State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Susan B. Epstein
Specialist in Foreign Policy
Marian L. Lawson
Specialist in Foreign Assistance Policy
Alex Tiersky
Analyst in Foreign Affairs
April 9, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43901
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Summary
On February 2, 2015, the Obama Administration submitted to Congress its budget request for
FY2016. The request for State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) totals $53.37
billion, or a 2.7% increase from FY2015-estimated levels. Within that amount:
• $46.32 billion is requested for enduring or core funding and $7.05 billion is
designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding;
• $17.54 billion of the total request is for State Department Operations and related
agencies (10.6% increase over FY2015 estimates);
• $35.82 billion is for Foreign Operations (-0.8% from the FY2015 estimates,
largely because of the Ebola emergency supplemental appropriated for FY2015);
• Excluding the FY2015 Ebola supplemental funding, the State Department
Operations FY2016 request is a 10.9% increase over FY2015 estimates, and the
Foreign Operations FY2016 request is a 6.5% increase over FY2015 funding
estimates.
House and Senate committees held several hearings on various aspects of the international affairs
budget in February and March. Both chambers also passed FY2016 budget resolutions in late
March, though the two bills have not yet been reconciled in conference and appropriations
subcommittee allocations have not been established.
This report provides an overview of the FY2016 SFOPS request, a discussion of key issues and
historic context, and account-by-account funding comparisons with FY2014 actuals and FY2015
estimates. It will be updated throughout the appropriations process.
Congressional Research Service
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Contents
FY2016 Most Recent Actions .......................................................................................................... 1
Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 1
The Budget Control Act and State-Foreign Operations Appropriations .................................... 3
FY2016 Request: Enduring vs. Overseas Contingency Operations Funding ............................ 3
State Department Operations ........................................................................................................... 4
State Operations: Key Issues ........................................................................................................... 6
Frontline States .......................................................................................................................... 6
International Organizations/Peacekeeping ................................................................................ 6
Diplomatic Security ................................................................................................................... 7
Management and Human Resources of the Department of State .............................................. 8
Foreign Operations .......................................................................................................................... 9
Top Foreign Assistance Recipients .......................................................................................... 10
Foreign Operations: Key Issues ..................................................................................................... 11
Administration Initiatives ........................................................................................................ 11
Global Health Initiative ..................................................................................................... 11
Feed the Future .................................................................................................................. 12
Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI)......................................................................... 12
Africa Initiatives ................................................................................................................ 13
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) .............................................................................. 13
Syria/IS .................................................................................................................................... 13
Afghanistan/Pakistan ............................................................................................................... 14
Countering Russian Aggression............................................................................................... 14
Central America ....................................................................................................................... 15
Figures
Figure 1. State and Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2006-FY2016 Request ....................... 2
Figure 2. Composition of the FY2016 SFOPS Budget Request ...................................................... 2
Figure 3. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Funding Trends,
FY2006-FY2016 Request ............................................................................................................. 4
Figure 4. Composition of State Operations and Related Accounts, FY2016 Request ..................... 5
Figure 5. Foreign Operations by Type, FY2016 Request ................................................................ 9
Figure 6. FY2016 Foreign Operations Request, by Region ........................................................... 11
Tables
Table 1. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Funding Trends,
FY2006-FY2016 Request ............................................................................................................. 3
Table 2. State Department and Related Accounts: Total Funding and Select Accounts .................. 5
Table 3. Diplomatic Security Funding: Selected Accounts .............................................................. 8
Congressional Research Service
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Table 4. Foreign Operations by Type, FY2014, FY2015 and the FY2016 request ....................... 10
Table 5. Top 15 recipients of U.S. Foreign Assistance, FY2016 Request ..................................... 11
Table A-1. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2014-FY2016 Request ........................................................................................................... 16
Table B-1. International Affairs Budget, FY2014-FY2016 Request ............................................. 22
Appendixes
Appendix A. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, by Account ............................................. 16
Appendix B. International Affairs (150) Function Account, FY2014 Actual, FY2015
Estimate, and FY2016 Request................................................................................................... 22
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 22
Congressional Research Service
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
FY2016 Most Recent Actions
Budget Resolution (302(a) and 302(b) Allocations). On March 25 and 27, respectively, the
House and Senate passed budget resolutions for FY2016. The resolutions have not yet been
reconciled in conference.
Hearings. In February and March, Secretary of State John Kerry and Acting USAID
Administrator Alfonso Lenhardt testified before the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees, as well as the House Foreign Affairs and the Senate Foreign Relations Committees
on the FY2016 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs request. Other Administration
officials testified regarding various aspects of the international affairs budget request as well.
Budget Submitted to Congress. On February 2, 2015, the President submitted his FY2016
budget to Congress.
Overview
On February 2, 2015, the Obama Administration submitted to Congress its FY2016 budget
request, which includes $53.37 billion for the State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related
Appropriations (SFOPS).1 Of the total SFOPS request, $17.54 billion is for programs funded
through the State operations and related agencies accounts (a 10.6% increase over FY2015
estimates that include emergency Ebola funds), and $35.82 billion is for foreign operations
accounts (a 0.8% decrease from FY2015 estimates that include emergency Ebola funds). About
13% of the request is designated for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), compared with
14.6% of the FY2015 SFOPS funding request and 17.8% of enacted FY2015 funding.2
1 The International Affairs budget, or Function 150, includes funding that is not in the Department of State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs appropriation: foreign food aid programs (P.L. 480 Food for Peace and McGovern-
Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programs) are in the Agriculture Appropriations, and the
Foreign Claim Settlement Commission and the International Trade Commission are in the Commerce, Justice, Science
appropriations. In addition, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriation measure
includes funding for certain international commissions that are not part of the International Affairs Function 150
account. (See Appendix B.)
2 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding has been defined by the Administration as extraordinary, temporary
funding requested primarily for the frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and, more recently, Syria. The
designation has been applied more broadly by Congress since it was first requested for foreign affairs in FY2012.
Congressional Research Service
1
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Figure 1. State and Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2006-FY2016 Request
(in billions of current US$)
Source: Annual congressional budget justifications, CRS calculations.
Note: Includes supplemental and overseas contingency operations funds.
Figure 1, above, shows funding for State Operations and Foreign Operations accounts for each of
the past 10 years. Figure 2, below, provides a breakout of the total FY2016 SFOPS budget
request by key categories.
