 47,049.06
commissionsa
Commerce-Justice-Science
Foreign Claim Settlement Commission
2.10
2.33
2.33
2.33
Int’l Trade Commission
83.00
86.46
84.50
85.00
Agriculture
P.L. 480 and McGovern-Dole
1,651.13
1,585.13
1,664.10
1,651.13
Total International Affairs (150)
50,756.93
55,013.19
50,068.31
48,787.52
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.
CRS-33
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2015 Budget and Appropriations
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
34