Department of State, Foreign Operations and
Related Programs: FY2019 Budget and
Appropriations
Updated March 12, 2019
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R45168

link to page 25 link to page 30 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

Summary
The Trump Administration submitted to Congress its FY2019 budget request on February 12,
2018. The proposal included $41.86 billion for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs (SFOPS). Of that amount, $13.26 billion would be for State Department
operations, international broadcasting, and related agencies, and $28.60 billion for foreign
operations. With the enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA; P.L. 115-123,
February 9, 2018), which raised discretionary spending limits set by the Budget Control Act of
2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25), the Administration’s FY2019 foreign affairs funding request was
entirely within enduring (base) funds; no Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding was
included the SFOPS request for the first time since FY2012.
The FY2019 request would have represented a 22.7% decrease in SFOPS funding compared with
FY2018-enacted funding levels. The proposed State and related agency funding would have been
18.2% below FY2018 enacted and the foreign operations funding would have been reduced by
24.7%. In the State and related programs budget, cuts were proposed for the diplomatic security
accounts, contributions to international organizations, and contributions for international
peacekeeping activities. In the foreign operations budget, cuts would have been applied across all
accounts, with disproportionately large cuts proposed for humanitarian assistance, multilateral
assistance, and funding for bilateral development programs focused on agriculture, education, and
democracy promotion.
Both the House and Senate appropriations committees approved FY2019 SFOPS bills that
included funding at higher levels than the Administration requested and equal to or greater than
FY2018 enacted funding. H.R. 6385, approved by the House appropriations committee on June
20, 2018, would have funded SFOPS accounts at $54.177 billion. S. 3108, approved by the
Senate appropriations committee on June 21, 2018, would have provided $54.602 billion for
SFOPS accounts.
FY2019 began with seven appropriations bills, including SFOPS, unfinished. Congress and the
President approved continuing resolutions to fund the affected federal agencies through
December 21, 2018, at the FY2018 level (P.L. 115-245, Division C and P.L. 115-298). After
December 21, a partial shutdown of the government, including SFOPS-funded agencies,
occurred. On January 25, 2019, an agreement was reached to continue funding for SFOPS and
other appropriations that had lapsed through February 15, at the FY2018 level (P.L. 116-5). On
February 14, Congress passed, and the President later signed into law, a full-year omnibus
appropriation that included SFOPS funding (P.L.116-6, Division F).
P.L. 116-6 included a total of $54.376 billion for SFOPS accounts in FY2019, a 0.3% increase
over the FY2018 funding level and about 30% more than the Administration’s request. Of that
enacted total, $8.0 billion, or 14.7%, was designated as OCO.
This report provides an account-by-account comparison of the FY2019 SFOPS request, House
and Senate SFOPS legislation, and the final FY2019 SFOPS appropriation to the FY2018-enacted
funding in Appendix A. The International Affairs (function 150) budget in Appendix B provides
a similar comparison.
This report will not be further updated unless there is further congressional activity on FY2019
appropriations.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 25 link to page 30 link to page 31 link to page 32 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

Overview
On February 12, 2018, the Trump Administration submitted to Congress its FY2019 budget
request, which included $41.86 billion of base (or enduring) funds for the Department of State,
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS).1 Of that amount, $13.26 billion would have
been for State operations, international broadcasting, and related agencies and $28.60 billion for
foreign operations.2 Comparing the request with the FY2018-enacted SFOPS funding levels, the
FY2019 request represented a 22.7% decrease in SFOPS funding. The proposed State and related
agency funding would have been 18.2% below FY2018 enacted, and the foreign operations
funding would have been reduced by 24.7%. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L.
116-6), signed into law on February 15, included a total of $54.376 billion for SFOPS accounts, a
0.3% increase over the FY2018 funding level and about 30% more than the Administration’s
request. An account-by-account comparison of the SFOPS request with the FY2018 actual
funding and FY2019-enacted appropriation is provided in Appendix A. International Affairs 150
function funding levels are detailed in Appendix B. A chart depicting the components of the
SFOPS appropriations bill is in Appendix C. A glossary is provided in Appendix D.
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018
The appropriations process for FY2019 was shaped by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA,
H.R. 1892, P.L. 115-123), which Congress passed on February 9, 2018. The act raised the overall
revised discretionary spending limits set by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25)
from $1.069 trillion for FY2017 to $1.208 trillion for FY2018 and to $1.244 trillion for FY2019.
The BBA increased FY2019 defense funding levels by $85 billion, from $562 billion to $647
billion, and nondefense funding (including SFOPS) by $68 billion, from $529 billion to $597
billion.3 It also extended direct spending reductions from FY2021 in the original BCA through
FY2027, as amended.4
Enduring vs. Overseas Contingency Operations Request
Every year since FY2012, the Administration has distinguished SFOPS spending as either
enduring (base) funds or those to support overseas contingency operations (OCO). The OCO
designation gained increased significance with enactment of the BCA, which specified that
emergency or OCO funds do not count toward the spending limits established by the act. In early
years of requesting OCO funds, the Obama Administration described OCO requests for
“extraordinary, but temporary, costs of the Department of State and USAID in Iraq, Afghanistan,

1 While the FY2017 actual funding and the FY2018 included some OCO funding, the FY2019 request is entirely base
(enduring) funding.
2 This includes $158.9 million for the Foreign Service Retirement account that is mandatory spending and, therefore, is
not included in State Operations data that only reflects discretionary spending, such as the State Department
Congressional Budget Justification of Fiscal Year 2019.
3 Section 30101(a) of the BBA 2018 (P.L. 115-123) establishes amended spending limits for the “revised security” and
“revised nonsecurity” categories for FY2018 and FY2019. The “revised security category” is defined in Section
251A(1)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, as “discretionary
appropriations in budget function 050” and is generally referred to as the “defense” category. The “revised nonsecurity
category” is defined in Section 251A(1)(B) as “discretionary appropriations other than in budget function 050” and is
generally referred to as the “nondefense” category.
4 For more information, see CRS Insight IN10861, Discretionary Spending Levels Under the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2018, by Grant A. Driessen and Marc Labonte.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 6 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

and Pakistan.”5 Syria and other countries were added in later years, and the Trump Administration
expanded OCO use in its first budget request in FY2018 to be available for longer-term, core
activities and more countries. For FY2019, because the BBA raised spending limits, the
Administration did not seek foreign affairs OCO funds, but requested the entire SFOPS budget
within base funds. The final legislation, P.L. 116-6, included $8.0 billion designated as OCO, or
about 15% of enacted SFOPS funding. For funding trends, see Table 1.
Table 1. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, by Enduring and OCO
FY2010-FY2019 Enacted
(in billions of current U.S. dollars)
FY18
FY19
FY19

FY10
FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15
FY16 FY17 enacted request enacted
Enduring
49.44
48.80
41.80
39.75
42.91
41.01
37.97
36.93
42.16
41.86
46.40
OCO/Supp
2.34
0.00
11.20
10.82
6.52
11.89
16.07
20.79
12.02
00.00
8.00
Total
51.78
48.80
53.00
50.57
49.43
52.90
54.04
57.72
54.18
41.86
54.38
Sources: Congressional Budget Justification Department of State and Foreign Operations, various years,
including FY2019; FY2019 Addendum, P.L. 115-141; P.L. 116-6, and CRS appropriations reports and calculations.
Note: Supp = supplemental appropriations that includes funds for Iraq and Afghanistan prior to when OCO was
first requested and appropriated in FY2012. FY2015 OCO/Supp includes $9.36 bil ion for OCO and $2.53 bil ion
for emergency Ebola funds; FY2016 includes $14.89 bil ion for OCO (including for Zika funds) and $1.18 bil ion
to address the emergency refugee crisis in the Middle East; and FY2017 includes $16.49 bil ion for OCO and
$4.3 bil ion for security assistance.
Congressional Action
Table 2. Status of State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2019
(funding in billions of current U.S. dollars)

302(b)
Committee
Allocations
Action
Floor Action
Conference/Agreement
Public
Law
Chamber House Senate House Senate House Senate House Senate
116-6
Date
5/23/18 5/24/18 6/20/18 6/21/18

2/14/19 2/14/19 2/15/19
Total $
46.16
54.42
54.18
54.60

54.38
54.38
54.38
Notes: The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as amended, includes a requirement
that the House and Senate approve a budget resolution that becomes the basis for the allocation of funds to the
Appropriations Committee that are then divided among the 12 subcommittees, as required by Section 302(b).
Neither the House nor the Senate has passed a budget resolution for FY2019. However, in May 2018 the House
and Senate provided interim subal ocations for appropriations subcommittees. Committee-recommended total
budget authority in the House was $46.159 billion, with no specified OCO allocation. The Senate recommended
level included $46.418 bil ion for enduring programs and $8.0 bil ion for OCO.
House and Senate SFOPS Legislation. FY2019 SFOPS legislation was introduced and
approved by the full appropriations committee in each chamber. The House legislation, H.R.
6385, included total SFOPS funding of $54.18 billion, level with FY2018 funding and 29% more

5 Executive Budget Summary, Function 150 and other International Programs, Fiscal Year 2013, p. 137.
Congressional Research Service