Figure 2. Composition of the FY2016 SFOPS Budget Request
Source: Congressional Budget Justification, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs,
Fiscal Year 2016, and CRS calculations
Notes: The figure includes OCO funding. The blue portion of the chart is funding under the State Department
Operations; the portion in orange is within Foreign Operations. Embassy security includes Worldwide Security
Protection (WSP) within the Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP) account and Worldwide Security
Upgrades (WSU) within the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account. Public
Diplomacy includes Educational and Cultural Exchanges plus International Broadcasting. Percentages were
calculated as a portion of total State, Foreign Operations, and Related funding before offsetting collections from
Export Promotion activities were applied.
Congressional Research Service
2
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
This report provides an overview and highlights of the request, as well as congressional actions,
and offers an account-by-account comparison of the FY2016 request to the FY2015-estimated
funding (where such estimates are available) and FY2014 actual funding. Appendix B provides
the International Affairs 150 budget function funding levels. This report will be updated
throughout the appropriations process.
The Budget Control Act and State-Foreign
Operations Appropriations
The Obama Administration announced in early February 2015 that its FY2016 budget request
exceeds the discretionary budget caps established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L.
112-25) that established defense and nondefense discretionary spending limits for FY2012-
FY2021. This raises concern about the possibility of sequestration. Should Congress appropriate
discretionary funds that exceed the BCA caps, without repealing the BCA or otherwise legislating
a change in the caps, an automatic spending reduction process established by the BCA would be
triggered, consisting of a combination of sequestration and lower discretionary spending caps.
The sequestration process was triggered in FY2013, but avoided in FY2014 and FY2015 when
Congress adhered to less stringent spending caps for those years established by the Bipartisan
Budget Act (BBA, H.J.Res. 59, P.L. 113-67). For FY2016, the BCA caps are again in effect.
FY2016 Request: Enduring vs. Overseas Contingency Operations
Funding
In the FY2016 request, as every year since FY2012, the Administration distinguishes between
enduring or “core” funding and funding to support “overseas contingency operations” (OCO),
described in earlier budget documents as “extraordinary, but temporary, costs of the Department
of State and USAID in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”3 The OCO designation is particularly
significant because the BCA specified that emergency or OCO funds do not count toward the
budget caps established by the act. For FY2016, $7.05 billion, or about 13% of the SFOPS
request, is designated as OCO. The FY2016 OCO request represents a decline of 23.9%
compared with the FY2015-estimated level of $9.26 billion (excluding Ebola Emergency funds)
that included funds for the three frontline states, “other areas of unrest,” anti-terrorism activities,
and operations to counter the Islamic State (IS). (See Table 1 and Figure 3.)4
Table 1. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Funding
Trends, FY2006-FY2016 Request
(in billions of current U.S. dollars)
FY15
FY16
FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14
Est.
Req.
Enduring 31.38 31.41 34.52 50.30 49.44 48.80 41.80 39.75 42.91 40.17 46.32
OCO/Supp.
4.47 5.66 5.66 1.83 2.34 0.00 11.20 10.82 6.52 11.78 7.05
3 Executive Budget Summary, Function 150 & Other International Programs, Fiscal Year 2013, p. 137.
4 For more detail on OCO within SFOPS, see CRS In Focus IF00063, Foreign Affairs Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO): Background and Current Issues.
Congressional Research Service
3
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
FY15
FY16
FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14
Est.
Req.
Total
35.85 37.07 40.18 52.13 51.78 48.80 53.00 50.57 49.43 51.95 53.37
Sources: Congressional Budget Justification, Department of State and Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2016;
CRS appropriations reports; CRS calculations.
Note: OCO = Overseas Contingency Operations; Supp. = Supplemental funding, which includes funds
requested for Iraq and Afghanistan prior to FY2012, when OCO was first requested and appropriated. FY2015
OCO/Supp. includes $9.26 billion for OCO and $2.52 billion for emergency Ebola funds.
Figure 3. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Funding
Trends, FY2006-FY2016 Request
Source: Congressional Budget Justifications, FY2008-FY2016 and CRS calculations.
State Department Operations
The Administration seeks to grow funding for the State Department and Related Accounts
category by 11% over FY2015-estimated levels, to $17.54 billion. Both “base” (or “enduring”)
funding and overseas contingency operations (OCO) funding would grow under the proposal, by
12% and 5%, respectively. The composition of this portion of the budget request is illustrated in
Figure 4, and a 10-year historical trend line appears in Figure 1.
Congressional Research Service
4
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Figure 4. Composition of State Operations and Related Accounts, FY2016 Request
Source: CRS calculations based on Department of State, FY2016 Congressional Budget Justification.
Among the top-line accounts, Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP), the Department’s
main operating account, would grow by 10.5%, to $8.6 billion. Public diplomacy (PD) spending,
including exchange programs, would see a 6% boost to a total of $1.19 billion under the FY2016
request.
The State Department’s second largest administrative account is Embassy Security, Construction
and Maintenance (ESCM); the FY2016 proposal calls for $2.22 billion, a 4.5% decrease from the
FY2015-estimated level (see Table 2). Other noteworthy reductions in the proposed budget
include significant proposed cuts in the “Related Programs” account, which funds a number of
non-governmental institutions. The FY2016 request proposes a 20% lower level for these
accounts overall, which would mean budget reductions to, among other institutions, the East-West
Center, the Asia Foundation, and the National Endowment for Democracy (cuts of 35%, 29%,
and 23%, respectively).
Table 2. State Department and Related Accounts: Total Funding and Select Accounts
(in billions of current US$)
% change,
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2015-
Actual
Estimate
Request
FY2016
TOTAL, State & Related Agencies
15.89
15.86
17.54
+11%
Diplomatic & Consular
8.01
7.79
8.60
+10%
Intl. Orgs / Peacekeeping
3.11
3.59
4.62
+29%
Embassy Security, Construction &
2.67
2.32
2.22
-4%
Maintenance
Intl. Broadcasting
0.73
0.74
0.75
+1%
Exchanges
0.58
0.59
0.62
+6%
Related Programs
0.21
0.20
0.16
-20%
Source: CRS calculations based on Department of State, FY2016 Congressional Budget Justification.
Note: Figures may not add due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service
5
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
State Operations: Key Issues
The following sections provide additional information about a number of particularly noteworthy
elements within the State Operations accounts.
