Search this site:

 

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations

CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Susan B. Epstein
Specialist in Foreign Policy
Marian Leonardo Lawson
Analyst in Foreign Assistance
Alex Tiersky
Analyst in Foreign Affairs
November 19, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42621
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service
Summary
International affairs expenditures typically amount to about 1.5% of the total federal budget.
While some foreign policy and defense experts view that share as a small price to pay for a robust
foreign affairs budget that they believe is essential to meeting national security and foreign policy
objectives, others see international affairs spending, particularly foreign aid, as an attractive target
for significant spending cuts in order to reduce deficit spending. Congress delayed passing the
FY2013 foreign affairs budget and most of the other appropriations bills until after the start of the
new fiscal year and the November 2012 elections. Instead, Congress passed a six-month stopgap
funding measure that expires in March 2013 (P.L. 112-175).
On February 13, 2012, the Obama Administration submitted its FY2013 budget proposal. The
FY2013 request totaled $54.87 billion for the State-Foreign Operations appropriations, including
a core budget proposal of $46.63 billion plus $8.24 billion for extraordinary and temporary warrelated
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) in frontline states. The total request represented
an increase of 2.6% over the estimated FY2012 funding level for the foreign affairs accounts,
including $18.8 billion (a 4.5% increase) for State Department and Related Agencies and $36.1
billion (a 0.1% increase) for Foreign Operations. Within the regular budget process, the
Administration requested authority in addition to appropriations ($770 million) for a new
account—the Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund (MENA IF)—to provide flexible and
transparent support for Arab Spring countries in transition toward democracy. The foreign affairs
request included $8.2 billion for the frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (including
$800 million for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund [PCCF], even though most
previously enacted PCCF funding has not been disbursed and many lawmakers voiced concern
about U.S. relations with, and aid to, Pakistan). For other key accounts, the Administration sought
$7.9 billion for the Global Health Programs (GHP) account, $770 million for global climate
change activities, and $643 million for family planning and reproductive health activities,
including $39 million for the controversial U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA).
Early action by the House and Senate appropriators demonstrated differing priorities and funding
levels. The House Appropriations Committee-approved State-Foreign Operations FY2013
funding bill (H.R. 5857/H.Rept. 112-494) would have provided a total of $48.5 billion (including
$8.3 billion in OCO and $160 million in rescissions), while the Senate committee bill (S.
3241/S.Rept. 112-172) would have provided a total of $52.3 billion (including $2.3 billion in
OCO). Both House and Senate committees provided more than requested for GHP, but differed
significantly on funding MENA IF—the House committee provided no funding for it, and the
Senate committee recommended $1 billion. The House bill provided $461 million for
international family planning and reproductive health activities, prohibited funding for UNFPA,
and included a “Mexico City Policy” provision prohibiting funding for organizations that perform
or promote abortions. In contrast, the Senate bill included $700 million for international family
planning, including $44.5 million for UNFPA, and did not include “Mexico City Policy”
language.
FY2012 was the first time the Department of State requested and Congress appropriated OCO
funds. Congress attempted to rein in FY2012 spending but still meet war-related costs in the
frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. As a result, that year Congress appropriated
$11.2 billion in OCO funds, nearly 30% more than the $8.7 billion requested by the
Administration. The estimated overall FY2012 total funding level of $53.5 billion was about 10%
less than the Administration’s FY2012 request, but 10% more than the FY2011 total.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service
The State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies appropriations legislation, in
addition to funding U.S. diplomatic and foreign aid activities, has been the primary legislative
vehicle through which Congress reviews the U.S. international affairs budget and influences
executive branch foreign policy making in recent years. (Congress has not addressed foreign
policy issues through a complete authorization process for State Department diplomatic activities
since 2003 and since 1985 for foreign aid programs.) After a period of reductions in the late
1980s and 1990s, funding for State Department operations, international broadcasting, and
foreign aid rose steadily from FY2002 to FY2010, largely because of ongoing assistance to Iraq
and Afghanistan, new global health programs, and increasing assistance to Pakistan. Funding
declined by 11.6% in FY2011 when Congress passed a continuing resolution (P.L. 112-10)
significantly reducing U.S. government-wide expenditures, including foreign affairs. The FY2012
funding represented a 2.3% increase from the previous year, largely reflecting OCO support for
frontline states.
State-Foreign Operations activities are currently being funded under a continuing resolution (CR)
(H.J.Res. 117, P.L. 112-175) approved by Congress in September 2012. Under the CR, regular
accounts are funded at the same level as in FY2012 plus 0.612%. Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO)-designated funding for the State Department and Foreign Operations accounts
continues at the FY2012 level, without the 0.612% increase. Unless specified in the FY2012
appropriations, country allocations from those accounts are left to the discretion of the
responsible agencies. Until a full year appropriation is approved, however, the State Department
and USAID plan only to fund programs that are running out of resources or meet some urgent
foreign policy priority. The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013, expires on March 27,
2013.
This report analyzes the FY2013 request and congressional action related to FY2013 State-
Foreign Operations legislation. Updates will occur to reflect congressional actions, including
potential future action on sequestration.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Most Recent Developments and Legislative Status ......................................................................... 2
The FY2013 Request and Congressional Action ............................................................................. 3
State Department FY2013 Budget Request―Key Issues.......................................................... 4
Iraq Operations: From “Transition” to Normalized Relations ............................................ 5
QDDR Implementation ....................................................................................................... 5
Human Resource Issues ...................................................................................................... 7
Palestinian Statehood and the United Nations..................................................................... 8
Foreign Operations FY2013 Budget Request―Key Issues ...................................................... 8
Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund .................................................................... 9
Frontline States .................................................................................................................. 10
Administration Initiatives .................................................................................................. 11
International Family Planning and Abortion-Related Issues ............................................. 13
Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia (AEECA) ............................................. 13
State-Foreign Operations Background and Trends ........................................................................ 14
Overseas Contingency Operations........................................................................................... 15
10-Year Funding Trends .......................................................................................................... 16
Top 10 U.S. Foreign Aid Recipient Countries ......................................................................... 19
Regional Distribution .............................................................................................................. 20
Sector Distribution ................................................................................................................... 21
Figures
Figure 1. Composition of the State-Foreign Operations Budget Request, FY2013 ......................... 4
Figure 2. Base + Supplemental/OCO Funding, FY2002- Pending FY2013 Proposals ................. 16
Figure 3. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2003-FY2013 ......................................... 17
Figure 4. State Department and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2003-FY2013 .................. 18
Figure 5. Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2003-FY2013 ................................................... 19
Figure 6. Regional Distribution of Foreign Aid, FY2012 and FY2013 Request ........................... 21
Tables
Table 1. Status of State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2013 ............................................ 3
Table 2. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2003-FY2013 ........................................... 17
Table 3. State Department and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2003-FY2013 .................... 18
Table 4. Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2003-FY2013 .................................................... 19
Table 5. Top 10 Recipients of U.S. Foreign Aid in FY2012 and the FY2013 Request ................. 20
Table 6. Selected Sector Funding, FY2012 Request and FY2013 Request ................................... 22
Table C-1. State Department, Foreign operations and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2011-FY2013 ......................................................................................................................... 25
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service
Table D-1. International Affairs (150) Budget Account, FY2011-FY2013 ................................... 31
Appendixes
Appendix A. Structure of State-Foreign Operations Appropriations ............................................. 23
Appendix B. Abbreviations............................................................................................................ 24
Appendix C. State Department, Foreign Operations and Related Agencies Appropriations ......... 25
Appendix D. International Affairs (150) Budget Account ............................................................. 31
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 31
Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................. 32
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 1
Introduction
Facing significant pressure to reduce the federal budget deficit, some in the 112th Congress view
international affairs spending, particularly for foreign aid programs, as expenditures of limited
benefit to U.S. taxpayers and eligible for cuts.1 Others favor a more robust foreign affairs budget
for various reasons. In particular, some Members of Congress in both political parties, as well as
the previous and current Secretaries of Defense, view a solid foreign affairs budget as essential to
assisting the Defense Department in promoting U.S. national security and foreign policy interests,
perhaps even saving long-term spending by preventing the much costlier use of troops overseas.2
To address budget costs, Congress considered the FY2013 Department of State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Agencies appropriations in the context of the Budget Control Act of
2011. (See text box below.)
Congress delayed passing most appropriations bills, including State-Foreign Operations, until
after the start of the new fiscal year and the
fall elections. It passed a continuing resolution
(CR) that provides government funding until
March 27, 2013. Attempts to adjust or reverse
the Budget Control Act’s triggering of
automatic spending reductions in January
2013 are expected to be revisited in the lameduck
session of Congress.