2

Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

than requested. The Senate proposal, S. 3108, would have provided $54.602 billion for SFOPS
accounts, which is about 1% more than current year funding and 30% more than requested.
Neither bill received floor consideration in its respective chamber.
Continuing Resolutions. On September 28, 2018, the President signed into law P.L. 115-245,
legislation which included the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 (CR) to continue funding for
SFOPS accounts (among seven other appropriations that were not completed by the start of
FY2019) at a prorated 2018 funding level through December 7, 2018. Funds designated as OCO
in 2018 appropriations continued to be so designated for SFOPS in the CR. On December 3,
2018, Congress and the Administration extended funding through December 21, 2018, by
enacting P.L. 115-298. After December 21, funding lapsed and a partial shutdown of the
government occurred. On January 25, an agreement was reached to continue funding for SFOPS
and other appropriations that had lapsed through February 15, at the FY2018 level (P.L. 116-5).
Enacted Legislation. On February 14Congress passed, and the President later signed into law, a
full year appropriation (P.L.116-6, Division F) that included $54.38 billion in total SFOPS
funding, a 0.3% increase over the FY2018 funding level and about 30% more than the
Administration’s request. Of that total, $16.46 billion was for State Department operations and
related agencies; $37.92 billion for foreign operations accounts. About 14.7%, or $8.0 billion,
was designated as OCO.
Key Issues for Congress
Department of State and Related Agency Funding6
Overview
The State Department sought to cut funding for the Department of State and Related Agency
category by 18% in FY2019 from FY2018-enacted levels, to $13.26 billion.7 Conversely, both the
House and Senate committee bills sought to maintain funding near previous fiscal year levels.
The House committee bill would have increased funding in this category to $16.38 billion, or 1%
above the FY2018-enacted level. The Senate committee bill would have raised funding to $16.34
billion, around $40 million less than the House committee bill and approximately 0.75% more
than the FY2018-enacted figure.
Similar to the House and Senate committee bills, the FY2019-enacted appropriation (P.L. 116-6)
maintained funding for the State Department and Related Agency category slightly above
FY2018-enacted levels. It provided $16.46 billion for this category, or 1.5% more than the
F2018-enacted level.
The State Department’s request sought to fund the entirety of this category through base (or
enduring) funding. Following passage of the BBA and the resulting increase in discretionary
spending cap levels for FY2018 and FY2019, the State Department moved the $3.69 billion
request for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) in this category into the base budget
request. Both the House and Senate committee bills sought to retain OCO funding within the

6 This section was prepared by Cory Gill, Analyst in Foreign Affairs.
7 The Department of State and Related Agency Appropriation includes State Operations, Contributions to International
Organizations and International Peacekeeping Operations, Function 300 International Commissions, International
Broadcasting, State-related Commissions, and other related organizations. It also includes mandatory payments to the
Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund, which the State Department does not include in its FY2019
calculation. This figure ($13.26 billion for the FY2019 request) is reflected above.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 8 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

Department of State and Related Agency category. The House committee bill would have
provided $3.03 billion for OCO, or around 28% less than the FY2018-enacted figure of $4.18
billion. The Senate committee bill would have provided $4.11 billion, which constituted about 2%
less than FY2018-enacted level. While the House committee bill would have afforded
approximately $1.08 billion less for OCO than the Senate committee bill, the House committee
bill provided around $1.12 billion more in enduring funding ($13.35 billion) than the Senate
committee bill ($12.23 billion).
As with the House and Senate committee bills, P.L. 116-6 retained OCO funding for the
Department of State and Related Agency category. The law provided a total of $4.37 billion for
OCO, or 4.5% more than the FY 2018-enacted figure. While the law provided more for OCO than
either the Senate or House committee bills, it provided less in enduring funding ($12.09 billion).
Areas where the State Department’s proposed cuts were focused included the diplomatic security
accounts (the Worldwide Security Protection programmatic allocation within the Diplomatic
Programs account and, separately, the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance
account), Contributions to International Organizations, and Contributions for International
Peacekeeping Activities. In most cases, P.L. 116-6, in a manner similar to the House and Senate
committee bills, maintained annual budget authority for these accounts closer to the FY2018-
enacted levels than the Administration requested (see following sections for more detailed
analysis).
The State Department also requested $246.2 million to implement the Leadership and
Modernization Impact Initiative, which serves as the implementation phase of the department’s
“Redesign” efforts. While neither the House nor the Senate committee bill directly addressed the
Impact Initiative, both included provisions enabling Congress to conduct oversight of any broader
reorganization efforts at the department. The enacted legislation, P.L. 116-6, took the same
approach.8
Table 3 provides an overview of proposed changes to selected accounts within the State
Department and Related Agency category.
Table 3. State Department and Related Agency: Selected Accounts
(in billions of current U.S. dollars)
% change
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
(FY18 to
House
Senate

Actual
Enacted
Enacted
FY19)
(H.R. 6385) (S. 3108)
Diplomatic Programs
9.68
8.72
9.17
5%
8.80
8.92
Embassy Security,
3.01
2.31
1.98
-14%
2.31
1.92
Construction &
Maintenance
Intl. Orgs / Peacekeeping
3.27
2.85
2.91
2%
2.95
3.12
Intl. Broadcasting
0.79
0.81
0.81
0%
0.81
0.81
Educational and Cultural
0.63
0.65
0.70
8%
0.65
0.69
Exchanges
Related Programs
0.24
0.24
0.25
4%
0.23
0.24
Source: CRS calculations based on Department of State, FY2018 and FY2019 Congressional Budget Justification,
the FY2019 Addendum, and the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, FY2019 (P.L. 116-6).

8 For example, see Section 7073 of Division F, Title VII of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6).
Congressional Research Service

4

Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

Diplomatic Programs
Under the State Department’s budget request, the Diplomatic Programs account, which is the
State Department’s principal operating appropriation, would have declined by 10% from the
FY2018-enacted level of $8.72 billion, to $7.81 billion. According to the State Department, this
account provides funding for “core people, infrastructure, security, and programs that facilitate
productive and peaceful U.S. relations” with foreign governments and international
organizations.9 The House and Senate committee bills would have provided $8.80 billion and
$8.92 billion, respectively, for Diplomatic Programs. For FY2019-enacted, P.L. 116-6 provided
$9.17 billion, or 5% more than the FY2018-enacted figure and 17% more than the State
Department’s request.
In Section 7081 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31), Congress authorized
the establishment of a new “Consular and Border Security Programs” (CBSP) account into which
consular fees shall be deposited for the purposes of administering consular and border security
programs. As a result, consular fees retained by the State Department to fund consular services
will be credited to this new account.10 The State Department thus requested that Congress rename
the former Diplomatic and Consular Programs account “Diplomatic Programs.” However,
because many consular fees are generated and retained by the State Department to administer
consular programs, they do not comprise part of the department’s annual appropriations and
therefore do not count against overall funds appropriated annually for this account.11 The
FY2019-enacted legislation, P.L. 116-6, authorized the renaming of Diplomatic and Consular
Programs to Diplomatic Programs, as did the House and Senate committee bills.
Personnel
The Diplomatic Programs account provides funds for a large share of U.S. direct hire positions,
including but not limited to State Department Foreign Service and Civil Service officers.12
Although the Trump Administration lifted the federal hiring freeze upon issuance of OMB M-17-
22 on April 12, 2017, the State Department elected to keep its own hiring freeze in place.13 The
Department of State released guidance in May 2018 lifting the hiring freeze and allowing the
department to increase staffing to December 31, 2017 levels.
Some Members of Congress expressed concern with the hiring freeze and the continued impacts
of perceived personnel shortages at the Department of State.14 Both the House and Senate

9 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Budget and Planning, Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State,
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, Fiscal Year 2019, February 12, 2018, p. 28.
10 The Department of State notes that Expedited Passport Fees will not be deposited into the CBSP account and will
instead continue to be deposited in the Diplomatic Programs account and support information technology programs.
The department also notes that the portion of Fraud Prevention and Detection (H&L) fees that are made available to the
department will continue to be deposited in the existing H&L account.
11 For an overview of the statutory authorities governing Department of State fee consular collections, see U.S.
Department of State, Bureau of Budget and Planning, Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of
State Diplomatic Engagement, Fiscal Year 2019, March 1, 2018, pp. 17-21.
12 In FY2017, the D&CP account provided funding for 18,105 Foreign Service and Civil Service employees out of the
26,966 funded through the FY2017 budget. See Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State
Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 13.
13 See U.S. Department of State, “Hiring Freeze Information,” https://www.state.gov/m/dghr/flo/c75985.htm, accessed
March 7, 2018.
14 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Bill, 2018, report to accompany S. 1780, 115th Congress, 1st Session, S.Rept. 115-152, p. 6.
Congressional Research Service

5

Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

committee bills, and the committee reports accompanying those bills, included oversight
provisions pertaining to State Department personnel levels.15 In this vein, Section 7073 of P.L.
116-6 required that no appropriated funds may be used to expand or reduce the size of the State
Department and USAID’s Civil Service, Foreign Service, eligible family member, and locally
employed staff workforce from the on-board levels as of December 31, 2017, without
consultation with the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives. Section 7073
also required the Secretary of State to submit reports to Congress, beginning 60 days after
enactment of the law, and every 60 days thereafter until September 30, 2020, regarding the State
Department’s on-board personnel levels, hiring, and attrition of the Civil Service, Foreign
Service, eligible family member, and locally employed staff workforce. These reports were also
required to include a hiring plan for maintaining Foreign Service and Civil Service personnel
numbers at not less than December 31, 2017, levels through FY2019. Among other personnel-
related provisions, the joint explanatory statement accompanying this law noted that keeping
personnel at these levels reflected “minimum necessary hiring” and encouraged the Secretary of
State to work with Congress to increase hiring above such levels as appropriate.16
Diversity
The Human Resources funding category within Diplomatic Programs provides funding for the
Charles B. Rangel International Affairs and Thomas R. Pickering Foreign Affairs fellowship
programs to promote greater diversity in the Foreign Service, as authorized by Section 47 of the
State Department Basic Authorities Act (P.L. 84-885). While Congress required the State
Department to expand the number of fellows participating in the Rangel and Pickering programs
by 10 apiece pursuant to Section 706 of the Department of State Authorities Act, 2017 (P.L. 114-
323), it has provided the department the discretion to fund these programs at levels it deems
appropriate from monies appropriated for Human Resources. P.L. 116-6, like the House and
Senate committee bills, continued to provide such discretion to the State Department. In addition,
the House committee report indicated support for department efforts to increase diversity in
hiring, including through the Rangel and Pickering programs. It also encouraged the Secretary of
State to explore more opportunities to further the goal of increasing workforce diversity.17 The
Senate committee report recommended the continued expansion of the department’s workforce
diversity programs and directed that qualified graduates of the Rangel and Pickering programs
shall be inducted into the Foreign Service.18 While neither P.L. 116-6 nor the accompanying joint
explanatory statement addressed the Rangel and Pickering programs specifically or Foreign
Service diversity more generally, the joint explanatory statement did not negate any of the
language in the House and Senate committee reports.
Overseas Programs
The Diplomatic Programs account also provides funding for a number of overseas programs.
These include programs carried out by the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations and
the department’s regional bureaus. Activities of the department’s Bureau of Medical Services,