Frontline States
Operations in the challenging environments of the three countries termed “frontline states”—
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq—continue to be a focus of attention by the department. Together,
these three countries make up almost 18% of the department’s overall request for operational
funding. In contrast to its FY2015 request for operations in Afghanistan, which sought funding
for facilities in multiple locations (including consulates in Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif, and
presence in Kandahar and Jalalabad), the department’s FY2016 request of $963 million would
fund a Kabul-only presence and return 21 direct-hire positions to other priorities at the
department, reflecting a more conservative approach in the wake of the ongoing U.S. military
drawdown. An increase of 23% in enduring funding over FY2015-estimated levels is requested to
enable the Embassy to be self-sustaining.
The request for State operations in Pakistan is also impacted by the U.S. military drawdown in
Afghanistan. The department seeks to continue “normalizing” operations in that country, through
an additional 21% increase in requested funding over FY2015 levels to $114 million, to
compensate for reduced carryover funding from previous years.
FY2016 funding requested for State operations in Iraq—a total of $1.1 billion—would continue a
trend of shifting OCO funding requests to enduring funding, with the latter category growing by
113%, and OCO decreasing by 5% from FY2015 levels.
International Organizations/Peacekeeping
The International Organizations accounts, including both Contributions to International
Organizations (CIO) and Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA), would
see a significant jump in funding under the FY2016 proposal, to $4.62 billion. Growth of nearly
29% for the two accounts over FY2015-estimated levels would fund a number of Administration
priorities.
The CIO account funds the U.S. share of the assessed budgets of 45 international organizations.
The FY2016 request seeks $1.5 billion under this category, a 5% increase from FY2015-
estimated levels that would boost funding to the UN and Affiliated Agencies, NATO, and other
organizations. The CIO request does not include funds for the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), although Administration officials suggest they
will continue to seek a waiver from Congress to fund the organization.5
The CIPA request jumps 38% from FY2015 levels to $2.93 billion; the request funds a number of
UN peacekeeping missions and international war crimes tribunals. Reasons for this increase
5 For more information on the UN accounts, see CRS Report RL33611, United Nations System Funding: Congressional
Issues, by Marjorie Ann Browne.
Congressional Research Service
6
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
include (1) $380 million to cover projected outstanding assessments remaining from FY2015; (2)
differences between the U.N.-assessed U.S. share of peacekeeping costs (28.36%) and the amount
recognized by U.S. law (27.14%); and (3) growth in the scope and cost of UN peacekeeping
missions in the Central African Republic, Somalia, and South Sudan. In addition, the
Administration’s FY2016 request includes a $150 million Peace Operations Response
Mechanism, a repeat proposal from the FY2015 request intended to support urgent—but as yet
undefined—peacekeeping needs. The OCO funds requested for the Peace Operations Response
Mechanism would allow State to support contingency operations without taking funds from other
peacekeeping efforts in progress or returning to Congress for off-cycle budgetary requests,
officials suggest. The proposal was not funded by appropriators in FY2015.
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 have continued.6 In its FY2016 budget, the Administration seeks funding to
continue to implement the initiatives launched under the FY2013 Increased Security Proposal7
and meet the post-Benghazi Accountability Review Board’s (ARB) recommendations. The
request includes approximately $3.4 billion in Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) funds to
provide security personnel with technical tools and training, and approximately $1.4 billion in
Worldwide Security Upgrades (WSU) funds to upgrade and maintain safe, secure diplomatic
facilities.
The FY2016 request for Worldwide Security Protection (WSP), which supports the Diplomatic
Security Bureau’s functions around the world, would grow by 9% over FY2015-estimated levels
to $3.4 billion. Much of the increase in requested funding is for security measures in Iraq, which
were funded by carryover funding in previous years. The WSP request also includes a new
request for $99 million that would enable the department to undertake the first phase of
construction of the planned Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (FASTC), a new facility
intended to consolidate diplomatic security training at Fort Pickett, Virginia. The request also
includes $50 million for security enhancements at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Libya, which has
been under suspended operations since July 26, 2014.
Physical security upgrades at diplomatic facilities, which are mostly funded through Worldwide
Security Upgrades (WSU) under the Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance (ESCM)
account, are managed by the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations. The WSU request for
FY2016 is for $1.4 billion, a 4.5% decrease from FY2015-estimated levels. Within the ESCM
request is $1 billion to provide for the Department of State’s share of the Capital Security Cost
6 See CRS Report R43195, Securing U.S. Diplomatic Facilities and Personnel Abroad: Legislative and Executive
Branch Initiatives, by Alex Tiersky.
7 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
7
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Sharing (CSCS) program, which is an interagency shared funding mechanism designed to ensure
each U.S. government agency represented abroad is paying its fair share of construction costs for
new and more secure facilities. The amount requested is down from the $1.4 billion appropriated
for this purpose for FY2014, a result of higher assessed contributions from other agencies into the
common account. Department officials underline that the CSCS request meets the full $2.2 billion
level called for by the post-Benghazi Accountability Review Board.
Table 3 summarizes recent funding for the three accounts containing the bulk of funding for
diplomatic security measures: Worldwide Security Protection (for security programs including a
worldwide guard force), Worldwide Security Upgrades funding (for bricks and mortar security
needs, including construction of secure new embassy compounds), and Diplomatic Security
Bureau D&CP funding.
Table 3. Diplomatic Security Funding: Selected Accounts
(in billions of current US$)
% change
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
(FY15 to
Actual
Estimated
Request
FY16)
Worldwide Security Protection
2.77 3.12 3.40
+9%
(WSP)
Worldwide Security Upgrades
1.61 1.49 1.42
-
4%
(WSU)
Diplomatic Security (DS) in D&CP
0.09
0.09
0.09
+1%
TOTAL
4.47
4.7
4.91
+4%
Source: CRS calculations from Department of State budget presentation documents.
Notes: Includes OCO funding levels. Other embassy and diplomatic security funding is within two other
subaccounts: Counterterrorism within the Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP), and Diplomatic Security
within Border Security Program (BSP). See CRS Report R43721, Diplomatic and Embassy Security Funding Before
and After the Benghazi Attacks, by Susan B. Epstein.