The State-Foreign Operations appropriation,
typically representing about 1.5% of the total
federal budget in recent years, supports most
programs and activities within the
international affairs budget account, known as
Function 150, including foreign economic and
security assistance, contributions to
international organizations and multilateral
financial institutions, State Department and
U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) operations, public diplomacy, and
international broadcasting programs. The bill
does not align perfectly with the international
affairs budget, however. Food aid, which is
appropriated through the Agriculture
appropriations bill, and the International Trade
Commission and Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission, both funded through the Commerce-Science-Justice appropriation, are international
affairs (Function 150) programs not funded through the State-Foreign Operations appropriations
bill. Furthermore, a number of international commissions that are not part of Function 150, such
1 This was reflected by the House passage of its Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 112) that recommended reducing the
foreign affairs budget in FY2013 by 10% as compared with FY2012 funding levels.
2 Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, NewSecurityBeat, Panetta: Diplomacy and Development Part of Wider
Strategy to Achieve Security; Will they Survive Budget Environment?, by Schuyler Null, Oct 13, 2011. See
http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2011/10/from-wilson-center-leon-panetta-support.html.
The Budget Control Act and the Foreign
Affairs Budget
FY2013 discretionary appropriations was considered in
the context of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA,
P.L. 112-25) that established discretionary spending limits
for FY2012-FY2021 to achieve $1.2 trillion in savings
over 10 years. The BCA also tasked a Joint Select
Committee on Deficit Reduction to develop a federal
deficit reduction plan for Congress and the President to
enact by January 15, 2012. The failure of Congress and
the President to enact deficit reduction legislation by that
date triggered an automatic spending reduction process
established by the BCA, consisting of a combination of
sequestration (across-the-board cuts) and lower
discretionary spending caps, to begin on January 2, 2013.
The sequestration process for FY2013 requires acrossthe-
board spending cuts at the program, project, and
activity level to achieve equal budget reductions from
both defense and nondefense funding at a percentage to
be announced by the Office of Management and Budget.
As a result, the FY2013 State-Foreign Operations
appropriation was considered by Congress with the
understanding that enacted funding levels will likely be
subject to significant cuts in the nondefense category
under the sequestration process unless legislation
specifically repealing the sequestration provisions of the
BCA is enacted by Congress before next January.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 2
as the International Boundary and Water Commission, are funded through the State-Foreign
Operations bill.
A chart illustrating the organizational structure of the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill
is provided in Appendix A. Abbreviations of terms used throughout this report are in Appendix
B. The report focuses on the accounts funded through the State-Foreign Operations appropriations
bill (see Appendix C for data), and it also provides appropriations figures for the entire
international affairs (Function 150) budget in Appendix D.
Most Recent Developments and Legislative Status
In order of the most recent events, congressional activity related to the State-Foreign Operations
appropriations includes the following as summarized in Table 1 below:
• On September 28, President Obama signed the Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2013, H.J.Res. 117 into law (P.L. 112-175), funding the government
until March 27, 2013. Appendix C will be updated with account-level funding
under the CR if estimates become available.
• On September 22, the Senate passed H.J.Res. 117.
• On September 13, the House passed H.J.Res. 117, a continuing resolution that
would fund the federal government through March 27, 2013. H.J.Res. 117 would
provide 0.612% more than FY2012 levels for State and Foreign Operations non-
OCO funded activities. OCO-designated activities would be funded at the
FY2012-enacted level. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the
annualized State-Foreign Operations funding rate under the CR is estimated to be
$53.52 billion.
• On May 24, 2012, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved by a vote of
29-1 its FY2013 State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill (S. 3241/S.Rept.
112-172). The bill provides a total of $52.3 billion, including $2.3 billion in
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds. This is 5% below the $54.9
billion requested and 2% below the FY2012 estimated level. For the State
Department and Related Agencies, the Senate sets FY2013 funding at $16.3
billion, including $1.6 billion for OCO. It funds Foreign Operations at $36.0
billion, including $709.8 million in OCO funds.
• On May 17, 2012, the House Appropriations Committee approved by voice vote
its FY2013 State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill (H.R. 5857/H.Rept. 112-
494) totaling $40.3 billion for regular funding and $8.2 billion for OCO. In total,
the bill’s $48.5 billion is 12% less than requested and 9% below the FY2012
estimated levels. Within the total, the bill provides $15.8 billion for the
Department of State and Related Agencies accounts, including $2.9 billion in
OCO funding and $32.9 billion for Foreign Operations accounts, including $5.4
billion in OCO funding
• On April 25, using the caps in the March 29, 2012, House-passed budget
resolution (H.Con.Res. 112) for guidance, the House Appropriations Committee
approved its initial subcommittee allocations. The House allocation for the State-
Foreign Operations subcommittee is $48.38 billion, including $8.2 billion in
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 3
OCO funds, or almost 12% below the Administration’s request and nearly 9%
below the Senate allocation. The allocation gap could create a significant
challenge in reconciling any FY2013 legislation drafted by the House and Senate
subcommittees.
• On April 19, using the FY2013 budget authority caps in the Budget Control Act
of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) as guidance, the Senate Appropriations Committee adopted
its initial FY2013 subcommittee allocations. The Senate allocated $53.02 billion
for the State-Foreign Operations subcommittee, or 3% less than the
Administration’s request. This includes $3.2 billion in OCO funds.
• On February 13, 2012, the Obama Administration submitted its FY2013 budget
request to Congress, seeking an increase of 2.6% above the estimated FY2012
level for the Department of State-Foreign Operations and Related Agencies.
Table 1. Status of State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2013
302(b)
Allocation
Subcommittee
Action Committee Action
Continuing Resolution
through 3/27/13
House Senate House Senate House
H.R. 5857
Senate S.
3241
House
H.J.Res. 117
Senate
H.J.Res. 117
Signed P.L.
112-175
4/25 4/19 5/9 5/22 5/17 5/24 9/13 9/22 9/28
$48.38 $53.02 n/a n/a $48.54 $52.39 $53.52
The FY2013 Request and Congressional Action
On February 13, 2012, the Obama Administration submitted its FY2013 budget proposal. The
Administration’s priorities on foreign affairs funding for FY2013 did not differ significantly from
the congressional priorities indicated by the enacted FY2012 funding levels. The FY2013 request
totaled $54.9 billion for the State-Foreign Operations appropriations, including a core budget
proposal of $46.6 billion plus $8.2 billion for extraordinary and temporary war-related Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) in frontline states. The total request represented an increase of
2.6% over the estimated FY2012 funding level for State-Foreign Operations, including a 4.5%
increase in State Department and Related Agencies accounts and a 0.1% increase in Foreign
Operations accounts. Within the budget, the Administration requested authority and $770 million
in funds for a new bilateral economic aid account—the Middle East and North Africa Incentive
Fund (MENA IF)—to provide flexible and transparent support for Arab Spring countries in
transition toward democracy. Within the security aid category, the Administration sought $800
million for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (PCCF), even though most past
PCCF funding has not been disbursed and many lawmakers have voiced concerns about U.S.-
Pakistan relations, in general, and aid to Pakistan, specifically. Figure 1 provides a breakout of
the FY2013 request by funding category.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 4
Figure 1. Composition of the State-Foreign Operations Budget Request, FY2013
Source: Fiscal Year 2013 Budget of the United States Government and CRS calculations.
Note: Numbers total 101% due to rounding.
The FY2013 request reflected a slight increase of State Department Administration of Foreign
Affairs funding as a share of the total request, from 25% in FY2012 to 26% requested for
FY2013, a slight decrease from 40% in FY2012 to 39% requested for FY2013 for bilateral
economic aid, and a small increase from 19% in FY2012 to 19.5% in the FY2013 request for
security assistance funding. These three categories make up more than 85% of the total State-
Foreign Operations funding requested. For a full listing of funds requested for State, Foreign
Operations and Related Agency accounts, by account, see Appendix C. (For a description of all
the accounts, see CRS Report R40482, State, Foreign Operations Appropriations: A Guide to
Component Accounts, by Curt Tarnoff and Alex Tiersky.)
Under the CR, specific programs and country allocations from State and Foreign Operations
accounts are left to the discretion of the responsible agencies through March 2013. Unless
otherwise noted below, funding levels under the CR are not specified.