15 For example, see Section 7069 of H.R. 6385 and Section 7075 of S. 3108.
16 U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, Making Further Continuing Appropriations for the Department of Homeland
Security for Fiscal Year 2019, for Other Purposes, conference report to accompany H.J.Res.31, 116th Cong., 1st sess.,
H.Rept. 116-9 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2019), p. 875.
17 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, p. 18.
18 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, p. 19.
Congressional Research Service

6

Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

which is responsible for providing health care services to U.S. government employees and their
families assigned to overseas posts, are also funded through this account.19
Public diplomacy programs are among the overseas programs funded through Diplomatic
Programs, which include the Global Engagement Center’s (GEC’s) countering state
disinformation (CSD) program. According to the State Department, planned CSD activities, for
which $20 million was requested, included “coordinating U.S. government efforts in specific sub-
regions; enhancing the capacity of local actors to build resilience against disinformation,
including thwarting attacks on their IT systems; providing attribution of adversarial
disinformation; and convening anti-disinformation practitioners, journalists, and other influencers
to exchange best practices, build networks, and generate support for U.S. efforts against
disinformation.”20 The House committee report registered concern regarding “foreign propaganda
and disinformation that threatens United States national security, especially as carried out by
China, Russia, and extremists groups” and asserted that the GEC “is expected to use a wide range
of technologies and techniques to counter these campaigns,” consistent with its statutory
mandate.21 The Senate committee report recommended up to $75.4 million for the GEC,
including up to $40 million for countering foreign state propaganda and disinformation.22 The
joint explanatory statement accompanying for the FY2019-enacted legislation (P.L. 116-6)
included up to $55.4 million for the GEC up to $20 million for CSD, a funding level for CSD
identical to the department’s request.23 Section 1284 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2019 (P.L. 115-232) authorized the Department of Defense (DOD) to transfer not
more than $60 million to the GEC for each of FY2019 and FY2020; DOD has previously
transferred funds to the GEC under similar authorities.24
Diplomatic Security
The State Department’s FY2019 budget request sought to provide approximately $5.36 billion for
the department’s key embassy security accounts: $3.70 billion for the Worldwide Security
Protection (WSP) programmatic allocation within the Diplomatic Programs account and $1.66
billion for the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account. The House
committee bill would have provided $3.76 billion for WSP and $2.31 billion for ESCM, for a
total funding level of $6.07 billion for these accounts. While the House bill would have funded
the ESCM account exclusively through the base budget, it would have provided approximately
$2.38 billion of overall funding for WSP through OCO. The Senate committee bill would have
provided $3.82 billion for WSP and $1.92 billion for ESCM, for a total funding level of $5.74
billion. As with the House committee measure, the Senate committee bill would have funded the
ESCM account with base budget funds only. For WSP, the Senate committee measure, like the
House committee bill, would provide $2.38 billion of total account funds through OCO.
The FY2019-enacted appropriations provided a total of $4.10 billion for WSP and $1.98 billion
for ESCM, for a total funding level of $6.08 billion in budget authority for these accounts. Like

19 For additional information regarding the scope of overseas programs funded through the D&CP account, see
Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, pp. 29-
30.
20 Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, p. 30.
21 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, p. 16.
22 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, p. 20.
23 U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, p. 827. Funding for similar programs is provided elsewhere in the SFOPS
budget, including the Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs account.
24 These authorities were provided under Section 1287(e) of P.L. 114-328.
Congressional Research Service

7

Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

the House and Senate committee bills, P.L. 116-6 funded ESCM exclusively through the base
budget. Of the $4.10 billion provided for WSP in the law, $2.63 billion was done so through
OCO. Had the Administration’s request been enacted, it would have marked a decline of 2% for
WSP and 28% for ESCM relative to the FY2018-enacted figures of approximately $3.76 billion
and $2.31 billion, respectively. The enacted legislation provided 9% more funding for WSP and
15% less for ESCM relative to FY2018 levels.
Over the past several years, Congress has provided no-year appropriations for both WSP and
ESCM, thereby authorizing the State Department to indefinitely retain appropriated funds beyond
the fiscal year for which they were appropriated. As a result, the department has carried over large
balances of unexpired, unobligated funds each year that it is authorized to obligate for programs
within both accounts when it deems appropriate to do so. For example, for FY2018, the State
Department carried over more than $7.6 billion in previously appropriated funds for ESCM.25
Both the House and Senate committee bills would have continued this practice with respect to
WSP, and the Senate committee bill would have continued with respect to ESCM, as well. The
House committee bill, if enacted, would have provided that all funds appropriated for ESCM
remained available until September 30, 2023, rather than indefinitely. P.L. 116-6 provided no-year
appropriations for WSP. For ESCM, the law stipulated that while funds for worldwide security
upgrades and for purposes of acquisition and construction would remain available until expended,
all other monies within this account (such as funds for preserving, maintaining, repairing, and
planning for real property that State Department owns) would remain available only until
September 30, 2023.
Worldwide Security Protection
The Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) allocation within the Diplomatic Programs account
supports the Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s (DS’s) implementation of security programs located
at over 275 overseas posts and 125 domestic offices of the State Department, including a
worldwide guard force protecting overseas diplomatic posts, residences, and domestic offices.
The State Department revisited previous assumptions for funding for the U.S. security presence,
which prompted it to ask for a rescission of $301.20 million for WSP OCO funds provided
through the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 (SAAA) (P.L.
114-254).26 State Department officials noted that this funding was “intended to support diplomatic
reengagements in Syria, Libya, and Yemen that were predicated on different security and political
conditions.” The department maintained that this proposed cancellation was based on evolving
security and political conditions, and would not affect DS operations.27 While neither the House
nor the Senate committee bill included a rescission, P.L. 116-6 provided for a rescission of $301.2
million of SAAA funds appropriated for Diplomatic Programs and designated them more
generally for OCO.28

25 The White House, Office of Management and Budget, An American Budget: Efficient, Effective, Accountable, Fiscal
Year 2019, Appendix, p. 777.
26 Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, pp. 31-
32.
27 Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 2.
28 See Division F, Title VIII, Section 8004 of P.L. 116-6.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 13 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance
The Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account funds the Bureau of
Overseas Building Operations (OBO), which is responsible for providing U.S. diplomatic and
consular missions overseas with secure, safe, and functional facilities.
The State Department’s request included $869.54 million to provide its share of what it maintains
is the $2.20 billion in annual funding that the Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB)
recommended for the Capital Security Cost Sharing (CSCS) and Maintenance Cost Sharing
(MCS) programs (the remainder of the funding is provided through consular fee revenues and
contributions from other agencies).29 These programs are used to fund the planning, design, and
construction of new overseas posts and the maintenance of existing diplomatic facilities. The
House committee report maintained that funds the House bill made available for ESCM would
allow for the State Department’s CSCS and MCS contributions, when combined with those from
other agencies and consular fees, to exceed the ARB’s annual recommended funding and support
“the accelerated multi-year program to construct new secure replacement facilities for the most
vulnerable embassies and consulates.”30 The Senate committee bill stipulated that of funds made
available for ESCM by it and prior acts making appropriations for SFOPS, not less than $1.02
billion shall be made available for the department’s FY2019 CSCS and MCS contributions; the
joint explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 116-6 indicated that Congress provided the same
amount for this purpose for FY2019.31
In FY2019, OBO intended to fund four CSCS projects and one MCS project (see Table 4).32 The
House committee report noted concern with the cost of new embassy and consulate compound
projects, including ongoing projects in Beirut, Lebanon; Mexico City, Mexico; New Delhi, India;
Erbil, Iraq; and Jakarta, Indonesia. Like Section 7004(h) of the House bill, as noted in the joint
explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 116-6, Congress mandated that the State Department
provide more detailed reports regarding the costs of these projects than previously required.33
Table 4. FY2019 Capital Security Cost Sharing and Maintenance Cost Sharing
Project List
(in thousands of U.S. dollars)
Capital Security Cost Sharing
1,852,000
Bangkok, Thailand New Office Annex
610,000
Jerusalem
TBD
Podgorica, Montenegro New Embassy Compound
261,000
Nassau, Bahamas New Embassy Compound
257,000
Site Acquisition, Project Development, and Design
300,000
Maintenance Cost Sharing
353,000
Moscow, Russia
163,000
Project Development and Design
40,000

29 This portion of the ESCM request is detailed in Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State
Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 253.
30 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, p. 22.
31 U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, pp. 829-830.
32 Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 253.
33 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, p. 23; U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, p. 850.
Congressional Research Service