Management and Human Resources of the Department of State
With the support of Congress, the Foreign Service grew by almost 20% between FY2008 and
FY2012, and the department’s Civil Service by 7% over that same time period. The growth was
an attempt to address what many observers saw as chronic personnel shortfalls that were
worsened by a sudden need to fill large numbers of overseas positions in the frontline states. The
Foreign Service is now experiencing a youth bulge, with junior officers hired in these years
beginning to move into the mid-levels of the service.
The Administration’s FY2016 request for Human Resources (under Diplomatic & Consular
Programs) is 1% higher than FY2015-enacted levels, at a total of $2.7 billion—a reduction of 2%
from FY2014 actual levels. The request indicates that the department seeks 39 new positions
funded by appropriations (12 Foreign Service and 27 Civil Service), although 21 of these would
be realigned from previously existing positions based in Afghanistan.8 The department also seeks
8 As points of comparison, the State Department requested appropriated funding for 53 new positions in its FY2015
request, for 35 new positions in FY2014, for 121 new positions in FY2013, and for 133 in FY2012.
Congressional Research Service
8
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
funding throughout the request to address what it terms a gap in the pay of Locally Employed
Staff at its overseas posts, relative to local salary conditions. State’s more than 46,000 local
employees make up upwards of 65% of the department’s total workforce; the department seeks to
ensure that working as part of U.S. diplomatic missions abroad remains an attractive proposition.
Among other personnel-related issues, the Department’s request notably does not include
additional funding for Overseas Comparability Pay (OCP) (as it did in recent years, although not
in FY2015). 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 $81.4 million in FY2014 funding to provide the third portion of a three-phase
adjustment, the first two tranches of which were supported by Congress in previous years. The
third OCP phase has not been supported by congressional appropriators to date.
Foreign Operations
The Foreign Operations budget funds most traditional foreign aid programs, with the exception of
food aid.9 It includes bilateral economic aid, multilateral aid, security assistance, and export
promotion programs, as well as USAID administrative accounts.
Figure 5. Foreign Operations by Type, FY2016 Request
Source: FY2016 International Affairs CBJ.
Notes: Excludes export promotion accounts.
9 The two international food assistance programs, Food for Peace (aka P.L. 480, title II) and Food for Education (aka
McGovern-Dole), are funded through the Agriculture appropriations bill.
Congressional Research Service
9
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Figure 5 shows the FY2016 foreign operations request broken out proportionately by the
categories typically used in appropriations legislation, while Table 4 shows the funding trend for
each category for FY2014, FY2015 and the FY2016 request.
Table 4. Foreign Operations by Type, FY2014, FY2015 and the FY2016 request
(in billions of current US$)
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change, FY2015-
Actual
Estimate
Request
FY2016
USAID Administration
1.31
1.43
1.69
+18.2%
Bilateral Economic
Assistance
15.80 16.98 17.45
+2.8%
(includes Treasury
Accounts)
Humanitarian Assistance
4.91 6.44 4.24
-34.2%
(excludes food aid)
Independent Agencies
1.33
1.33
1.70
+27.8%
Security Assistance
8.51
8.45
8.61
+1.9%
Multilateral Assistance
3.01
2.77
3.19
+15.2%
Export Promotion
(0.88)
(1.28)
(1.06)
+17.2%
Foreign Operations, Total
33.99
36.12
35.82
-0.8%
Source: FY2016 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs; Congressional Budget
Justification; CRS calculations.
Notes: Export promotion programs managed by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the
Export-Import Bank often bring in more revenue through interest payments and fees than they expend, resulting
in a net gain to the Treasury, reflected in negative numbers (in parenthesis) in this table.
Top Foreign Assistance Recipients
Under the FY2016 request, top foreign assistance recipients would not differ significantly from
FY2014 (FY2015 country data are not yet available). Israel would continue to be the top
recipient, with a requested $3.1 billion (level with FY2014) in Foreign Military Financing (FMF)
funds, followed by Afghanistan, for which $1.5 billion is requested (a 28% increase from
FY2014). Egypt would receive $1.5 billion (-3% from FY2014), largely in FMF to support
shared security interests, and Jordan would get $1.0 billion (-1% from FY2014) to promote
security and stability in the region as well as address economic and security strains related to the
crisis in Syria. Pakistan would get $804 million (a 10% cut from FY2014), to continue ongoing
efforts to increase stability and prosperity in the region. Other top recipients include Kenya ($630
million), Nigeria ($608 million), Tanzania ($591 million), and other African nations that are
focus countries for HIV/AIDS programs. A new addition to the top recipient list under the request
would be Ukraine, for which $514 million was requested, as discussed further below.
Figure 6 and Table 5 show the proposed FY2016 foreign operations budget allocations by region
and country.
Congressional Research Service
10
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Figure 6. FY2016 Foreign Operations
Table 5. Top 15 recipients of U.S. Foreign
Request, by Region
Assistance, FY2016 Request
(aid in millions)
1. Israel
$3,100 9. Ukraine
$514
2. Afghanistan $1,514 10. Uganda
$459
3. Egypt
$1,456 11. WB/Gaza
$442
4. Jordan
$1,000 12. Zambia
$438
5. Pakistan
$804
13. Mozambique $409
6. Kenya
$630
14. Ethiopia
$404
7. Nigeria
$608
15. South Africa $374
8. Tanzania
$591
Source: Data for the above figure and table is from FY2015 budget rol -out documents provided by the State
Department. Does not include administrative funds, MCC, humanitarian assistance or food aid.
Notes: WH = Western Hemisphere; SCA = South Central Asia; EE = Europe and Eurasia; EAP = East Asia and
Pacific.
Funding allocation among regions would change slightly under the FY2016 request compared
with FY2014 (FY2015 regional data are not yet available), with Europe/Eurasia and the Western
Hemisphere increasing their share by 2% each as a result of proposed funding for Ukraine and
Central America. Africa’s share of aid funding would decline by about 5% from FY2014
estimates.
Foreign Operations: Key Issues
Administration Initiatives
The Obama Administration’s four broad foreign assistance initiatives would continue to play a
major role under the FY2016 budget request, accounting for about 30% of the total foreign
operations request.
Global Health Initiative
The request for the Global Health Programs account is $8.18 billion, or 6.7% less than the
FY2015-estimated funding, including emergency Ebola funding. Excluding the Ebola funds, the
request is a 3% decrease from the FY2015 estimate. Requested resources would be focused on
HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention, maternal and child health, and stopping infectious diseases.