State Department FY2013 Budget Request―Key Issues
The State Department and Related Agencies portion of the international affairs budget request
included funding for State Department operations, International Organizations (including U.S.
assessed dues to the U.N. system) and International Peacekeeping activities, International
Broadcasting, and entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the U.S.
Institute of Peace (USIP).
The State Department and Related Agencies accounts would have seen, under the Administration
request, a 4.5% boost in FY2013 to a total of $18.8 billion. This amount included $14.1 billion
for Administration of Foreign Affairs, which provided for the personnel, operations, and
programs of the Department as well as the construction and maintenance of its facilities around
the world. The FY2013 request focused on supporting several key efforts, including the
unprecedented military-to-civilian transition in Iraq and ongoing State Department-led efforts in
the other “frontline states” of Afghanistan and Pakistan; internal reorganizations under the
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 5
Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR); and ongoing efforts addressing
personnel issues. These issues are highlighted below.
Under the CR, the Department of State’s regular accounts are funded at the same level as in
FY2012 plus 0.612%. Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)-designated funding for the State
Department continues at the FY2012 level, without the 0.612% increase.
Iraq Operations: From “Transition” to Normalized Relations
In what U.S. officials have called the largest military-to-civilian transition since the Marshall
Plan,3 the Department of State has become the lead agency for all U.S. programs in Iraq, after the
departure of U.S. military forces in late 2011. The State Department is pursuing a wide-ranging
policy agenda while also seeking to execute the unprecedented scope of responsibilities it took
over from the U.S. military forces that were withdrawn, ranging from air transport, to
environmental cleanup, to medical support.
For FY2013, the first post-transition fiscal year, the Administration requested 23% less funding
than the estimated FY2012 level for State Operations in Iraq: $2.7 billion, including $2.3 billion
in OCO.4 Officials suggested that this lower funding level reflects the Administration’s intent to
“normalize” the U.S. presence in Iraq. Its original plans in the FY2012 request for $3.7 billion
included funds for an embassy branch office in Diyala that was not included in the FY2013
request, as well as funding for another office in Mosul that has been postponed. Factors cited by
the State Department as cost-saving included a planned 25% reduction in the State Department
presence in Iraq by the fall of 2012, reductions in security and sustainment contracts, and
anticipated completion of construction that was funded in FY2012.
The House appropriations bill included a total of $2.8 billion for State Department operations in
the three frontline states (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan); funding for increased security for staff
in these states was provided, but funding for increased staff was not. The Senate Appropriations
Committee bill stated that new funding, in addition to carryover balances, provided a total of $2.1
billion for Department of State operations in Iraq in FY2013, a level it deemed adequate under
State’s revised operational assumptions.
QDDR Implementation
The FY2013 budget request was the first to reflect reforms outlined in the QDDR. The QDDR,
completed in the fall of 2010 and modeled on the Defense Department’s Quadrennial Defense
Reviews, identified several reforms intended to shift diplomatic resources towards the highest
priority countries and programs. Among the reforms spelled out in the QDDR were the
establishment of a new Bureau of Energy Resources and elevation of the Office of the
Coordinator for Counterterrorism to a Bureau. Both occurred in 2011 without any specific
authorization or additional funding from Congress. Additionally, activities of the Office of the
3 Special Briefing, Thomas Nides, Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, and Rajiv Shah,
USAID Administrator, Washington, DC, February 13, 2012, available at http://www.state.gov/s/dmr/remarks/2012/
183842.htm.
4 The Administration’s FY2013 request totals a combined $4.78 billion for State Department operations and bilateral
aid in Iraq.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 6
Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization were subsumed in the renamed Bureau of
Conflict and Stabilization Operations.
Funding for the State Department’s operations in support of the Counterterrorism mission has
increased from $3.2 million in FY2011, when the Office of Counterterrorism was an element of
the Office of the Secretary of State, to $19 million for the new Bureau of Counterterrorism in the
FY2013 request (an increase of $2.4 million over the FY2012 levels). The Administration
requested funds for an additional 12 new positions within the Bureau, in addition to the 70 U.S.
direct-hires and 30 contract staff already in place. Neither the House nor Senate bill mentioned
the Bureau of Counterterrorism, but could still provide funding for new hires within the
Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP) account.
Bureau of Energy Resources
The Bureau of Energy Resources (ENR) similarly sought 22 additional direct-hire positions in the
FY2013 budget request, at a cost of $5.4 million (out of a total $16.9 million budget request for
ENR). The Bureau, announced in late 2011, requested the additional funding to grow its capacity
“to strengthen market incentives to transform the future of energy supplies, deepening the
Department’s human resource expertise on energy matters, and institutionalizing improved
capabilities to engage more broadly and deeply on U.S. global energy priorities.”5 The
Administration’s funding request also included plans for the Bureau to establish four regional
hubs in Istanbul, Singapore, Johannesburg, and Rio de Janeiro, to engage regional partners and
promote energy-issue involvement at posts and in State’s regional bureaus. The House
Appropriations Committee recommendation did not include the additional $5.4 million and 22
new positions specifically for the Bureau of Energy Resources. The Senate Appropriations
Committee report did not mention this Bureau. Funding within the D&CP could support these
new hires, however.
Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations
The Administration’s FY2013 request for the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations
(CSO) totaled $56.5 million, an 86% increase over FY2012 levels. Staffing levels are to drop by
64 positions as part of a restructuring to make the Bureau more agile and expeditionary, with a
greater emphasis on creating a flexible response capacity with a smaller staff. The proposed
change was intended to produce greater deployment capacity, but with significantly less
overhead. In addition, the Civilian Response Corps (CRC) model was modified from a standing
group of experts deployed less than half the time, to a structure that funds experts only when they
are deployed; as part of this reorganization, the FY2012 high of 144 CRC members would be
reduced by 76 members.6
The House Appropriations Committee’s FY2013 proposal replicated its FY2012 action for
Conflict and Stabilization Operations, continuing to provide authority for the Secretary of State to
transfer up to $35 million of the funds appropriated under the D&CP heading to CSO. It also
5 State Department FY2013 Congressional Budget Justification, Vol. 1: Department of State Operations, p 141.
6 For background information, see CRS Report RL32862, Peacekeeping/Stabilization and Conflict Transitions:
Background and Congressional Action on the Civilian Response/Reserve Corps and other Civilian Stabilization and
Reconstruction Capabilities, by Nina M. Serafino.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 7
provided $8.5 million in OCO funding, as it did in FY2012. The Senate Appropriations
Committee proposal included no funding for Conflict and Stabilization Operations, but did
authorize up to $56.5 million (the amount requested) to be transferred from Diplomatic &
Consular Program funding to this account, as well as an additional $10 million from the Complex
Crisis Fund, as requested by the Administration.
Human Resource Issues
The Administration’s FY2013 request for additional human resources D&CP was a total of $2.5
billion, or $71.2 million above its FY2012 request. Of the FY2013 request, $24.9 million was
requested to bolster State’s staffing by 121 new positions (including those mentioned in the above
sections) in a continuation of State’s multi-year hiring efforts to fill human resources gaps and
bolster new programs and organizations under the “Diplomacy 3.0” initiative. Secretary Clinton
originally sought to increase the number of Foreign Service Officers (FSO) by 25% from 2008 to
2014. With the proposed FY2013 funding, State would have reached 18% growth since 2008,
through the hiring of an additional 82 FSOs. The proposed funding also would have permitted
State to hire an additional 39 civil servants. In the context of constrained budgeting, the
Department postponed its goal of 25% growth in the Foreign Service to future years beyond
2014.7
The Administration also requested $81.4 million for the third and final phase of implementing its
Overseas Comparability Pay (OCP) for FSOs. According to the Department of State, prior to
2009 Foreign Service employees transferring abroad experienced a 23.1% cut in basic pay from
what they had been receiving as locality pay for serving in Washington, DC.8 This situation was
compounded by lowered employer contributions by the Department to the Federal Thrift Savings
Plan. Entry and mid-level Foreign Service employees were particularly affected, according to
State officials, who suggested that this issue could affect diplomatic readiness by increased
attrition and recruitment challenges, and is “critical for the Department’s Foreign Service
competitiveness in the workplace.”9
Congress approved two prior OCP adjustments since 2009, reducing the pay differential by nearly
70%. The FY2013 request would have provided for a third and final tranche of funds to bring the
comparability pay level to the Washington, DC, locality pay rate.