9

Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

Maintenance and Repair
150,000
CSCS-MCS Reimbursements (other agency
(1,335,463)
contributions and consular fee revenues)
Total State Department share
869,537
Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Budget and Planning, Congressional Budget Justification Appendix
1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, Fiscal Year 2019, p. 253.
Note: TBD = to be determined.
The State Department maintained that the “construction of a new U.S. Embassy facility in
Jerusalem is a high priority for the Administration ... planning and interagency coordination for
the Jerusalem Embassy move is ongoing and the department intends to realign CSCS project
funding, as necessary, to execute this project.”34 It later attached a timeframe to its intent, and the
United States opened a new U.S. embassy in Jerusalem in May 2018. This new embassy is
located in a building that housed consular operations of the former U.S. Consulate General in
Jerusalem. The State Department has said that one of its next steps would be to construct an
embassy annex to the current building, while also considering options for a permanent embassy
over the long term.35 The department could choose to draw upon the unexpired, unobligated funds
previously appropriated by Congress to the ESCM account for any construction expenses related
to interim and permanent embassy facilities in Jerusalem.36 The Senate committee report requires
the Secretary of State to “regularly inform the Committee” on the status of plans for a permanent
New Embassy Compound in Jerusalem.37 Neither P.L. 116-6 nor its joint explanatory statement
addresses this issue or negates the Senate committee report language.
International Organizations
The State Department’s FY2019 budget request included a combined request of $2.29 billion for
the Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) and Contributions for International
Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) accounts, a 20% reduction from the FY2018-enacted figures for
these accounts. The CIO account is the source for funding for annual U.S. assessed contributions
to 45 international organizations, including the United Nations and its affiliated organizations and
other international organizations, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).38 The
State Department’s FY2019 request for CIO totaled approximately $1.10 billion. Following
passage of the BBA, the department increased its request for CIO by approximately $100 million
to fund a higher U.S. contribution to the U.N. regular budget at a rate of 20% of the overall U.N.
budget (the U.S. assessment is 22%). According to the department, U.N. assessments of U.S.
contributions to the United Nations and its affiliated agencies exceeded the request for funds to
pay these contributions.39 Therefore, if the department’s request was enacted, the United States
may have accumulated arrears to some organizations.

34 Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 253.
35 In July 2018, the State Department contracted with a U.S. firm for approximately $21.2 million to build a 700
square-meter expansion of the current embassy building—with half of the expansion to occur below ground and half of
it to enlarge the existing second floor. The contract lasts until April 2020. For more detail, see CRS Report R44245,
Israel: Background and U.S. Relations in Brief, by Jim Zanotti.
36 For more information, see CRS Insight IN10838, Jerusalem: U.S. Recognition as Israel’s Capital and Planned
Embassy Move, by Jim Zanotti
37 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, p. 26.
38 Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 280.
39 Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, p. 55.
Congressional Research Service

10

Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

The Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account provides U.S.
funding for U.N. peacekeeping missions around the world that the State Department says “seek to
maintain or restore international peace and security.”40 The State Department’s FY2019 request
for CIPA totaled $1.20 billion. According to the department, this request “reflects the
Administration’s commitment to seek reduced costs by reevaluating the mandates, design, and
implementation of peacekeeping missions and sharing the funding burden more fairly among
U.N. members.”41 Under this request, no U.S. contribution would have exceeded 25% of all
assessed contributions for a single operation, which is the cap established in Section 404(b) of the
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (P.L. 103-236).
The State Department maintained that it expected that the “unfunded portion of U.S. assessed
expenses will be met through a combination of a reduction in the U.S. assessed rate of
contributions, reductions in the number of U.N. peacekeeping missions, and significant
reductions in the budgets of peacekeeping missions across the board.”42 The department also
requested that Congress provide two-year funds for CIPA (in other words, that Congress make
funds available for both the fiscal year for which the funds were appropriated and the subsequent
fiscal year) “due to the demonstrated unpredictability of the requirements in this account from
year to year and the nature of multi-year operations that have mandates overlapping U.S. fiscal
years.”43
The House committee bill would have provided $1.36 billion for CIO and $1.59 billion for CIPA,
for a combined total of $2.95 billion for these accounts, which was 29% higher than the
department’s request and 4% higher than the FY2018-enacted figure. The Senate committee bill
would have provided $1.44 billion for CIO and $1.68 billion for CIPA, for a combined total of
$3.12 billion. This figure was 36% higher than the department’s request and 9% higher than the
FY2018-enacted number. The Senate committee bill included a provision not present in recent
appropriations laws mandating that funds appropriated for CIO “are made available to pay not
less than the full fiscal year 2019 United States assessment for each respective international
organization.” With regard to CIPA, both the House and Senate committee reports noted that
appropriated monies were intended to support an assessed peacekeeping cost at the statutory level
of 25% rather than the U.N. assessed rate for the United States of 28.4%.44 Both committee
reports called on the department to review peacekeeping missions for cost savings and work to
renegotiate rates of assessment.45
For FY2019, P.L. 116-6 provided $1.36 billion for CIO and $1.56 billion for CIPA, for a total of
$2.92 billion, slightly less than both the House and Senate committee bills. This figure was still
2% higher than the FY2018-enacted figure and 28% higher than the department’s request. While
the law did not include the aforementioned Senate committee bill provision regarding payment of
full U.S. assessments for organizations funded through the CIO account, the law’s joint
explanatory statement noted that it assumed the payment of the full United States assessment for
each relevant organization (with some exceptions, including organizations from which the United

40 Ibid., p. 311.
41 Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, p. 58.
42 Congressional Budget Justification Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, FY2019, p. 311.
43 Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, p. 59.
44 The 25% cap was enacted in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (P.L. 103-236),
April 30, 1994. For more information, see CRS Report R45206, U.S. Funding to the United Nations System: Overview
and Selected Policy Issues, by Luisa Blanchfield.
45 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, p. 29; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, p.
29.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 16 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

States has withdrawn) and required the Secretary of State to consult with the Committees on
Appropriations with respect to any decision not to provide the full assessment for any such
organization. With respect to CIPA, the joint explanatory statement noted that sufficient funds are
provided for contributions to peacekeeping missions at the statutory level of 25%.46 The enacted
legislation, like the House and Senate committee bills, provided a share of CIPA funds as two-
year funds, as requested by the department.
Leadership and Modernization Impact Initiative
The State Department requested $246.2 million for FY2019 to implement the Leadership and
Modernization Impact Initiative (hereinafter, the Impact Initiative). The Impact Initiative
constitutes the implementation phase of the State Department’s “Redesign” project. Former
Secretary Tillerson initiated the redesign in 2017 to implement Executive Order 13781 and Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-17-22, which aim to “improve the
efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch.”47
The Impact Initiative constitutes 16 keystone modernization projects in three focus areas:
Modernizing Information Technology and Human Resources Operations; Modernizing Global
Presence, and Creating and Implementing Policy; and Improving Operational Efficiencies (see
Table 5). According to the State Department, these focus areas and modernization projects are
derived from the results of the listening tour that former Secretary Tillerson launched in May
2017, which included interviews conducted with approximately 300 individuals that the
department said comprised a representative cross-section of its broader workforce, and a survey
completed by 35,000 department personnel that asked them to discuss the means they use to help
complete the department’s mission and obstacles they encounter in the process.
Table 5. Impact Initiative Focus Areas and Keystone Projects
Modernizing Global Presence,
Modernizing IT and HR
and Creating and
Improving Operational
Operations
Implementing Policy
Efficiencies
Workforce Readiness
Improve U.S. Government Global
Assess Human Resources Service
Presence Governance
Delivery
Improve Performance Management
Develop and Implement a National
Real Property—Moving to One
Interest Global Presence Model
Real Property Function and
Implementing Internal and External
Process Improvements
Real-Time Col aboration and Work
Expand Post Archetype Options
Acquisition—Assessing Service
Anytime, Anywhere
Delivery and Expanding Strategic
Sourcing Opportunities
Information Technology
Improve Efficiency and Results of

State and USAID Internal Policy and
Decision-Making Processes and
Interagency Engagement

46 U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, p. 831.
47 Executive Order 13781 of March 13, 2017, “Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch,” 82 F.R.
13959, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/16/2017-05399/comprehensive-plan-for-reorganizing-the-
executive-branch; Office of Management and Budget, “M-17-22, Comprehensive Plan for Reforming the Federal
Government and Reducing the Federal Civilian Workforce,” April 12, 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2017/M-17-22.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

12

Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

Modernizing Global Presence,
Modernizing IT and HR
and Creating and
Improving Operational
Operations
Implementing Policy
Efficiencies
Improve Enterprise-wide Data
Define and Improve Budget

Availability
Processes for Foreign Assistance
Build Capacity and Data Literacy

Broaden and Enhance Access to

Data and Analytics
Increase Global Awareness of Data

Assets
Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Budget and Planning, Congressional Budget Justification:
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, Fiscal Year 2019, pp. 7-16.
Of the $246.2 million requested, $150.0 million was requested from the IT Central Fund (which
is funded through funds appropriated by Congress to the Capital Investment Fund account and,
separately, expedited passport fees) and $96.2 million from the D&CP account to implement
modernization projects. Proceeds from the IT Central Fund were intended to implement projects
focused on IT, including modernizing existing IT infrastructure, systems, and applications based
on a roadmap to be created in FY2018 and centralizing management of all WiFi networks. Funds
from the D&CP account were intended to implement modernization projects focusing on Human
Resources issues, including leadership development, management services consolidation, data
analytics, and workforce readiness initiatives.
Like the House and the Senate committee bills and reports, neither P.L.116-6 nor the joint
explanatory statement accompanying the law specifically mentioned the Impact Initiative by
name. However, both the law and the joint explanatory statement included provisions explicitly
prohibiting the Department of State from using appropriated funds to implement a reorganization
without prior consultation, notification, and reporting to Congress (for example, see Section 7073
of P.L. 116-6) .48 Like the Senate committee bill, P.L. 116-6 stated that no funds appropriated for
SFOPs may be used to “downsize, downgrade, consolidate, close, move, or relocate” the State
Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration.49
Foreign Assistance50
Overview
Foreign operations accounts, together with food aid appropriated through the Agriculture
appropriations bill, constitute the foreign aid component of the international affairs budget. These
accounts fund bilateral economic aid, humanitarian assistance, security assistance, multilateral
aid, and export promotion programs. For FY2019, the Administration requested $28.60 billion for
foreign aid programs within the international affairs (function 150) budget, about 28% less than
the FY2018 funding level. None of the requested funds were designated as OCO. The FY2019-
enacted appropriation provided $37.92 billion for foreign operations account, including $3.63
billion designated as OCO. Together with food aid accounts in the Agriculture appropriation, total
enacted foreign aid within the international affairs budget was $39.85 billion, or 0.2% below the