Of the total requested, $5.43 billion is requested for the State Department, almost all for
HIV/AIDS-related activities. The proposed reduction in funding would come largely from a
reduced U.S. contribution to the Global Fund, the multilateral component of the President’s
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The Global Fund contribution would decline by
18%, or $244 million, from FY2015. Funding for tuberculosis programs would also decline under
Congressional Research Service
11
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
the request, from an estimated $236 million to $191 million, and the allocation for Neglected
Tropical Diseases would fall from $100 million to $86.5 million. In contrast, the U.S.
contribution to GAVI, the vaccine alliance, would increase by 18%, or $35 million, reflecting a
four-year, $1 billion commitment made by the Administration in 2014. The request would also
provide a slight increase over the FY2015 estimate for family planning and reproductive health
programs (+2.7%).10
Feed the Future
The Administration’s food security initiative receives just over $1 billion in the FY2016 request,
an 8% drop from the FY2014 funding level (a FY2015 funding estimate is not yet available),
primarily through the Development Assistance account. The initiative promotes agricultural
productivity, expanding markets, improved nutrition, and economic resilience in vulnerable rural
communities. Funds requested for FY2016 would support programs to build agriculture sector resilience
to climate change, promote nutrition-sensitive agriculture, and adapt to recurring shocks such as droughts
and floods. The proposal would shift funding toward countries for which additional funds are
deemed necessary to reach targeted goals, and reduce funding to countries for which prior year
funding is expected to remain available. New funding would be provided for Guinea and Sierra
Leone, to accelerate food security programming and build resilience in the wake of the Ebola
crisis. The request also includes $43 million for the Global Agriculture and Food Security
Program (GAFSP), the multilateral component of the initiative, consistent with a pledge to
provide $1 for every $2 provided by other donors. In addition, the request includes $30 million
for the first tranche of funding to replenish the International Fund for Agricultural Development
(IFAD).
Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI)
GCCI would receive a major funding boost under the request, increasing 55% from FY2014
funding (a FY2015 funding estimate is not yet available) to $1.29 billion in FY2016. The
initiative continues to focus bilateral resources in three areas: adaptation, clean energy, and
sustainable landscapes, for which funding would decline 4% from FY2014 under the request. The
increase in total funding is largely attributable to a proposed contribution ($500 million, split
between State and Treasury accounts) to a multilateral Green Climate Fund, to which the
Administration pledged $3 billion in November 2014. The fund is intended to succeed the
multilateral Climate Investment Funds to which the U.S. will complete a four-year, $2 billion
pledge with proposed FY2016 funding. The Administration asserts that the requested contribution
is an important demonstration of U.S. leadership and will help leverage contributions from other
donors as well as leverage binding emission reduction targets from all countries (e.g., China,
India) during the ongoing U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations.11
10 For more in U.S. global health funding, see CRS Report IF10131, U.S. Global Health Assistance: The FY2016
Budget, by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther.
11 For more information on GCCI, see CRS Report R41845, The Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI): Budget
Authority and Request, FY2010-FY2016, by Richard K. Lattanzio.
Congressional Research Service
12
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Africa Initiatives
The Administration requested $77 million in FY2016 for Power Africa, a public-private
collaboration launched in 2013 to increase access to power in sub-Saharan Africa. The
Administration committed to $300 million in annual funding for the initiative at the 2014 U.S.-
African Leaders’ Summit where a goal was established to generate 30,000 megawatts of new,
cleaner electricity, accessible by at least 60 million households and businesses. Budget documents
explain that the $77 million being requested through the Development Assistance account will be
supplemented by additional money made available from prior-year funding, as well as funding
through agencies such as MCC and the U.S. Africa Development Foundation, to fully meet the
U.S. commitment.12 $47 million is requested for Trade in Africa, though budget documents
explain that additional money will be made available from prior-year funding. For the first time,
the request also includes $110 million for an African Peacekeeping Rapid Response Partnership,
which is described as a partnership to increase the capacity of six African countries to rapidly
deploy military peacekeepers to address conflict in the region. The request also includes $24
million for a new Security Governance Initiative, a joint Department of Defense-State
Department program to improve governance and capacity in the security sector of partner
countries
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
Within the FY2016 foreign operations request, $5.2 billion, or about 14.5%, was requested as
OCO funding for “extraordinary costs” of assistance in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Jordan,
and Ukraine. This is down from 20.8% estimated for FY2015 and 15.1% in FY2014. A
significant portion of requested foreign operations OCO funding continues to be for activities in
the frontline state of Afghanistan ($1.21 billion), Iraq ($311 million), and Pakistan ($600 million),
for which the designation was originally proposed. Unlike State operations, foreign operations
country requests do not a show a clear shift of funds in recent years from OCO to base funding in
these countries. Humanitarian accounts also make up a large portion of the OCO request,
including $810 million within the International Disaster Assistance request and $819 million
within the Migration and Refugee Assistance request. These funds are not requested by country,
but the Administration anticipates they will be needed primarily for Syria, South Sudan, the
Central African Republic, and Iraq. The request also includes OCO funds for opposition support
in Syria ($235 million), broad economic and military support activities in Jordan ($327 million),
the State Department portion of a proposed new Counterterrorism Partnership Fund ($390
million), for which funding has also been requested through the Defense appropriation, and
assistance to Ukraine ($317 million) to support a potential $1 billion loan guarantee and supply
military equipment.
Syria/IS
The FY2016 foreign operations request would increase U.S. financial commitments toward
responding to the crisis in Syria and fighting the Islamic State (IS).13 The Administration
12 For more information about U.S. support for power development in Africa, see CRS Report R43593, Powering
Africa: Challenges of and U.S. Aid for Electrification in Africa, by Richard J. Campbell et al.
13 For more information about IS and related U.S. policy, see CRS Report R43612, The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S.
Policy, by Christopher M. Blanchard et al.