On the above human resources issues, the House Appropriations Committee recommendation
included no funding for hiring above attrition in FY2013. The committee also rejected the
Department’s requested extension of authority for overseas comparability pay, stating that “the
authority to grant overseas comparability pay is a matter within the jurisdiction of the
authorization committee and should be considered in the context of legislation addressing the
authorities and compensation rules governing the Foreign Service.” The Senate Appropriations
7 The 2014 goal of a 25% increase in the Foreign Service was originally postponed in the FY2012 budget request,
which nonetheless included funding for 197 new State Department positions at a cost of $66.7 million, including 130
(86 overseas, 44 domestic) Foreign Service and 67 Civil Service positions. The Administration had requested funds to
support 500-600 new positions in the three years prior to FY2012.
8 Locality pay is provided to most civilian Federal employees in the United States based on the location in which they
serve. The Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990, which took effect in 1994, sought to achieve pay
comparability between federal and non-federal jobs. It adds to the base pay of almost all federal employees a “locality”
adjustment that reflects the costs of attracting talent in a given geographical area.
9 State Department FY2013 Congressional Budget Justification, Vol. 1: Department of State Operations, p. 54.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 8
Committee also did not include the overseas comparability pay authority or funding in its FY2013
proposal.
Palestinian Statehood and the United Nations
In October 2011, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) voted to admit Palestine as a full member, prolonging a U.S. policy debate that is
being played out, in part, in the State-Foreign Operations appropriations process. The United
States has long opposed any path to Palestinian statehood outside of a negotiated agreement with
Israel, and U.S. law prohibits American funding, which is assessed at 22% of the UNESCO
budget, to any U.N. agency that accepts the Palestinians as a full member. U.S. assessed
contributions to UNESCO within the State Department’s Contributions to International
Organizations (CIO) account have been withheld since the vote. The Administration, which
supports U.S. participation in UNESCO, sought almost $80 million for UNESCO to pay U.S.
assessed contributions for calendar year 2012, explaining that it would work with Congress to get
authority to waive the restriction.
The House committee report stated that the House specifically would withhold U.S. contributions
to UNESCO within the CIO account. The report also included language prohibiting the
disbursement of Economic Support Funds (ESF) assistance to the Palestinian Authority if, after
enactment of the legislation, the Palestinians gain full membership in the United Nations or any
U.N. entity outside of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian agreement. The Senate legislation did not
recommend funding for UNESCO within the CIO account, which it said is prohibited by law, and
also included the same ESF restriction, as well as an explicit prohibition on U.S. funding to
UNESCO and other U.N. entities that grant full membership status to the Palestinian Authority.
Both proposals included less funding than requested for the International Organizations and
Programs (IO&P) account through which a small ($880,000) amount was requested for U.S.
voluntary contributions to UNESCO for International Contributions for Scientific, Educational,
and Cultural Activities (UNESCO/ICSECA) for FY22013.
Foreign Operations FY2013 Budget Request―Key Issues
The Foreign Operations budget comprises the majority of both bilateral and multilateral U.S.
foreign assistance programs. The main exception is food assistance, which is appropriated
through the Agriculture Appropriations bill. Foreign Operations accounts are managed primarily
by USAID and the State Department, together with several smaller independent foreign
assistance agencies such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the Peace Corps, as well
as the Inter-American and African Development Foundations, the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation (OPIC), and the Trade and Development Agency (TDA). The Foreign Operations
budget also encompasses U.S. contributions to major multilateral financial institutions, such as
the World Bank and U.N. entities, and includes funds for the Export-Import Bank, whose
activities are regarded more as trade promotion than foreign aid. On occasion, the budget
replenishes U.S. financial commitments to international financial institutions, such as the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
The Foreign Operations budget request for FY2013 totaled $36.07 billion, representing a 0.1%
increase from the enacted FY2012 level of $36.03 billion. Under the CR, foreign operations
accounts are being funded at an annualized rate of approximately $36.25 billion.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 9
For FY2013, the Foreign Operations budget request would have continued to emphasize the
Administration’s ongoing foreign assistance initiatives—the Global Health Initiative, Food
Security Initiative, and the Global Climate Change Initiative—as well as funding for the “front
line” war-related states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. In addition, the request called for a
new regional funding account to respond to political transitions in the Middle East and North
Africa. House and Senate committee action indicated that these priorities may not be shared by all
in Congress. In addition to funding levels, policy issues such as restrictions on funding for
international family planning programs and conditions on aid to certain countries and entities
continued to be a focus of the congressional foreign aid funding debate. These key issues are
highlighted below.
Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund
With recent popular uprisings leading to the fall of some governments in the Middle East and
North Africa, the use of foreign assistance as a democracy promotion tool has received significant
scrutiny. In particular, the fall of the Mubarak regime in Egypt, long a top U.S. aid recipient, and
the U.S. role in ousting Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, have raised a number of policy questions
about the appropriate U.S. role in foreign political transitions. Members of the 112th Congress had
expressed interest in supporting popular uprisings against undemocratic regimes, yet are
concerned about accountability and potential unintended consequences of providing assistance to
entities that may pursue actions counter to U.S. policy interests.
To support effective U.S. engagement in the evolving situation in the Middle East, the
Administration proposed in its FY2013 budget request the creation of a $770 million Middle East
and North Africa Incentive Fund (MENA IF). Of the requested funds, some would have supported
existing programs: $65 million would be base funding for the Middle East Partnership Initiative
(MEPI) and $5 million would be for the Office of Middle East Programs (OMEP) regional
activities. These programs are currently funded through regional Economic Support Funds. The
remaining $700 million would have been unallocated funds intended to provide incentives for
beneficiary countries to move toward democracy, while allowing for State Department flexibility
and transparency in supporting Arab Spring countries in transition, eliminating the need to
transfer funds from other programs and accounts to meet evolving circumstances. The
Administration stated that the funds would have been allocated in close consultation with
Congress, but suggested that the funds could have been used for humanitarian relief,
contributions to U.N. peacekeeping activities, or bilateral loan forgiveness, among other
possibilities, depending on the circumstances.
Some Members of Congress expressed concerns about the proposed MENA IF, which some
believe would have given the Administration too much discretion and Congress too little
opportunity for oversight. The House committee bill provided no funding for a new account, but
would have allocated $175 million within the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account and $25
million in the Foreign Military Finance account for “Middle East Response,” including the
funding of MEPI and OMEP and no less than $50 million for Jordan, leaving $75 million
unallocated and “flexible.” In sharp contrast, the Senate committee report included $1 billion for
MENA IF—about 30% more than the $770 million requested. The bill would have increased
MEPI funding to $70.0 million. Under the current CR, there is no designated funding for a
MENA IF, and allocations for programs below the appropriations account level, including MEPI
and OMEP, are unspecified.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 10
Frontline States
As a result of their strategic significance in the so-called Global War on Terror, Afghanistan, Iraq,
and Pakistan, referred to by the Administration as the “frontline states,” consistently have been
top U.S. aid recipients over the past decade. For FY2013, the Administration requested $6.8
billion (including OCO), or about 19% of the foreign operations budget, for aid to these three
countries.10
Iraq
For FY2013, the Administration sought $2.1 billion in foreign operations funds for Iraq, of which
the great majority, $1.8 billion, was designated as OCO. This was 22% more than the FY2012
enacted level. The Department’s FY2013 request for Iraq included $1 billion for the Police
Development Program (PDP), the State Department’s largest single program in Iraq. The
Administration stated that the funding reflected the transition to full State Department authority
of the PDP, which was described in State’s budget justification as the cornerstone of U.S. security
engagement and assistance in Iraq. In the spring of 2012, the PDP came under scrutiny when
news reports suggested that the program was being reduced significantly and might be abandoned
altogether.11 The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad forcefully rejected this notion in a statement calling
the program a “vital part of the U.S.-Iraqi relationship and an effective means of standing by our
Iraqi friends.”12 Still, doubts remain among some foreign policy observers regarding the
program’s ultimate efficacy in the face of numerous obstacles including security challenges and
Iraqi indifference.
The House legislation did not provide specific funds for Iraq, but expressed support for the PDP
while requiring the Administration to report on revised personnel, scope, and costs of the program
to reflect a review conducted earlier this year. The House report (H.Rept. 112-494) stated that
appropriations provided within the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
(INCLE) program would continue funding the PDP program. The Senate Appropriations
Committee provided $635 million13 in foreign operations funds for Iraq, but did not include
funding for the PDP, citing its largely unsuccessful implementation due to Iraqi disinterest and
inadequate planning by the Department of State.