48 For example, see Sections 7015, 7075, and 7076 of the S. 3108 and Sections 7015 and 7069 of H.R. 6385.
49 See Section 7073(b)(3) of Division F, Title VII of P.L. 116-6.
50 This section prepared by Marian Lawson, Specialist in Foreign Assistance.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 18 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

FY2018-enacted funding level and 39% above the FY2019 request. Table 6 shows foreign aid
funding by type for FY2017, FY2018 enacted, and the FY2019 request, committee-approved
legislation, and enacted legislation.
Table 6. Foreign Aid by Appropriations Type, FY2017, FY2018 Enacted, and FY2019
Request and Committee-approved Legislation
(in billions of current U.S. dollars)
% change,
House
FY2019
% change,
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019 FY18 to FY19 (H.R.
Senate
enacted
FY18 to FY19

actual
enacted request
request
6385)
(S. 3108)
(P.L. 116-6)
enacted
USAID Administration
1.63
1.62
1.38
-15%
1.62
1.76
1.67
+3.4%
Bilateral Economic Assistance
(includes Treasury technical assistance,
McGovern-Dole, excludes independent
agencies)
18.01
16.99
11.88
-30%
16.68
17.16
16.92
-0.4%
Humanitarian Assistance
(includes P.L. 480 food aid)
9.44
9.36
6.36
-32%
9.15
9.53
9.53
-0.5%
Independent Agencies
1.37
1.38
1.20
-13%
1.37
1.37
1.37
+0.0%
Security Assistance
9.31
9.03
7.30
-19%
9.27
8.79
9.15
+1.4%
Multilateral Assistance
2.08
1.86
1.42
-24%
1.73
1.88
1.86
0.0%
Export Promotion
-0.17
-0.31
-0.95
206%
-0.35
-0.33
-0.34
+8.2%
Foreign Aid Total, Function 150
41.66
39.91
28.60
-28%
39.50
40.19
39.85
-0.2%
Source: FY2018 and FY2019 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Congressional
Budget Justification and FY2019 Addendum; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 116-6; CRS calculations. Note that P.L. 480 and
McGovern-Dole are part of the 150 function, but are not within SFOPS appropriations.
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Account Mergers and Eliminations. The Administration aimed to simplify the foreign
operations budget in part by channeling funds through fewer accounts and eliminating certain
programs. These account mergers and eliminations were also proposed in the FY2018 budget
request
 Under bilateral economic assistance, the Development Assistance (DA),
Economic Support Fund (ESF), Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia
(AEECA) and Democracy Fund (DF) accounts were zero funded in the FY2019
request. Programs currently funded through these accounts would have been
funded through a new Economic Support and Development Fund (ESDF)
account. The proposed funding level for ESDF, $5.063 billion, was more than
36% below the FY2018 funding for the accounts it would have replaced. Fifteen
countries that received DA, ESF, or AEECA in FY2017 would no longer have
received funding from these accounts or from ESDF under the FY2019 request.
 Within multilateral assistance, the International Organizations & Programs
(IO&P) account, which funds U.S. voluntary contributions to many U.N. entities,
including UNICEF, U.N. Development Program, and UN Women, would also
have been zeroed out. Budget documents suggested that some unspecified
activities currently funded through IO&P could have received funding through
the ESDF or other accounts.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 21 link to page 20 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

 Related to humanitarian assistance, the P.L. 480 Title II food aid account in the
Agriculture appropriation would have been zero-funded and all food assistance
would have been funded through the International Disaster Assistance (IDA)
account, which would have nevertheless declined by about 17% from FY2018-
enacted funding (see “Humanitarian Assistance” section below). The Emergency
Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) account would have been subsumed
into the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account.
Closeout of Inter-American Foundation and U.S.-Africa Development Foundation. The
FY2019 request proposed to terminate the Inter-American Foundation (IAF) and the U.S.-Africa
Development Foundation (ADF), independent entities that implement small U.S. assistance
grants, often in remote communities. The Administration proposed to consolidate all small grant
programs aimed at reaching the poor under USAID, as a means of improving their integration
with larger development programs and U.S. foreign policy objectives, as well as improving
efficiency. Funds were requested for IAF and ADF only for the purposes of an orderly closeout.
Development Finance Institution. The Administration requested, for the first time in FY2019,
the consolidation of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and USAID’s
Development Credit Authority (DCA) into a new standalone Development Finance Institution
(DFI). The request called for $96 million for administrative expenses and $38 million for credit
subsidies for DFI, but assumed that these expenses would be more than offset by collections,
resulting in a net income of $460 million (based on OPIC’s projected offsetting collections). In
addition, $56 million in ESDF funds would have been used to support DFI activities. The
Administration sought congressional authority for the new standalone entity, which it described
as a means of incentivizing private sector investment in development and improving the
efficiency of U.S. development finance programs.
Both the House and Senate committee bills, as well as the enacted FY2019 appropriation,
rejected these account changes, with the exception of the elimination of the ERMA account,
which the House bill eliminated and the Senate and final bill funded with $1 million. All the
FY2019 SFOPS legislation, including P.L. 116-6, used the same bilateral account structure used
for FY2018, not a new ESDF, and funded IAF and ADF at the FY2018 levels. Prior to enactment
of the final FY2019 SFOPS appropriation, Congress passed the BUILD Act (P.L. 115-254), which
authorized the establishment of a new International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC),
consistent with the Administration’s DFI proposal. The IDFC is expected to become operational
near the end of FY2019, and P.L. 116-6 made FY2019 appropriations for OPIC and DCA using
the same account structure as in prior years, but authorized $5 million in the OPIC noncredit
account to be used for transition costs.
Top Foreign Assistance Recipients
Top Country Recipients. Under the FY2019 request, top foreign assistance recipients would not
have changed significantly, continuing to include strategic allies in the Middle East (Israel, Egypt,
Jordan) and major global health and development partners in Africa (see Table 7). Israel would
have seen an increase of $200 million from FY2017, reflecting a new 10-year security assistance
Memorandum of Understanding. Zambia and Uganda would both have seen an 11% increase. All
other top recipients would have seen reduced aid in FY2019 compared with FY2017
(comprehensive FY2018 country allocations were not yet available), though unallocated global
health and humanitarian funds (added to the request after passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2018) may have changed these totals.
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 22

Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

Figure 1 and Table 7 show the requested FY2019 foreign operations budget allocations by region
and country.
Figure 1. FY2019 Foreign
Table 7. Top 15 Recipients of U.S. Foreign
Operations Request, by Region
Assistance, FY2019 Request
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
1. Israel
3,300

9. Nigeria
352
2. Egypt
1,381

10. Pakistan
336
3. Jordan
1,275

11. Colombia
265
4. Afghanistan
633

12. Mozambique
252
5. Kenya
624

13. West Bank/Gaza
251
6. Tanzania
553

14. Ethiopia
227
7. Uganda
461

15. South Africa
226

8. Zambia
440

Source: Data for both figures is from FY2019 budget rol -out documents provided by the State Department.
Does not include administrative funds, Mil ennium Challenge Corporation, humanitarian assistance, or food aid.
Notes: WH = Western Hemisphere; SCA = South Central Asia; EE = Europe and Eurasia; EAP = East Asia and
Pacific; SS Africa = Sub-Saharan Africa; MENA = Middle East and North Africa.
Under the FY2019 request, foreign assistance for every region would have been reduced
compared to FY2018 funding. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and Sub-
Saharan Africa would continue to be the top regional recipients, together comprising nearly 80%
of aid allocated by region (Figure 2). Proposed cuts ranged from 61% in Europe and Eurasia to
2% in the MENA. Aid to Sub-Saharan Africa would have declined by 31%, aid to East Asia and
Pacific cut nearly in half (51%), South and Central Asia by about 4% and Western Hemisphere by
35%.
The House bill (H.R. 6385) and accompanying report did not provide comprehensive country and
regional allocations, but did specify aid levels for some countries and regional programs,
including Israel ($3.300 billion), Egypt ($1.457 billion), Jordan ($1.525 billion), Ukraine ($441
million), the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America ($595 million), and the
Countering Russian Influence Funds ($250 million).
The Senate bill (S.3108) and report specified aid allocations for several countries and regional
programs, including Israel ($3.300 billion), Egypt ($1.082 billion), Jordan ($1.525 billion), Iraq
($429 million), West Bank & Gaza ($286 million), Afghanistan ($698 million), Pakistan ($271
million), Colombia ($391 million), Ukraine $426 million), U.S. Strategy for Engagement in
Central America ($515 million) and the Countering Russian Influence Fund ($300 million).
The enacted legislation, P.L. 116-6, and the accompanying explanatory statement, specified
FY2019 aid levels for several countries, including Israel ($3.300 billion), Egypt ($1.419 billion),
Jordan ($1.525 billion), Iraq ($407 million), Colombia ($418 million), Mexico ($163 million),
and Ukraine ($446 million), as well as for the U.S. Strategy for engagement in Central America
($528 million) and the Countering Russian Influence Fund ($275 million).
Budget Highlights
The budget submission did not identify any new foreign assistance initiatives. The FY2019
request called for decreases in foreign aid funding generally while continuing to prioritize the aid
Congressional Research Service