Congressional Research Service
13
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
identifies $1.82 billion in its FY2016 request for these purposes, including $255 million for non-
humanitarian assistance to support opposition groups within Syria. Of this amount, $65 million is
requested from the peacekeeping operations (PKO) account to provide non-lethal assistance to
vetted members of the armed Syrian opposition, in parallel to the Department of Defense-led train
and equip program, for which the Administration has requested $600 million in defense funding.14
Most of the requested foreign operations funding would be used to address the impact of the crisis
on Syria’s neighbors. The Administration identifies its entire $1 billion request for Jordan as
helping to counter IS and mitigate Syria-related economic and security concerns. The
Administration also requested $335 million to strengthen Iraq’s counterterrorism capabilities and
$211 million to assist Lebanon in meeting the needs of Syrian refugees and addressing the IS
threat. The overall “Syria and Counter-ISIL” request is a 17% increase over FY2014 funding for
this purpose (FY2015 funding data are not available). An additional $1.6 billion in U.S.
humanitarian assistance is being requested for the region to respond to the Syria-Iraq crises in
FY2016.15
Afghanistan/Pakistan
The FY2016 foreign operations request for Afghanistan is $1.514 billion (+28% from FY2014),
which is consistent with the 2012 Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework. The funding is
provided primarily though the Economic Support Fund (OCO) account, and intended to support
the new Afghan government and continue a trend away from stabilization and infrastructure
programs. The request includes $804 million for Pakistan (-10% from FY2014) to support
regional stability, counter-terrorism, and long-term political and economic stability. Stability and
prosperity in Pakistan are seen by the Administration as essential to maintaining gains in
Afghanistan. The request describes funding for both countries as consistent with a responsible
glide path, demonstrating that the United States is not abandoning the region even as the U.S.
military presence declines.16
Countering Russian Aggression
The budget request includes $639.8 million (+283% from FY2014) in FY2016 to bolster Ukraine,
Moldova, and Georgia against “Russian aggression and pressure.” Of this, $513.5 million is for
Ukraine, primarily from Economic Support Funds, to promote economic reforms, advance
democracy and anti-corruption efforts, and support an additional $1 billion loan guarantee if
progress is made on IMF reforms.17 Funding for Moldova ($49.1 million) and Georgia ($77.2
million) would support greater security, democracy and accountability, as well as closer
integration with Europe. All three countries would receive Foreign Military Financing funds to
14 For more information about the train and equip program, see CRS Report R43727, Train and Equip Authorities for
Syria: In Brief, by Christopher M. Blanchard and Amy Belasco.
15 For more information about the U.S. humanitarian response to the crisis in Syria, see CRS Report R43119, Syria:
Overview of the Humanitarian Response, by Rhoda Margesson and Susan G. Chesser.
16 For more about U.S. policy towards Afghanistan and foreign assistance to Pakistan, see CRS Report RL30588,
Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, by Kenneth Katzman, and CRS Report R42116,
Pakistan: U.S. Foreign Aid Conditions, Restrictions, and Reporting Requirements, by Susan B. Epstein and K. Alan
Kronstadt.
17 For more information on aid to Ukraine, see CRS Report RL33460, Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy, by
Steven Woehrel.
Congressional Research Service
14
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
address military equipment shortfalls and improve interoperability with NATO and other western
forces.
Central America
A notable shift in regional funding proposed by the Administration for FY2016 is the $1 billion
requested for Central America, a region for which funding has generally stagnated in recent
years. The request is 225% more than the FY2014 funding level, and would support a whole-of-
government U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America aimed at promoting economic
prosperity, security, and good governance in the region as a means of stemming the flow of
undocumented migration. The primary recipients of the requested funds would be El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras. Of the total requested, $287 million is allocated for the Central
American Regional Security Initiative (CARSI).18
18 For more information on CARSI, see CRS Report R41731, Central America Regional Security Initiative:
Background and Policy Issues for Congress, by Peter J. Meyer and Clare Ribando Seelke. For more information on the
President’s FY2016 request for Central America, see a CRS Insight on the subject at http://www.crs.gov/pages/
Insights.aspx?PRODCODE=IN10237.
Congressional Research Service
15
Appendix A. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, by Account
Table A-1. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2014-FY2016 Request
(in millions of current U.S. dol ars)
FY2014 Actual
2015 Estimate
FY2016 Request
%
change
FY16
OCO/Ebola
vs.
Enduring OCO
Total Enduring
Emergency Totala Enduring OCO Total FY15
Title I. State, Broadcasting & Related
14,076.49
1,817.71
15,894.20
14,056.63
1,768.60 OCO
15,861.65
15,695.50
1,849.12
17,544.62
10.6%
Agencies, TOTAL
36.42 EE
Administration of Foreign Affairs, Subtotal
9,990.12
1,732.89
11,723.01
9,479.76
1,683.50 OCO
11,199.68
10,190.00
1,699.12
11,889.12
6.2%
36.42 EE
Diplomatic & Consular Program
6,617.63 1,391.11 8,008.73 6,437.14
1,350.80
OCO
7,787.94
7,096.33
1,507.42
8,603.75
10.5%
36.42 EE
(of which Worldwide Security Protection)
[1,867.15] [900.27] [2,767.42] [2,128.13]
[989.71]
OCO
[3,117.82]
[2,327.14]
[1,067.96]
[3,395.10]
8.9%
Capital Investment Fund
76.90 76.90 56.40
56.40
66.40
66.40
17.7%
Embassy Security, Construction & Maintenance
2,399.45 275.00 2,674.45 2,063.26
260.80
OCO
2,324.06
2,085.10
134.80
2,219.90
-4.5%
(of which Worldwide Security Upgrades)
[1,614.10]
[1,614.10] [1,240.50] [250.00] [1,490.50]
[1,300.00]
[124.00]
[1,424.00]
-4.5%
Conflict Stabilization Operationsb
21.80 8.50 30.30 23.50
15.00
OCO
38.50
—
—
—
—
Ed. & Cultural Exchanges
567.81 8.63
576.44 589.90
589.90
623.08
623.08
5.6%
Office of Inspector General
69.41 49.65 119.06 73.40
56.90
OCO
130.30
82.40
56.90
139.30
6.9%
Representation Expenses
8.03 8.03 8.03
8.03
8.45
8.45
5.2%
Protection of Foreign Missions & Officials
28.20 28.20 30.04
30.04
29.81
29.81
-0.8%
Emergency-Diplomatic & Consular Services
9.24 9.24 7.90
7.90
7.90
7.90
0%
Repatriation Loans
1.54 1.54 1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
0%
Payment American Institute Taiwan
31.22 31.22 30.00
30.00
30.34
30.34
1.1%
Foreign Service Retirement (mandatory)
158.90
158.90 158.90
158.90
158.90
158.90
0%
International Orgs, Subtotal
3,031.18
74.40
3,105.58
3,518.04
74.40 OCO
3,592.44
4,470.25
150.00
4,620.25
28.6%
CRS-16
FY2014 Actual
2015 Estimate
FY2016 Request
%
change
FY16
OCO/Ebola
vs.