Afghanistan
For FY2013, the Administration requested $2.5 billion in foreign operations funds for
Afghanistan, of which almost half, or $1.2 billion, was designated as OCO. This was 7.6% more
than the FY2012 enacted level. According to the Administration, the increase reflected a surge in
infrastructure programs and other investments in economic growth, as well as the ramping up of
justice sector programs in anticipation of the transition of these programs from the Department of
Defense to civilian management. The House legislation did not specify total funding for
10 For information on U.S. spending in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan over the last decade, see CRS Report RL33110,
The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11, by Amy Belasco.
11 Tim Arango, “U.S. May Scrap Costly Efforts to Train Iraqi Police,” The New York Times, May 13, 2012.
12 U.S. Embassy: “Police Development Program is a Vital Part of the U.S.-Iraqi Relationship”, Press Release, U.S.
Embassy Baghdad, May 13, 2012, http://iraq.usembassy.gov/may1312poldevelop.html.
13 Includes OCO and USAID Operating Expenses.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 11
Afghanistan and specified that assistance to Afghanistan would be withheld until certification that
adequate security is in place for civilian aid workers. The Senate bill included $1.8 billion14 in
foreign operations funds for Afghanistan, asserting that less funding than requested would be
needed as the Afghan government is taking control of more programs.
Pakistan
The Administration’s FY2013 budget requested $2.2 billion in foreign operations funds for
Pakistan, including $800 million for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (PCCF)
designated as OCO. This was about 6% more than the FY2012 enacted level. According to the
Administration, the request reflected a modest increase in civilian assistance focused on energy,
economic growth, stabilization, education, and health, but remained well below the levels
authorized in the Enhance Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009. The House legislation did not
specify an aid level for Pakistan, and prohibited all economic and security assistance if Pakistan is
uncooperative in anti-terrorism and other efforts. The Senate bill included $842.3 million15 in
foreign operations funds for Pakistan, including $50 million for the PCCF (reflecting the
significant unobligated funds still in the pipeline, rather than lack of support for the activities
funded) and continued existing aid restrictions. The Senate bill also included new conditions on
aid to Pakistan, including withholding $33 million in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to
Pakistan until the Secretary of State certifies that Dr. Shakil Afridi is released from prison and
cleared of all charges related to providing assistance to the United States in locating Osama bin
Laden.16
Administration Initiatives
Global Health Initiative
The budget request included roughly $7.9 billion for the Administration’s Global Health Initiative
(GHI) through State-Foreign Operations appropriations, compared to the FY2012 enacted level of
$8.2 billion. The proposed cut of approximately $300.0 million was the largest foreign operations
account reduction requested, in dollar terms, and would have represented the end of a decadelong
growth trend in global health funding.17 Compared to the FY2012-enacted amount, the
request included decreases for each global health activity area, except for a 1.2% increase in
funding for international family planning and reproductive health and a 57% increase in funding
($1.7 billion) for the Global Fund to Fight HIV, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund). The
most significant proposed reductions were for bilateral HIV/AIDS activities. The Administration
asserted that current goals could be attained at the lower funding level as a result of program
efficiencies and reduced drug costs.
14 Including OCO and USAID Operating Expenses.
15 Including OCO and USAID Operating Expenses.
16 For more detail on U.S. aid to Pakistan, see CRS Report R41856, Pakistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance; for more
information about U.S. conditions/restrictions on aid to Pakistan, see CRS Report R42116, Pakistan: U.S. Foreign Aid
Conditions, Restrictions, and Reporting Requirements; both are updated regularly.
17 For more on the GHI and its history, see CRS Report R41851, U.S. Global Health Assistance: Background and
Issues for the 112th Congress, by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 12
Both House and Senate would have provided more than the request. The House legislation
provided $8 billion for global health, slightly more than the request, which included $1.3 billion
for a U.S. contribution to the Global Fund. The Senate proposed $8.5 billion for the GHI, 8%
more than was requested, including $1.7 billion for the Global Fund, and 4% more than the
FY2012 level. Under the CR, GHI programs are funded at an estimated annualized rate of $8.22
billion (the FY2012-enacted level plus 0.612%).
Food Security
Feed the Future (FtF), the Obama Administration’s food security initiative announced in 2010,
continues to be a priority for the Administration. The FY2013 request was for $1.1 billion in
Foreign Operations funds for related programs. FtF is the outgrowth of a pledge made by the
President at a G-8 summit in 2009 to provide at least $3.5 billion over three years (FY2010-
FY2012) to address root causes of global hunger.18 The initiative also emphasizes the benefits of
working multilaterally and in partnership with other stakeholders to leverage resources.19 The
FY2013 request included $134 million for the multi-donor Global Agriculture and Food Security
Program (GAFSP), managed by the World Bank.
The House proposal for FY2013 included language supporting the goals of FtF, but did not
specify a funding level, with the exception of $99.8 million allocated for GAFSP. The Senate
proposal recommended that $1.2 billion in assistance from all accounts in the act be made
available for agricultural and food security, including $200 million specifically appropriated for
GAFSP. Funding for FtF programs under the CR is to continue at an annualized rate of
approximately $1.2 billion (the FY2012-enacted level plus 0.612%).
Climate Change
The FY2013 request for programs supporting the Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) was
$770 million, a 1% increase from the $760.9 million enacted estimate for FY2012. Funds for
GCCI activities flow through a number of appropriations accounts, including ESF, DA, IO&P,
and several multilateral funds. The initiative supports activities relating to climate change with an
emphasis on adaptation, deployment of clean energy technologies, and reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions through sustainable landscapes. A significant portion of this climate change
funding would be channeled through World Bank Trust Funds, which the Administration
promotes as a cost effective approach, claiming that every dollar of U.S. contribution to these
funds leverages four to five dollars from other donor countries and 6 to 10 times that amount
from other sources.20
The House and Senate took notably different positions on GCCI in their FY2013 proposals. The
House legislation did not mention the GCCI and recommended zero funding for the Clean
Technology Fund and Strategic Climate Fund, while providing just half of the requested funds for
the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The Senate committee chose not to provide a minimum
funding level for climate change programs as a whole, but recommended that $111 million be
18 Fore more information on this initiative, see CRS Report R41612, The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future
Initiative, by Charles E. Hanrahan.
19 An additional $18 billion was pledged by other donors at the summit.
20 FY2013 Budget Request, U.S. Department of the Treasury International Programs, p. 6.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 13
spent on Sustainable Landscapes, a pillar of the GCCI. The Senate also indicated strong support
for the multilateral climate change funds, providing $139.4 million for the GEF, $100.0 million
for the Strategic Climate Fund, and $300.0 million for the Clean Technology Fund—exceeding
the Administration’s request for each account. With funding for the Climate Change Initiative not
explicitly designated in the FY2012-enacted appropriation, the funding level under the CR cannot
be estimated.
International Family Planning and Abortion-Related Issues21
The Administration requested $643 million for family planning and reproductive health activities
in FY2013. These activities have generated contentious debate in Congress for over three
decades, primarily over policy rather than funding concerns, resulting in frequent clarification and
modification of family planning laws and policies. Recent congressional debate centers around
two key issues: (1) implementation of the “Mexico City policy” and (2) U.S. funding of the U.N.
Population Fund (UNFPA). The Mexico City policy, issued by President Reagan in 1984,
required foreign NGOs receiving USAID family planning assistance to certify that they would
not perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning, even if such activities
were undertaken with non-U.S. funds. The policy has been rescinded and reissued by past and
current Administrations. It was most recently rescinded by President Obama in January 2009. The
proposed FY2013 House legislation included language that would codify the Mexico City Policy.
The Senate bill did not include such language.
Previous Administrations have also suspended grants to UNFPA due to evidence of coercive
family planning practices in China, citing violations of the “Kemp-Kasten” amendment, which
bans U.S. assistance to organizations that support or participate in the management of coercive
family planning programs. Past and current Administrations have disagreed as to whether UNFPA
engages in such activities. The George W. Bush Administration suspended U.S. contributions to
UNFPA from FY2002 to FY2008 following a State Department investigation of family planning
programs in China. President Obama resumed U.S. contributions to the organization in 2009, and
requested $39 million for UNFPA for FY2013. The proposed FY2013 House legislation included
$461 million for family planning and reproductive health activities and prohibited funding for
UNFPA, while the Senate legislation included $700 million for family planning and reproductive
health, including $44.5 million for UNFPA. Both the House and Senate bills included the Kemp-
Kasten amendment.
The CR carries forward the Kemp-Kasten language from the FY2012 appropriations act and
funds bilateral family planning and reproductive health programs at an annualized rate of
approximately $578.5 million, plus $35.2 million for UNFPA (the FY2012-enacted levels
increased by 0.612%).
Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia (AEECA)
The Administration proposed that the AEECA account, a remnant of the Support for Eastern
European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989 and the Freedom Support Act of 1992, be dissolved in
21 Luisa Blanchfield contributed this section. For more information on international planning issues, see CRS Report
R41360, Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law and Policy, by Luisa
Blanchfield.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 14
FY2013 to reflect the end of an era of special focus on former Soviet and Eastern bloc states
transitioning to democracy and free market economies. While the request included $420.9 million
in funding for programs currently funded through AEECA, an 18% cut from FY2012 funding of
$513.9 million, funding for the programs that had been under AEECA would have come from
ESF, GHP, and INCLE accounts in FY2013 and beyond. The House legislation adopted this
approach, merging AEECA funds with ESF, GHP, and INCLE, while stating that the change is not
intended to signal diminished support for the region or for the role of the Coordinator of U.S.
Assistance to Europe and Eurasia. The Senate proposal also included a provision that funds from
ESF and other accounts may be used to provide assistance to countries that are eligible for
AEECA assistance. Neither House nor Senate proposals provide a minimum funding level for
AEECA-eligible countries. Under the CR, funding for the AEECA account continues at an
estimated annualized rate $630.6 million (the FY2012-enacted level plus 0.612%).
State-Foreign Operations Background and Trends
U.S. national security, trade promotion, and humanitarian interests are rationales for most
international affairs activities. During the Cold War, foreign aid and diplomatic programs had a
primarily anti-communist focus, while concurrently pursuing other U.S. policy interests, such as
promoting economic development, advancing U.S. trade, expanding access to basic education and
health care, promoting human rights, and protecting the environment. After the early 1990s, with
the Cold War ended, distinct policy objectives—including stopping nuclear weapons
proliferation, curbing the production and trafficking of illegal drugs, expanding peace efforts in
the Middle East, achieving regional stability, protecting religious freedom, and countering
trafficking in persons—replaced the Cold War-influenced foreign policy objectives.
A defining change in focus came following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States. Since
then, many U.S. foreign aid and diplomatic programs have emphasized national security
objectives, frequently cast in terms of contributing to efforts to counter terrorism. In 2002,
President Bush released a National Security Strategy that for the first time established global
development as the third pillar of U.S. national security, along with defense and diplomacy.
Development was again underscored in the Administration’s 2006 and 2010 National Security
Strategy.
Also in 2002, foreign assistance budget justifications began to highlight the war on terrorism as
the top foreign aid priority, emphasizing U.S. assistance to 28 “front-line” states—countries that
cooperated with the United States in the war on terrorism or faced terrorist threats themselves.22
Large reconstruction programs in Afghanistan and Iraq began to dominate the foreign aid budget
and exemplified the emphasis on using foreign aid as a tool of national security. State Department
efforts focused extensively on diplomatic security and finding more effective ways of presenting
American views and culture through public diplomacy, particularly in Muslim communities. At
the same time, the Bush Administration vastly increased aid to combat HIV/AIDS globally, with
the creation of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and explored a new
approach to development assistance with creation of the Millennium Challenge Corporation
22 According to the State Department, these “frontline” states in 2002 included Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Colombia, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan,
Kenya, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, and Yemen. Today, the term generally refers only to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 15
(MCC), which supports the development strategies of countries that have demonstrated good
governance.23
The Obama Administration has carried forward many Bush foreign aid initiatives, including the
MCC, massive global health funding (though the Obama Administration’s Global Health
Initiative is broader in scope than PEPFAR), and robust assistance to the frontline states of Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Funding for these, rather than being in supplemental appropriations
requests, however, has been requested within Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) in regular
appropriations bills.
The Obama Administration completed the first ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review (QDDR) in the fall of 2010. Within that context, the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) was named the leading government agency for development assistance.
The QDDR also identified several reforms for the Department of State that have been
implemented, including establishment of the Bureau of Energy and elevating the Office of the
Coordinator for Stabilization and Reconstruction to the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization
Operations.
Overseas Contingency Operations
In its FY2012 budget proposals, the Department of State proposed a significant change in how
funding for the “front line states” of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is viewed in budgetary terms.
It requested that the use of OCO funds, through which war-related Defense appropriations had
flowed for years, be extended to include “extraordinary, but temporary, costs of the Department of
State and USAID in the front line states of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”24 Congress not only
adopted the OCO designation in the FY2012 State-Foreign Operations appropriations legislation,
but expanded it to include funding for additional accounts and countries.
The OCO designation gained increased significance in August 2011 with enactment of the Budget
Control Act of 2011 (BCA), as previously discussed, specifying that funds designated as OCO do
not count toward the budget caps established by the act. OCO designation makes it possible to
keep war-related funding from crowding out core international affairs activities within the budget
allocation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently determined, however, that
OCO funds are not exempt from the BCA automatic across-the-board reductions that are to occur
January 2, 2013.
The OCO approach is reminiscent of the use of supplemental international affairs appropriations
for much of the past decade. Significant emergency supplemental funds for foreign operations
were appropriated in FY2002-FY2010 for activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, and were
not counted toward subcommittee budget allocations. (See Figure 2 below.) The Obama
Administration criticized this practice, asserting that after several years such activities should no
longer be considered emergencies, and pledged to request funds for these activities through the
regular budget process starting in FY2010. This resulted in a sharp increase in base funding in
FY2010, yet supplemental international affairs funds were still requested and enacted for that
year, largely in response to the earthquake in Haiti, but also for activities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and
23 For more on MCC, see CRS Report RL32427, Millennium Challenge Corporation, by Curt Tarnoff.
24 The Department of State, Executive Budget Summary Function 150 & Other International Programs, FY2012, p. 2.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 16
Pakistan. The FY2011 funding cycle was the only one in the last decade in which all international
affairs funding was appropriated as part of the base budget, before the OCO approach was
adopted for FY2012. Unlike supplementals that often have been submitted to Congress separate
from regular funding requests, OCO allows all the funding to be considered simultaneously in the
regular appropriations process.
Figure 2. Base + Supplemental/OCO Funding, FY2002- Pending FY2013 Proposals
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13 Req.
FY13 House
FY13 Senate
billions of current US$
OCO For. Ops.
OCO State
Supplemental
Base
Source: CRS appropriations reports; S. 3241; H.R. 5857; FY2013 International Affairs Congressional Budget
Justification; CRS calculations.
For FY2013, the Administration again used this approach, requesting that $8.24 billion, or about
15% of the international affairs request, be designated as OCO. This amount was 5% less than
was requested for OCO in FY2012, and about 26% less than the $11.2 billion that Congress
enacted for that year. The House legislation designated $8.3 billion as OCO, similar to the
Administration request, but designated proportionately more of the funds within foreign
operations accounts and less within State operations accounts. The Senate bill designated $2.3
billion as OCO, or 72% less than requested, largely because it provided no funding for the Iraq
Police Development program, as mentioned above, and would fund disaster assistance and
migration and refugee assistance accounts entirely through the base budget.
Under the CR, State and Foreign Operations funding designated as OCO is to continue at the
FY2012-enacted level. OCO funding is not subject to the 0.612% increase applied to non-OCO
funds. While the CR set funding for certain OCO accounts at the FY2013-requested level, in
instances where the requested funding was less than the FY2012-enacted level, this provision
does not apply to State and Foreign Operations accounts.
10-Year Funding Trends
Over the past decade, State Department-Foreign Operations funding has generally trended
upward until 2011, with the exception of a spike in FY2004 that reflected large reconstruction
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 17
funds for Iraq and Afghanistan. This changed in FY2011 when Congress significantly reduced
foreign affairs spending to help meet deficit reduction goals. The FY2012 estimate and FY2013
request in current dollars leveled off largely due to congressional efforts to reduce deficit
spending, and after adjusting for inflation, both in constant dollars are below the FY2009 overall
funding level. Table 2 and Figure 3 below show State-Foreign Operations appropriations for the
past decade in both current and constant dollars.
Table 2. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2003-FY2013
(in billions of current and 2013 constant dollars)
FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
FY12
est.
FY13
req.
Current $ 31.72 48.34 34.23 34.25 37.28 40.47 50.50 55.11 48.72 53.50 54.87
Constant
2013 $ 40.60 60.43 41.42 40.07 42.50 44.52 55.05 59.52 51.16 54.57 54.87
Source: The Department of State, Summary and Highlights, International Affairs Function 150, FY2004-FY2013
and CRS calculations.