16

Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

sectors that have long made up the bulk of U.S. foreign assistance: global health, humanitarian,
and security assistance.
Global Health
The Administration requested $6.70 billion for global health programs in FY2019.51 This was a
23% reduction from the FY2018 funding level, yet global health programs would have increased
slightly as a proportion of the foreign aid budget, from 22% of total aid in FY2018 to 23% in the
FY2019 request, due to deeper proposed cuts elsewhere. HIV/AIDS programs, for which funding
would have been cut about 27% from FY2018-enacted levels, would have continued to make up
the bulk (69%) of global health funding, as it has since the creation of the President’s Emergency
Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 2004. Family planning and reproductive health services (for
which the Administration proposed no funding for FY2018) would have received $302 million, a
42% reduction from FY2018 funding. Assistance levels would have been reduced for every health
sector compared to FY2018, including maternal and child health (-25%), tuberculosis (-31%),
malaria (-11%), neglected tropical diseases (-25%), global health security (-0.1%, funded through
a proposed repurposing of FY2015 Ebola emergency funds), and nutrition (-37%).
The House committee bill included $8.69 billion for global health programs, the same as FY2018
funding. While total funding would remain the same, the House proposal would have reduced
funding for family planning and reproductive health by about 12% compared to FY2018 while
slightly increasing funding for polio, nutrition and maternal and child health, and more than
doubling funding for global health security and emerging threats. The Senate committee bill
would have funded global health programs $8.792 billion, 1.2% above the FY2018 level. No
subsectors would have received reduced funding and allocations for tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS,
family planning, nutrition, neglected tropical diseases and vulnerable children would all have
increased slightly. While both bills included long-standing language preventing the use of
appropriated funds to pay for abortions, the House bill, but not the Senate bill, also included a
provision prohibiting aid to any foreign nongovernmental organizations that “promotes or
performs” voluntary abortion, with some exceptions, regardless of the source of funding for such
activities.52
P.L. 116-6 provides $8.84 billion for global health programs for FY2019, a 1.7% increase over
FY2018 funding. Every health subsector was funded at the same or slightly higher level than in
FY2018.
Humanitarian Assistance
The Trump Administration’s FY2019 budget request for humanitarian assistance totaled $6.358
billion, which was roughly 32% less than FY2018-enacted funding ($9.361 billion) and about
22% of the total FY2019 foreign aid request. The request included $2,800.4 million for the
Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account (-17% from FY2018) and $3,557.4 million for

51 This includes $400 million noted in the addendum of the budget following enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2018 but not reflected in all of the budget materials. Funding levels in this section reflect the Global Health Programs
appropriations account and many not include global health activities funded through other accounts.
52 Section 7056(b) of H.R. 6385. This controversial policy, commonly called the “Mexico City Policy” but referred to
by the Trump Administration as the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) plan, has a long history.
Despite not being included in the FY2018 SFOPS appropriation, this policy is currently in effect as a result of a
presidential memorandum. For more on this issue, see CRS Report R41360, Abortion and Family Planning-Related
Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law and Policy, by Luisa Blanchfield.
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 22 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account (-17%) (Figure 2).53 As in its FY2018
request, the Administration proposed to eliminate the Food for Peace (P.L. 480, Title II) and
Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) accounts, asserting that the activities
supported through these accounts can be more efficiently and effectively funded through the IDA
and MRA accounts, respectively. (Congress did not adopt the proposed changes to Food for Peace
for FY2018, appropriating $1.716 billion for the account through the Agriculture appropriation,
but did appropriate only $1 million for ERMA, a 98% reduction from FY2017 funding.) The
Administration also sought authority to transfer and merge IDA and MRA base funds (current
authority only applies to OCO-designated funds).
Figure 2. Humanitarian Assistance, FY2013-FY2019 Enacted
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
FFP
4,000
IDA
2,000
ERMA
0
MRA

Source: Annual international affairs Congressional Budget Justifications, P.L. 116-6.
Notes: FFP = P.L. 480, Title II; IDA = International Disaster Assistance; ERMA = Emergency Refugee and
Migration Assistance; MRA = Migration and Refugee Assistance.
The Administration described its IDA request as focused “on crises at the forefront of U.S.
security interests, such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan.”54 The MRA
request focused on “conflict displacement in Afghanistan, Burma, Iraq, Somalia, South Sudan,
Syria and Yemen,” as well as strengthening bilateral relationships with “key refugee hosting
countries such as Kenya, Turkey, Jordan, Ethiopia and Bangladesh.”55 Consistent with last year,
the request suggested that the proposed funding reduction assumes that other donors will shoulder
an increased share of the overall humanitarian assistance burden worldwide.
The House committee bills proposed $9.145 billion for humanitarian assistance accounts, about
2% less than FY2018 funding. The total included $1.5 billion for Food for Peace from the
Agriculture appropriation but would not have funded the ERMA account. The Senate committee
bills proposed $9.534 billion for humanitarian assistance, about 2% more than FY2018 funding.
The total included $1.716 billion for Food for Peace and $1 million for the ERMA account.
Neither bill included language authorizing broad transfers and mergers between the IDA and

53 This IDA total includes $1.0 billion noted in the addendum to the budget request, reflecting additional budget
authority made available by enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018.
54 Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, FY2019, p. 87.
55 Ibid., p. 99.
Congressional Research Service

18

Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

MRA base funding account, though both bills include provisions allowing for the transfer and
merger of funds from several accounts, including IDA and MRA, as an extraordinary measure in
response to a severe international infectious disease outbreak.56
As in FY2018, Congress did not adopt the significant humanitarian aid changes proposed by the
Administration. P.L. 116-6 provided a total of $9.534 billion for humanitarian assistance in
FY2019, almost level with FY2018 funding (-0.5%), of which about 21% was designated as
OCO. This total included $3.434 billion in MRA funds, $1 million for ERMA, and $4.385 billion
for IDA in the SFOPS division of the bill, as well as $1.716 billion for Food for Peace in the
Agriculture division.
Security Assistance
The FY2019 security assistance request within foreign operations accounts totaled $7.304 billion,
a 19% reduction from the FY2018-enacted funding level and about 26% of the total foreign aid
request. Consistent with recent years, 63% of the entire security assistance request was for FMF
aid to Israel and Egypt. However, six countries were identified in the request as joint Department
of Defense (DOD) and State Department security sector assistance priorities: Philippines,
Vietnam, Ukraine, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Colombia.
The International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account would have been
reduced by about 36% from FY2018-enacted levels, Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining
and Related (NADR) by 21%, and International Military Education and Training (IMET) by
about 14%. In each of these cases, the Administration described the proposed reductions as
concentrating resources where they offer the most value and U.S. national security impact. As in
the FY2018 request, the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account, which supports most non-U.N.
multilateral peacekeeping and regional stability operations, including U.S. training and equipment
for African militaries and funding for the U.N. Support Office in Somalia (UNSOS), would have
seen the biggest reduction (-46%) under the FY2019 request. This is because Administrations
generally request UNSOS funds through the CIPA account, while Congress usually funds the
office through the PKO account.
The Foreign Military Financing (FMF) account would have been reduced by 13% compared to
FY2018, with specific allocations for 11 countries and a proposed $75 million Global Fund to be
allocated flexibly. This was a notable change from the FY2018 FMF request, in which funds were
allocated to four countries and a larger global fund, and from FY2018-enacted funding, for which
allocations were specified for more than 20 countries.
The House committee bill would have provided $9.274 billion for security assistance, a 3%
increase over FY2018 funding, with funding increases proposed for the INCLE (+7%) and FMF
(+4%) accounts and a reduction proposed for the PKO account (-9%). Consistent with the
request, and in contrast to recent year appropriations, no security assistance funding in the House
committee bill was designated as OCO.
The Senate committee bill included $8.789 billion for security assistance programs, a 2.6% total
decrease from FY2018 funding. The INCLE account would have increased by 2.6% while the
FMF and PKO accounts would be reduced by 3% and 11%, respectively. About 16% of the
security assistance funding in the Senate bill was designated as OCO.
In the final FY2019 appropriation, P.L. 116-6, security assistance funding totaled $9.153 billion, a
1.4% increase from FY2018. Of the total, $555 million within the PKO and FMF accounts (6% of