Enduring OCO
Total Enduring
Emergency Totala Enduring OCO Total FY15
Contributions to Int’l Orgs
1,265.76 74.40
1,340.16 1,399.15
74.40
OCO
1,473.55
1,540.03
1,540.03
4.5%
Contributions, International Peacekeeping
1,765.42
1,765.42 2,118.89
2,118.89
2,930.22
2,930.22
38.3%
Peacekeeping Response Mechanismc
—
—
—
—
—
150.00
150.00
—
International Commission subtotal (Function 300)
125.92
125.92
122.95
122.95
120.06
120.06
-2.4%
Int’l Boundary/U.S.-Mexico
77.44 77.44 73.71
73.71
75.68
75.68
2.7%
American Sections
12.50 12.50 12.56
12.56
12.33
12.33
-1.8%
International Fisheries
35.98 35.98 36.68
36.68
32.05
32.05
-12.6%
International Broadcast, Subtotal
729.08
4.40
733.48
731.37
10.70 OCO
742.07
751.44
751.44
1.3%
Broadcasting Operations
721.08 4.40
725.48 726.57
10.70
OCO
737.27
741.44
741.44
0.6%
Capital Improvements
8.00 8.00 4.80
4.80
10.00
10.00
108.0%
Related Approps, Subtotal
200.19
6.02
206.21
204.51
204.51
163.75
163.75
-19.9%
Asia Foundation
17.00 17.00 17.00
17.00
12.00
12.00
-29.4%
U.S. Institute of Peace
30.98 6.02 37.00 35.30
35.30
36.99
36.99
4.8%
Center for Middle East-West Dialogue-Trust &
0.10 0.10 0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0%
Program
Eisenhower Exchange Programs
0.40 0.40 0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0%
Israeli Arab Scholarship Program
0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0%
East-West Center
16.70 16.70 16.70
16.70
10.80
10.80
-35.3%
National Endowment for Democracy
135.00
135.00 135.00
135.00
103.45
103.45
-23.4%
28,859.87
5,129.59
33,989.45
26,138.67
7,489.40 OCO
36,118.03
30,624.29
5,198.33
35,822.61
-0.8%
FOREIGN OPERATION, TOTAL
2,489.96 EE
Title II. Admin of Foreign Assistance
1,222.17
91.04
1,313.21
1,275.94
125.46 OCO
1,426.08
1,626.33
65.00
1,691.33
18.6%
24.66 EE
CRS-17
FY2014 Actual
2015 Estimate
FY2016 Request
%
change
FY16
OCO/Ebola
vs.
Enduring OCO
Total Enduring
Emergency Totala Enduring OCO Total FY15
USAID Operating Expenses
1,059.23 81.00
1,140.23 1,090.84
125.46
OCO
1,235.34
1,360.00
65.00
1,425.00
15.4%
19.04 EE
USAID Capital Investment Fund
117.94
117.94 130.82
130.82
203.33
203.33
55.4%
USAID Inspector General
45.00 10.04 55.04 54.29 5.63
EE
59.92
63.00
63.00
5.1%
Title III. Bilateral Economic Assistance
18,145.12
3,894.17
22,039.27
16,666.08
5,626.38 OCO
24,752.46
19,587.35
3,812.33
23,399.68
-5.5%
2,460.00 EE
Global Health Programs (GHP), State + USAID
8,443.75
8,443.75 8,453.95 312.00
EE
8,765.95
8,181.00
8,181.00
-6.7%
GHP (State Dept.)
[2,773.75]
[2,773.75] [2,783.95] [312.00]
EE
[3,095.95]
[2,755.00]
[2,755.00]
-11.0%
GHP (USAID)
[5,670.00]
[5,670.00] [5,670.00]
[5,670.00]
[5,426.00]
[5,426.00]
-4.3%
Development Assistance
2,507.00
2,507.00 2,507.00
2,507.00
2,999.69
2,999.69
19.7%
876.83 924.17 1,801.00 560.00
1,335.00
OCO
3,331.27
931.00
810.00
1,741.00
-47.7%
International Disaster Assistance (IDA)
1,436.27 EE
Transition Initiatives
48.18 9.42 57.60 47.00
20.00
OCO
67.00
67.60
67.00
0%
Complex Crises Fund
20.00 20.00 40.00 20.00
30.00
OCO
50.00
30.00
30.00
0%
Development Credit Authority –Admin
8.04 8.04 8.12
8.12
9.20
9.20
13.3%
Development Credit Authority Subsidy
[40.00] [40.00] [40.00]
[40.00]
[40.00]
[40.00]
—
Economic Support Fund
2,932.97 1,656.22 4,589.18 2,602.62
2,114.27
OCO
5,428.62
3,952.16
2,183.33
6,135.49
13.0%
711.73 EE
Democracy Fund
130.50
130.50 130.50
130.50
—
—
—
Migration & Refugee Assistance
1,774.65 1,284.36 3,059.00 931.89
2,127.11
OCO
3,059.00
1,634.60
819.00
2,453.60
-19.8%
Emergency Refugee and Migration
50.00 50.00 50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
0%
Independent Agencies subtotal
1,329.70
1,329.70
1,331.50
1,331.50
1,704.10
1,704.10
28.0%
Inter-American Foundation
22.50 22.50 22.50
22.50
22.50
22.50
0%
African Development Foundation
30.00 30.00 30.00
30.00
26.00
26.00
-13.3%
Peace Corps
379.00
379.00 379.50
379.50
410.00
410.00
8.0%
CRS-18
FY2014 Actual
2015 Estimate
FY2016 Request
%
change
FY16
OCO/Ebola
vs.