Notes: Figures include all enacted appropriations: regular, OCO, supplementals, and rescissions. Constant
dollars are adjusted for inflation using FY2013 total non-defense deflators, Fiscal Year 2013 Historical Tables,
Budget of the U.S. Government, Office of Management and Budget, p. 212.
Figure 3. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2003-FY2013
Source: Summary and Highlights, International Affairs Function 150, FY2004-FY2013, and CRS calculations.
Table 3 and Figure 4 show appropriations for the State Department and related agencies over the
past decade in both current and constant dollars. Note that while there was a spike in foreign aid
in 2004, there was only a slight increase in State Department funding that year as diplomacy
funding lagged. In recent years, however, the State Department and related agencies funding
trends upward at a steeper rate than the overall foreign affairs spending, reflecting an interest by
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 18
both the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations to increase human resource capacity at the
Department of State.
Table 3. State Department and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2003-FY2013
(discretionary budget authority in billions of current and 2013 constant dollars)
FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
FY12
est.
FY13
req.
Current $ 8.05 9.29 10.78 11.12 10.90 13.57 16.1 17.62 15.93 17.99 18.80
Constant
2013 $ 10.3 11.61 13.04 13.01 12.43 14.93 17.55 19.03 16.73 18.35 18.80
Source: The Department of State Congressional Budget Justifications, FY2004-FY2013, and CRS calculations.
Notes: Figures include all enacted appropriations: regular, OCO, supplementals, and rescissions. Constant
dollars are adjusted for inflation using FY2013 total non-defense deflators, Fiscal Year 2013 Historical Tables,
Budget of the U.S. Government, Office of Management and Budget, p. 212.
Figure 4. State Department and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2003-FY2013
Source: The Department of State Congressional Budget Justifications, FY2004-FY2013, and CRS calculations.
Table 4 and Figure 5 show appropriations for the Foreign Operations (foreign aid) portion of the
foreign affairs budget over the past decade in both current and constant dollars. Because Foreign
Operations typically makes up about two-thirds of the State-Foreign Operations appropriations, it
shows a similar trend as the overall State-Foreign Operations budget. Unlike the State
Department trend line which continues upward in FY2012 and FY2013, foreign aid funding
levels off in those years.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 19
Table 4. Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2003-FY2013
(discretionary budget authority in billions of current and constant 2013 dollars)
FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
FY12
est.
FY13
req.
Current
$ 23.67 39.05 23.45 23.13 26.38 26.89 32.82 37.49 33.3 36.03 36.07
Constant
2013 $ 30.30 48.81 28.37 27.06 30.07 29.58 35.77 40.49 34.97 36.75 36.07
Source: The Foreign Operations Congressional Budget Justifications, FY2004-FY2013, and CRS calculations.
Notes: Figures include all enacted appropriations: regular, OCO, supplementals, and rescissions. Constant
dollars are adjusted for inflation using FY2013 total non-defense deflators, Fiscal Year 2013 Historical Tables,
Budget of the U.S. Government, Office of Management and Budget, p. 212.
Figure 5. Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2003-FY2013
Source: The Foreign Operations Congressional Budget Justification, FY2004-FY2013, and CRS calculations.
Top 10 U.S. Foreign Aid Recipient Countries
Prior to 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Israel and Egypt typically received the largest
amounts of U.S. foreign aid every year since the Camp David Peace Accords in 1978.25 The
reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan moved those countries into the top five, though
assistance to Iraq has declined significantly in recent years with the completion of many
reconstruction activities. Meanwhile, a combination of security assistance and economic aid
designed to limit the appeal of extremist organizations has moved Pakistan up the list in recent
years. Funding for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan includes temporary OCO appropriations.
25 For more information on historic aid trends, see CRS Report R40213, Foreign Aid: An Introduction to U.S.
Programs and Policy, by Curt Tarnoff and Marian Leonardo Lawson.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 20
Table 5. Top 10 Recipients of U.S. Foreign Aid in FY2012 and the FY2013 Request
(in millions of current U.S. $)
FY2012 FY2013 Request
Country
Estimated
Allocation Country
Requested
Allocation
Israel $3,075 Israel $3,100
Afghanistan $2,327 Afghanistan $2,505
Pakistan $2,102 Pakistan $2,228
Iraq $1,683 Iraq $2,045
Egypt $1,557 Egypt $1,563
Jordan $676 Jordan $671
Kenya $652 Nigeria $599
Nigeria $625 Tanzania $571
Ethiopia $580 South Africa $489
Tanzania $531 Kenya $460
Source: Congressional Budget Justification Summary Tables, FY2013, Country/Account Summary (spigots)
FY2012 estimates and FY2013 request tables.
Notes: These lists consist of funding only from the 150 International Affairs Function. If funding from the
defense budget were included, Pakistan, for example, would rank second for both FY2012 and the FY2013
request. Numbers include Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding.
The top five recipient countries in the FY2013 request were the same as the top five aid recipients
of the allocated FY2012 funds. Israel topped the list at $3,100 million in Foreign Military
Financing (FMF), and Afghanistan ranked second, with $2,505 million requested, of which
$1,237.9 million was designated as OCO funds. Nearly three-quarters of aid requested for
Afghanistan was within ESF. Pakistan ranked third at $2,228 million, including $800 million for
PCCF and $928 million within ESF. Iraq moved up from sixth in FY2010 to fourth in FY2012
and in the FY2013 request. Of the $2,045 million for Iraq, $1,750 million was OCO money. (See
Table 5 above.)
Under the CR, country allocations that were specified in the FY2012 appropriations legislation
still apply, while country allocations not specified in the FY2012 legislation are left to the
discretion of the responsible agencies. All restrictions and conditions on aid to specific countries
remain in effect.
Regional Distribution
As shown in Figure 6, under the FY2013 budget request, aid to Africa would have declined by
10% from the current level to $6.4 billion; U.S. aid to the Near East would have increased by
12% to $9.0 billion, largely due to support for the Arab Spring; and aid to South Central Asia
would have increased by 6% to $5.3 billion. Aid to Africa primarily supports HIV/AIDS and
other health-related programs while 88% of the aid to South Central Asia was requested, largely
for war-related costs, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Near East region continued to be
dominated by assistance to Israel ($3.1 billion), Iraq ($2.0 billion), Egypt ($1.6 billion), and
Jordan ($0.7 billion). The Western Hemisphere’s projected relative decline in FY2013 was
attributable to a reduction in funding of ESF and INCLE for Colombia. Europe and Eurasia’s
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 21
14% decline was largely due to progress made by many countries in the region and other more
pressing global priorities.26 Aid to East Asia and Pacific remained relatively low and consistent
with past years’ levels.
Figure 6. Regional Distribution of Foreign Aid, FY2012 and FY2013 Request
$0.0
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
$6.0
$7.0
$8.0
$9.0
Africa EAP EE NE SCA WH
billions of current U.S. $
FY2012 FY2013 request
Source: Foreign Operations Congressional Budget Justification, FY2013.
Note: FY2012 figures include estimated funding including Overseas Contingency Operation funds. FY2013
figures represent the Administration’s request, including Overseas Contingency Operations funds. EAP=East Asia
and Pacific; EE=Europe and Eurasia; NE=Near East; SCA=South and Central Asia; WH=Western Hemisphere.
Sector Distribution
Over the years, Congress has expressed interest in various discrete aid sectors, such as education,
building trade capacity, maternal and child health, and biodiversity, that are funded across
multiple accounts and/or agencies. Administrations have begun presenting their respective budget
requests with a section showing what portion of the request would address some of these “key
interest areas.” The Administration did not provide allocation data, limiting comparisons to yearto-
year requested funds rather than comparing requested funds to previous enacted levels.
Comparing past and present requested levels do provide an indication of the Administration’s
interests and priorities, but not those of congressional appropriators.
Table 6 compares the FY2012 and FY2013 budget requests for key interest areas identified by
the Administration. Out of 23 sectors listed, the Administration’s FY2013 request was less than
last year’s request for all except five. Perhaps surprisingly, two of the Administration’s major
initiatives—Food Security and Global Climate Change―show declines in the FY2013 request.
Other sectors with reduced funding requests included Sustainable Landscapes (helping manage
26 Executive Budget Summary, Function 150 and Other International Programs, Fiscal Year 2012, p. 86.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 22
forests and ecosystems to reduce greenhouse effects), Neglected Tropical Diseases, Nutrition,
Maternal and Child Health, Higher Education, Clean Energy, and Basic Education. The
Administration emphasized increased funding for two focus areas that were new in FY2012:
Gender Funding (up by 330% over last year’s request) and Science, Technology, and Innovation
(up 85% over last year’s request).