56 S. 3108, Section 7058(c)(1); House committee bill Section 7058(d)(1).
Congressional Research Service

19

Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

total security funding) was designated as OCO. Funding provided for most accounts was similar
to FY2018 levels, with the exception of INCLE, which increased by 9.4% in part to support
increased efforts to address the flow of illegal opioids, and PKO, for which funding decreased by
about 9.2%.
Economic Development Assistance
Bilateral economic development assistance is the broad category that includes programs focused
on education, agricultural development and food security, good governance and democracy
promotion, microfinance, environmental management, and other sectors. While the majority of
this aid is implemented by USAID, it also includes the programs carried out by the independent
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), Peace Corps, Inter-American Foundation and the
U.S.-Africa Development Foundation. Excluding global health assistance, bilateral economic
development assistance in the Administration’s FY2019 request totaled $6.354 billion, a 33%
reduction from FY2018 funding levels. Proposed FY2019 allocations for key sectors, compared
with FY2018 levels prescribed in legislation, included the following:
 food security, $518 million (-48% from FY2018);
 democracy promotion programs, $1,235 million (-47% from FY2018); and
 education, $512 million (-51% from FY2018).
The Administration requested $800 million for MCC and $396 million for Peace Corps,
representing cuts of 12% and 3%, respectively. As discussed above, the budget request also
proposed to merge I-AF and USADF into USAID, and requested only small amounts of funding
to close out their independent activities.
The House committee bill would have provided $9.383 billion for economic development
assistance and specified allocations for several development sectors, including education ($1.035
billion), conservation programs ($360 million), food security and agricultural development
($1.001 million), microenterprise and microfinance ($265 million), water and sanitation ($400
million) and democracy programs ($2.4 billion).The Senate committee bill would have provided
$9.764 billion for economic development activities and specifies allocations for education ($750
million), environment and renewable energy ($943 million), food security and agricultural
development ($1.001 billion), small and micro credit ($265 million), water and sanitation ($435
million), and democracy programs ($2.4 billion), among others. Both the House and Senate bills
would have funded the I-AF, USADF, Peace Corp and MCC at the FY2018 funding level, and
both bills explicitly rejected the Administration’s proposal to merge I-AF and USADF into
USAID.
The enacted appropriation for FY2019, P.L. 116-6, provided about $9.239 billion for nonhealth
economic development aid. Minimum allocations specified for key sectors included $1.035
billion for education (basic and higher), $285 million for biodiversity conservation, $125 million
for sustainable landscapes, $1.001 billion for food security and agricultural development, $265
million to support micro and small enterprises, $67 million to combat trafficking in persons, and
$435 million for water and sanitation programs. The independent agencies were all funded at the
same level as in FY2018.

Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 29
Appendix A. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, by Account
Table A-1. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2018 Enacted and FY2019 Request, House and
Senate Committee Reported bill, and Enacted.
(in millions of current U.S. dollars; numbers in parenthesis are the portion of the account totals designated as OCO)

% change
FY2019
FY2019
FY2019
% change
FY2018
FY2019
FY2019 Req. vs.
House
Senate
Enacted
FY2019 Enacted vs.

Actual
Request
FY2018 Actual
(H.R. 6385)
(S. 3108)
(P.L. 116-6)
FY2018 Enacted
Title I. State, Broadcasting & Related
16,219.41
13,262.41
-18.23%
16,382.69
16,340.78
16,456.67
1.46%
Agencies, TOTAL
(4,179.55)
(3,030.87)
(4,107.77)
(4,365.77)
Administration of Foreign Affairs, Subtotal
12,169.87
10,092.28
-17.07%
12,243.87
12,005.61
12,328.53
1.30%
(3,115.85)
(3,030.87)
(3,044.07)
(3,280.87)
Diplomatic & Consular Program
8,720.41
7,812.74
-10.41%
8,797.41
8,920.41
9,173.92
5.20%
(2,975.97)
(2,975.97)
(2,975.97)
(3,225.97)
(of which Worldwide Security Protection)
[3,756.87]
[3,698.12]
[-1.56%]
[3,759.87]
[3,817.90]
[4,095.90]
[9.02%]
(2,376.12)
(2,376.12)
(2,376.12)
(2,626.12)
Capital Investment Fund
103.40
92.77
-10.28%
103.40
92.77
92.77
-10.28%
Embassy Security, Construction &
2,314.47
1,657.54
-28.38%
2,311.47
1,916.40
1,975.45
-14.65%
Maintenance
(71.78)
(of which Worldwide Security Upgrades)
[1,477.24]
[919.54]
-37.08%
[1,546.02]
[1,126.30]
[777.20]
-47.39%
Ed. & Cultural Exchanges
646.14
159.00
-76.94%
646.14
690.59
700.95
8.48%
Office of Inspector General
145.73
142.20
-2.42%
145.73
145.73
145.73
0%
(68.1)
(54.90)
(68.10)
(54.90)
Representation Expenses
8.03
7.00
-12.83%
8.03
8.03
8.03
0%
Protection of Foreign Missions & Officials
30.89
25.89
-16.19%
30.89
30.89
30.89
0%
Emergency-Diplomatic & Consular Services
7.89
7.89
0.00%
7.89
7.89
7.89
0%
Repatriation Loans
1.30
1.30
0.00%
1.30
1.30
1.30
0%
Payment American Institute Taiwan
31.96
26.31
-17.11%
31.96
31.96
31.96
0%
International Chancery Center
0.74
.74
0.00%
0.74
0.74
0.74
0%
Foreign Service Retirement (mandatory)a
158.90
158.90
0.00%
158.90
158.90
158.90
0%
CRS-21

% change
FY2019
FY2019
FY2019
% change
FY2018
FY2019
FY2019 Req. vs.
House
Senate
Enacted
FY2019 Enacted vs.

Actual
Request
FY2018 Actual
(H.R. 6385)
(S. 3108)
(P.L. 116-6)
FY2018 Enacted
International Orgs, Subtotal
2,849.49
2,291.16
-19.60%
2,953.91
3,124.27
2,911.27
2.17%
(1,063.70)
(1,063.70)
(1,084.90)
Contributions to Int’l Orgs
1,467.41
1,095.05
-25.38%
1,364.42
1,440.38
1,360.27
-7.30%
(96.24)
(96.24)
(96.24)
Contributions, International Peacekeeping
1,382.08
1,196.11
-13.46%
1,589.50
1,683.88
1,551.00
12.22%
(967.46)
(967.46)
(988.66)
International Commission subtotal
137.15
117.30
-14.47%
137.15
141.44
141.44
3.13%
(Function 300)
Int’l Boundary/U.S.-Mexico
77.53
71.21
-8.15
77.53
77.53
77.53
0%
American Sections
13.26
12.18
-8.14%
12.73
13.26
13.26
0%
International Fisheries
46.36
33.91
-26.86%
46.88
50.65
50.65
9.25%
International Broadcast, Subtotal
807.69
661.13
-18.15%
807.69
814.19
807.90
.02%
Broadcasting Operations
797.99
656.34
-17.75%
797.99
804.49
798.20
.02%
Capital Improvements
9.70
4.79
-50.62%
9.70
9.70
9.70
0%
Related Approps, Subtotal
241.95
87.28
-63.93%
225.33
242.03
252.78
4.48%
Asia Foundation
17.00
—
-100.00%
17.00
17.00
17.00
0%
U.S. Institute of Peace
37.88
20.00
-47.20
37.88
37.88
38.63
1.98%
Center for Middle East-West Dialogue-
0.14
0.19
35.71%
0.19
0.19
0.19
35.71%
Trust & Program
Eisenhower Exchange Programs
0.16
0.19
18.75%
0.19
0.19
0.19
18.75%
Israeli Arab Scholarship Program
0.07
0.07
—
0.07
0.07
0.07
0%
East-West Center
16.70
—
-100.00%
—
16.70
16.70
0%
National Endowment for Democracy
170.00
67.28
-60.42%
170.00
170.00
180.00
5.88%
Other Commissions, Subtotal
13.26
13.26
0.00%
14.75
13.25
14.75
11.24%
Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad
0.68
.68
0.00%
0.68
0.68
0.68
0%
International Religious Freedom
4.50
4.50
0.00%
4.50
4.50
4.50
0%
Security & Cooperation in Europe
2.58
2.58
0.00%
2.58
2.58
2.58
0%
CRS-22

% change
FY2019
FY2019
FY2019
% change
FY2018
FY2019
FY2019 Req. vs.
House
Senate
Enacted
FY2019 Enacted vs.

Actual
Request
FY2018 Actual
(H.R. 6385)
(S. 3108)
(P.L. 116-6)
FY2018 Enacted
Congressional-Exec Commission on
2.00
2.00
0.00%
2.00
2.00
2.00
0%
People’s Republic of China
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
3.50
3.50
0.00%
3.50
3.50
3.50
0%
Western Hemisphere Drug Policy
—
—
0.00%
1.50
—
1.50
N/A
Commission
FOREIGN OPERATION, TOTAL
38,219.82
28,595.70
-25.18%
37,794.21
38,261.12
37,920.23
-0.19%
(7,838.45)
(4,987.13)
(3,892.23)
(3,634.23)
Title II. Admin of Foreign Assistance
1,620.08
1,377.32
-14.98%
1,623.68
1,757.48
1,674.48
3.36%
(160.57)
(158.07)
(160.57)
(158.07)
USAID Operating Expenses
1,347.68
1,114.92
-17.27%
1,347.68
1,456.98
1,372.88
1.87%
(158.07)
(158.07)
(158.07)
(158.07)
USAID Capital Investment Fund
197.10
190.90
-3.15%
200.00
225.00
225.00
14.16%
USAID Inspector General
75.30
71.5
-5.05%
76.00
75.50
76.60
1.73%
(2.50)
(2.50)
Title III. Bilateral Economic Assistance
25,799.54
19,444.88
-24.63%
25,510.81
26,164.53
25,891.20
0.36%
(6,254.14)
(4,829.06)
(2,307.92)
(3,222.78)
Global Health Programs (GHP), State +
8,690.00
6,702.60
-22.87%
8,690.00
8,792.00
8,837.45
1.70%
USAID
GHP (USAID)
[3,020.00]
[1,927.50]
[-36.18%]
[3,020.00]
[3,072.00]
[3,117.45]
3.23%
GHP (State Dept.)
[5,670.00]
[4,775.10]
[-15.78%]
[5,670.00]
[5,720.00]
[5,720.00]
0.88%
Development Assistance
3,000.00
—
-100.00%
3,000.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
0.00%
International Disaster Assistance (IDA)
4,285.31
3,557.41
-16.99%
4,285.31
4,385.31
4,385.31
2.33%
(1,588.78)
(1,287.58
(584.28)
(584.28)
Transition Initiatives
92.04
87.04
-5.43%
96.15
92.04
92.04
0.00%
(62.04)
(62.04)
(62.04)
Complex Crises Fund
30.00
—
-100.00%
—
30.00
30.00
0.00%
(20.00)
Development Credit Authority—Admin
10.00
—
-100.00%
9.12
10.00
10.00
0.00%
Development Credit Authority Subsidy
[55.00]
—
-100.00%
[40.00]
[55.00]
[55.00]
0.00%
CRS-23

% change
FY2019
FY2019
FY2019
% change
FY2018
FY2019
FY2019 Req. vs.
House
Senate
Enacted
FY2019 Enacted vs.