Enduring OCO
Total Enduring
Emergency Totala Enduring OCO Total FY15
Millennium Challenge Corporation
898.20
898.20 899.50
899.50
1,250.00
1,250.00
39.0%
Department of Treasury, subtotal
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
28.00
28.00
19.1%
Treasury Department Technical Assistance
23.50 23.50 23.50
23.50
28.00
28.00
19.1%
Debt Restructuring
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Title IV. Int’l Security Assistance
7,366.06
1,144.39
8,510.45
6,704.49
1,737.55 OCO
8,447.34
7,285.56
1,321.00
8,606.56
1.9%
5.30 EE
International Narcotics Control & Law
1,005.61 344.39 1,350.00 853.06
443.20
OCO
1,296.25
967.77
226.00
1,193.77
-7.9%
Enforcement
630.00 70.00 700.00 586.26
99.24
OCO
690.80
609.33
390.00
999.33
44.7%
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining
5.30 EE
International Military Education & Training
105.57
105.57 106.07
106.07
111.72
111.72
5.3%
Foreign Military Financing
5,389.28 526.20 5,915.48 5,014.11
866.42
OCO
5,880.53
5,166.54
640.00
5,806.54
-1.3%
Peacekeeping Operations
235.60 200.00 435.60 144.99
328.70
OCO
473.69
430.20
65.00
495.20
4.5%
Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund
—
Global Security Contingency Fund
—
3.80
3.80
—
—
—
—
—
Title V. Multilateral Assistance
3,006.45
3,006.45
2,774.97
2,774.97
3,188.85
3,188.85
14.9%
World Bank: Global Environment Facility
143.75
143.75 136.56
136.56
168.26
168.26
23.2%
International Clean Technology Fund
209.63
209.63 184.63
184.63
170.68
170.68
-7.6%
Strategic Climate Fund
74.90 74.90 49.90
49.90
59.62
59.62
19.5%
Green Climate Fund
—
—
—
—
150.00
150.00
—
North American Development Bank
—
—
—
—
45.00
45.00
—
World Bank: Int’l. Development Association
1,355.00
1,355.00 1,287.80
1,287.80
1,290.60
1,290.60
0.2%
Int. Bank Recon & Dev
186.96
186.96 186.96
186.96
192.92
192.92
3.2%
Inter-Amer. Dev. Bank - capital
102.00
102.00 102.02
102.02
102.02
102.02
0%
IADB: Enterprise for Americas MIF
6.30 6.30 3.38
3.38
—
—
—
CRS-19
FY2014 Actual
2015 Estimate
FY2016 Request
%
change
FY16
OCO/Ebola
vs.
Enduring OCO
Total Enduring
Emergency Totala Enduring OCO Total FY15
Asian Development Fund
109.85
109.85 104.98
104.98
166.09
166.09
58.2%
Asian Development Bank – capital
106.59
106.59 106.59
106.59
5.61
5.61
-94.7%
African Development Fund
176.34
176.34 175.67
175.67
227.50
227.50
29.5%
African Development Bank - capital
32.42 32.42 32.42
32.42
34.12
34.12
5.2%
International Fund for Agricultural
30.00 30.00 30.00
30.00
31.93
31.93
6.4%
Development
Global Food Security Fund
133.00
133.00
—
—
43.00
43.00
—
International Organizations & Programs
339.72
339.72 344.17
344.17
315.00
315.00
-8.5%
IDA Multilateral Debt Relief
—
—
—
—
111.00
111.00
—
African Development Fund Multilateral Debt
—
—
—
—
13.50
13.50
—
relief
Transfer to Multilateral Trust Funds
—
—
29.91
29.91
—
—
—
Int’l Monetary Fund
—
— —
—
62.00
62.00
—
Title VI. Export Assistance
(879.93)
(879.93)
(1,282.81)
(1,282.81)
(1,063.80)
(1,063.80)
—
Export-Import Bank (net)
(669.60)
(669.60) (1,032.60)
(1,032.60)
(875.00)
(875.00)
—
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (net)
(265.41)
(265.41) (310.21)
(310.21)
(262.50)
(262.50)
—
Trade & Development Agency
55.07 55.07 60.00
60.00
73.70
73.70
22.8%
State, Foreign Ops & related
42,936.36
6,947.30
49,883.65
40,195.30
9,258.00
51,979.68
46,319.79
7,047.45
53,367.24
2.7%
Programs, TOTAL
OCO
2,526.38 EE
Add Ons/ Rescissions
(23.00) (427.30)
(450.30) (30.00)
(30.00)
—
—
State-Foreign Ops Total, Net of
42,913.36 6,520.00 49,433.35 40,165.30 11,784.38
51,949.68 46,319.79 7,047.45 53,367.24 2.7%2.7
Rescissions
Source: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Congressional Budget Justifications for Fiscal Year 2015 and 2016, and Fiscal Year 2015
amended requests of June 26, 2014, November 5, and 10, 2014, P.L. 113-235, and CRS calculations.
CRS-20
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. FY2015 totals include Ebola emergency funding.
b. For FY2015, funding for Conflict Stabilization Operations is within the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account.
c. Within the FY2016 budget request, this is called the Peacekeeping Operations Response Mechanism.
CRS-21
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Appendix B. International Affairs (150) Function
Account, FY2014 Actual, FY2015 Estimate, and
FY2016 Request
Table B-1. International Affairs Budget, FY2014-FY2016 Request
(in millions of current U.S. dol ars)
% change FY2016
FY2014 actual
FY2015 estimate
FY2016 Request
vs. FY2015
State-Foreign
Operations,
49,307.43
51,826.73 53,247.18 +2.7%
excluding
commissionsa
Commerce-Justice-
Science
Foreign Claim
Settlement
2.10
2.33 2.37
+1.7%
Commission
Int’l Trade
Commission
83.00
84.50 131.50
+55.6%
Agriculture
P.L. 480 and
McGovern-Dole
1,651.13
1,657.63 1,611.63 -2.8%
Total International
Affairs (150)
51,043.66
53,571.19 54,992.68 +2.7%
Source: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Congressional Budget Justifications for
Fiscal Year 2015 and 2016, and Fiscal Year 2015 amended requests of June 26, 2014, November 5, and 10, 2014,
P.L. 113-235, and CRS calculations.
a. While funding for certain international commissions are appropriated in the State-Foreign Operations bill,
they are not part of the International Affairs Function 150 Account.
Author Contact Information
Susan B. Epstein
Alex Tiersky
Specialist in Foreign Policy
Analyst in Foreign Affairs
sepstein@crs.loc.gov, 7-6678
atiersky@crs.loc.gov, 7-7367
Marian L. Lawson
Specialist in Foreign Assistance Policy
mlawson@crs.loc.gov, 7-4475
Congressional Research Service
22