Actual
Request
FY2018 Actual
(H.R. 6385)
(S. 3108)
(P.L. 116-6)
FY2018 Enacted
Economic Support Fund
3,968.85
—
-100.00%
3,696.90
4,021.55
3,717.86
-6.32%
(2,152.12)
(1,178.25)
(1,167.62)
(1,172.34)
Economic Support and Development Fund
—
5,063.13
—
—
—
—
0.00%
Democracy Fund
215.50
—
-100.00%
225.00
232.80
227.20
5.43%
Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central
750.33
—
-100.00%
750.33
770.33
760.33
1.33%
Asia
Migration & Refugee Assistance
3,359.00
2,800.38
-16.63%
3,360.00
3,432.00
3,432.00
2.17%
(2,431.20)
(2,363.23)
(493.98)
(1,404.12)
Emergency Refugee and Migration
1.00
—
-100.00%
—
1.00
1.00
0.00%
Independent Agencies
1,367.50

-11.93%
1,368.00
1,367.50
1,368.00
0.03
subtotal
Peace Corps
410.00
396.20
-3.37%
410.50
410.00
410.50
0.12%
Mil ennium Challenge Corporation
905.00
800.00
-11.60%
905.00
905.00
905.00
0.00%
Inter-American Foundation
22.50
3.48
-84.53%
22.50
22.50
22.50
0.00%
African Development Foundation
30.00
4.64
-84.60%
30.00
30.00
30.00
0.00%
Department of the Treasury, subtotal
30.00
30.00
0.00%
30.00
30.00
30.00
0.00%
Department of the Treasury Technical
30.00
30.00
0.00%
30.00
30.00
30.00
0.00
Assistance
Title IV. Int’l Security Assistance
9,025.25
7304.06
-19.07%
9,273.82
8,789.28
9,153.08
1.42%
(1,423.74)
(1,423.75)
(554.59)
International Narcotics Control & Law
1,368.80
880.35
-35.68%
1,435.15
1,404.90
1,497.47
9.40%
Enforcement
(417.95)
(417.95)

Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism,
876.05
690.31
-21.20%
876.05
860.66
864.55
-1.31%
Demining
(220.58)
(220.58)
Peacekeeping Operations
537.92
291.4
-45.83%
490.40
477.42
488.67
-9.16%
(325.21)
(325.21)
(325.21)
International Military Education & Training
110.88
95
-14.32%
110.88
110.68
110.78
-0.09%
Foreign Military Financing
6,131.61
5,347.00
-12.80%
6,361.34
5,935.61
6,191.61
0.98%
(460.00)
(460.00)
(229.37)
CRS-24

link to page 29

% change
FY2019
FY2019
FY2019
% change
FY2018
FY2019
FY2019 Req. vs.
House
Senate
Enacted
FY2019 Enacted vs.

Actual
Request
FY2018 Actual
(H.R. 6385)
(S. 3108)
(P.L. 116-6)
FY2018 Enacted
Title V. Multilateral Assistance
1,856.70
1,416.43
-23.71%
1,731.50
1,875.44
1,856.70
0.00%
International Organizations & Programs
339.00
—
-100.00%
213.80
358.75
339.00
0.00%
World Bank: Global Environment Facility
139.58
68.3
-51.07%
139.58
136.56
139.58
0.00%
World Bank: Int’l. Development
1,097.01
1,097.01
0.00%
1,097.01
1,099.01
1,097.01
0.00%
Association
Asian Development Fund
47.40
47.4
0.00%
47.40
47.40
47.40
0.00%
African Development Bank - capital
32.42
32.42
0.00%
32.42
32.42
32.42
0.00%
African Development Fund
171.30
171.3
0.00%
171.30
171.30
171.30
0.00%
International Fund for Agricultural
30.00
—
-100.00%
30.00
30.00
30.00
0.00%
Development
Title VI. Export Assistance
-81.75
-946.99
—
-345.60
-325.60
-335.60
8.15%
Export-Import Bank (net)
-74.55
-633.1
—
-99.30
-89.30
-99.30
-28.56%
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
-235.80
—
—
-325.80
-315.80
-315.80
25.92%
Development Finance Institute
—
-326
—
—
—
—

Trade & Development Agency
79.50
12.11
-84.77%
79.50
79.50
79.50
0.00
State, Foreign Ops & Related Programs,
54,439.23
41,858.11
-23.11%
54,176.90
54,601.90
54,376.90
+0.31%
TOTAL
(12,018.00)
(8,018.00)
(8,000.00)
(8,000.00)
(-33.43%)
Add Ons/ Rescissions, netb
-23.77
—
—
—
-25.00
-319.62

State-Foreign Ops Total, Net of Rescissions
54,415.46
41,858.11
-23.08%
54,176.90
54,576.90
54,376.90
+0.37%
(12,018.00)
(8,018.00)
(8,000.00)
(8,000.00)
(-33.4%)
Source: FY2017 Actuals and the FY2019 request are from the Congressional Budget Justification, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, Fiscal Year 2019; FY2019
Addendum, P.L. 115-141, P.L. 116-6, Division F, and CRS calculations.
Notes: Figures in brackets are subsumed in the larger account above and are not counted against the total. Figures in parentheses are amount designated as Overseas Contingency Operations
(OCO) and are subsumed in the larger account number above them. “Enduring” funding is also sometimes referred to as “base” or “ongoing” funding in budget documents. Numbers may not
add due to rounding.
a. This account is mandatory spending, so State Operations and SFOPS totals in this table differ from budget totals in the International Affairs Congressional Budget Justification that include
only discretionary spending.
b. FY2018 rescissions include $23.76 mil ion from Development Assistance. S. 3108 rescissions are $14 mil ion from prior year International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement aid and
$11 mil ion from prior year Foreign Military Sales funding. Rescission in P.L. 116-6 included $12.42 mil ion in INCLE funds and $11.0 mil ion in FMS funding and $301 mil ion in OCO funds.
CRS-25

link to page 30 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

Appendix B. International Affairs Budget
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 Title II 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.
Table B-1. International Affairs Budget FY2017 Actual,
FY2018 Actual, and FY2019 Request and Enacted
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
% change
FY2019
FY18 vs
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
Enacted
FY19

Actual
Actual
Request
(P.L. 116-6)
Enacted
State-Foreign Operations,
excluding commissionsa
57,582.55
54,060.26
41,727.52
54,235.46
+0.3%
Commerce-Justice-Science

Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission
2.37
2.41
2.41
2.41
0.0%
Int’l Trade Commission
91.50
93.70
97.50
95.00
+1.3%
Agriculture

P.L. 480
1,900.00
1,716.00
0.00
1,716.00
0.0%
McGovern-Dole
201.63
207.63
0.00
210.26
+1.3%
Local/Regional Procurement
—
—
—

Total International Affairs
(150)
59,778.05
56,080.00
41,827.43
56,259.13
+0.4%
Source: Congressional Budget Justification, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs,
Fiscal Years 2017, 2018, and FY2019, and the FY2019 addendum; P.L. 114-254; P.L. 115-31; H.R. 3362; H.R.
3268; S. 1780, P.L. 115-141, P.L. 116-6, U.S. International Trade Commission FY2019 Budget Justification, and
CRS calculations.
a. Includes mandatory spending from the Foreign Service retirement account, and does not align with budget
justification figures that only count discretionary spending. Funding for certain international commissions
appropriated in the State-Foreign Operations bil are excluded here because they fall under function 300 of
the budget, not function 150 (International Affairs).
Congressional Research Service

26

Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

Appendix C. SFOPS Organizational Chart

Source: Congressional Research Service.

Congressional Research Service

27

Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

Appendix D. Glossary
AEECA
Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia
BBA
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, P.L. 114-74
BCA
Budget Control Act of 2011, P.L. 112-25
CIO
Contributions to International Organizations
CIPA
Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities
CSCS
Capital Security Cost Sharing
D&CP
Diplomatic and Consular Programs
DA
Development Assistance
DS
State Department Bureau of Diplomatic Security
ERMA
Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance
ESCM
Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance
ESDF
Economic Support and Development Fund
ESF
Economic Support Fund
FMF
Foreign Military Financing
IDA
International Disaster Assistance
IMET
International Military Education and Training
INCLE
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
IO&P
International Organizations and Programs
MCS
Maintenance Cost Sharing
MRA
Migration and Refugee Assistance
NADR
Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related
OBO
State Department Bureau of Overseas Building Operations
OCO
Overseas Contingency Operations
OPIC
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
PKO
Peacekeeping Operations
SFOPS
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations
TDA
Trade and Development Agency
USAID
U.S. Agency for International Development
WSP
Worldwide Security Protection
WSU
Worldwide Security Upgrade

Congressional Research Service

28

Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs

Author Information

Susan B. Epstein
Cory R. Gill
Specialist in Foreign Policy
Analyst in Foreign Affairs

Marian L. Lawson

Specialist in Foreign Assistance Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R45168 · VERSION 10 · UPDATED
29