Table 6. Selected Sector Funding, FY2012 Request and FY2013 Request
(millions of current U.S. $)
Sector FY2012 req. FY2013 req. % Change
Avian/Pandemic Influenza $60 $53 -12%
Basic Education $740 $570 -23%
Biodiversity $79 $100 +27%
Clean Energy $195 $149 -24%
Family Planning/Reproductive
Health $769 $643 -16%
Food Security $1,100 $1,091 -1%
Gender Funding $391 $1,680 +330%
Global Climate Change
Adaptation $215 $190 -12%
Higher Education $233 $175 -25%
HIV/AIDS $5,992 $5,680 -5%
Malaria $691 $619 -10%
Maternal and Child Health $1,191 $847 -29%
Microenterprise and
Microfinance $155 $195 +26%
Neglected Tropical Diseases $163 $104 -36%
Nutrition $226 $156 -31%
Polio $40 $37 -8%
Science, Tech. & Innovation $333 $617 +85%
Sustainable Landscapes $241 $131 -46%
Trade Capacity Building $216 $201 -7%
Trafficking in Persons $37 $38 +3%
Trans-Sahara Counter-
Terrorism $53 $44 -17%
Tuberculosis $254 $232 -9%
Water $294 $274 -7%
Source: U.S. Department of State Foreign Operations Congressional Budget Justification, FY2012 and FY2013,
and CRS calculations.
Note: Totals for Water, Basic Education, Child & Maternal Health, and Food Security do not include related
funding through the P.L. 480/Food for Peace program, which is funded through Agriculture appropriations.
CRS-23
Appendix A. Structure of State-Foreign Operations Appropriations
Source: The Congressional Research Service.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 24
Appendix B. Abbreviations
Funding Accounts:
ACI Andean Counterdrug Initiative
AEECA Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia
CSH Child Survival and Health
DA Development Assistance
DF Democracy Fund
ERMA Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance
ESF Economic Support Fund
FMF Foreign Military Financing
GHAI Global HIV/AIDS Initiative
IDFA International Disaster and Famine Assistance
IMET International Military Education and Training
INCLE International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation
MENA IF Middle East North Africa Incentive Fund
MRA Migration and Refugee Assistance
NADR Non-proliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs
PEPFAR President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief
PKO Peacekeeping Operations
PL 480 Food aid
PMI President’s Malaria Initiative
TI Transition Initiatives
Other:
DFA Director of Foreign Assistance
AFR Africa
EAP East Asia and Pacific
EE Europe and Eurasia
LAC Latin America and Caribbean
NE Near East
SCA South and Central Asia
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
CRS-25
Appendix C. State Department, Foreign Operations and Related
Agencies Appropriations
Table C-1. State Department, Foreign operations and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2011-FY2013
(millions of current U.S. $)
FY2011
actuala
FY2012 estimate
(P.L. 112-74) FY2013 request
FY2013 House
(H.R. 5857)
FY13 Senate
(S. 3241)
Total Core OCO Total Core OCO Total Core OCO Total Core OCO Total
Title I. State Department
Administration of Foreign
Affairs, Subtotal
11,384.83 9,018.01 4,513.34 13,531.35 9,747.77 4,361.65 14,109.42 8,733.80 2,785.65 11,519.45 10,112.86 1,481.90 11,594.76
Diplomatic & Consular
Program
8,717.07 6,529.13 4,389.06 10,918.19 7,068.62 4,311.75 11,380.37 6,276.05 2,707.73 8,983.78 7,437.47 1,426.00 8,863.47
Capital Investment Fund 59.38 59.38 59.38 83.30 83.30 59.38 59.38 90.00 90.00
Embassy Security,
Construction & Maintenance
1,630.95 1,537.00 33.00 1,570.00 1,637.72 1,637.72 1,526.20 10.80 1,537.00 1,637.72 1,637.72
Conflict Stabilization
Operations
35.20 21.82 8.50 30.32 56.50 56.50 8.50 8.50 0.00 0.00
Ed. & Cultural Exchanges 599.55 583.20 15.60 598.80 586.96 586.96 586.96 586.96 625.00 625.00
Office of Inspector General 104.79 61.90 67.18 129.08 65.62 49.90 115.52 60.15 58.62 118.77 67.00 55.90 122.90
Representation Allowances 7.84 7.30 7.30 7.48 7.48 7.30 7.30 7.30 7.30
Protection of Foreign Missions
& Officials
27.94 27.00 27.00 28.20 28.20 27.00 27.00 35.00 35.00
Emergency-Diplomatic &
Consular Services
19.35 9.30 9.30 9.50 9.50 9.30 9.30 9.50 9.50
Repatriation Loans 1.57 1.45 1.45 1.80 1.80 1.45 1.45 1.80 1.80
International Center 0.51 0.52 0.52 5.97 5.97 5.97 5.97
Payment American Institute
Taiwan
21.78 21.11 21.11 37.20 37.20 21.11 21.11 37.20 37.20
Foreign Service Retirement
(mandatory)
158.90 158.90 158.90 158.90 158.90 158.90 158.90 158.90 158.90
International
Organizations, Subtotal
3,462.58 3,277.88 101.30 3,379.18 3,668.50 0.00 3,668.50 3,138.95 101.30 3,240.25 3,396.24 101.30 3,497.54
CRS-26
FY2011
actuala
FY2012 estimate
(P.L. 112-74) FY2013 request
FY2013 House
(H.R. 5857)
FY13 Senate
(S. 3241)
Total Core OCO Total Core OCO Total Core OCO Total Core OCO Total
Contributions to Int’l Orgs 1,578.65 1,449.70 101.30 1,551.00 1,570.00 1,570.00 1,310.77 101.30 1,412.07 1,389.74 101.30 1,491.04
Contributions to International
Peacekeeping
1,883.93 1,828.18 1,828.18 2,098.50 2,098.50 1,828.18 1,828.18 2,006.50 2,006.50
International Commissions 132.64 124.16 0.00 124.16 122.10 0.00 122.10 120.34 0.00 120.34 132.40 0.00 132.40
Int’l Boundary/U.S.-Mexico 69.66 76.17 76.17 77.10 77.10 76.18 76.18 78.20 78.20
American Sections 12.58 11.69 11.69 12.20 12.20 11.69 11.69 13.50 13.50
International Fisheries 50.40 36.30 36.30 32.80 32.80 32.47 32.47 40.70 40.70
International
Broadcasting, Subtotal
738.76 747.13 4.40 751.53 720.15 0.00 720.15 747.13 0.00 747.13 733.05 0.00 733.05
Broadcasting Operations 732.31 740.10 4.40 744.50 711.56 711.56 740.10 740.10 724.20 724.20
Capital Improvements 6.45 7.03 7.03 8.59 8.59 7.03 7.03 8.85 8.85
Related Appropriations,
Subtotal
198.00 183.77 8.40 192.17 169.22 0.00 169.22 177.18 0.00 177.18 309.55 0.00 309.55
Asia Foundation 17.86 17.00 17.00 15.40 15.40 15.40 15.40 17.00 17.00
U.S. Institute of Peace 39.40 30.59 8.40 38.99 37.40 37.40 37.40 37.40 38.23 38.23
Center for Middle East-West
Dialogue-Trust & Program
1.30 0.84 0.84 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
Eisenhower Exchange
Programs
0.30 0.50 0.50 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
Israeli Arab Scholarship
Program
0.42 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37
East-West Center 20.96 16.70 16.70 10.80 10.80 0.00 0.00 16.70 16.70
National Endowment for
Democracy
117.76 117.76 117.76 104.00 104.00 122.76 122.76 236.00 236.00
Other Commissions 13.00 11.84 0.00 11.84 12.18 0.00 12.18 11.67 0.00 11.67 11.95 0.00 11.95
Preservation of America’s
Heritage
0.60 0.63 0.63 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.63 0.63
Int’l Religious Freedom 4.30 3.00 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.00 3.25 3.25
Security & Cooperation
Europe
2.60 2.72 2.72 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58
Cong.-Exec. on People’s
Republic of China
2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
CRS-27
FY2011
actuala
FY2012 estimate
(P.L. 112-74) FY2013 request
FY2013 House
(H.R. 5857)
FY13 Senate
(S. 3241)
Total Core OCO Total Core OCO Total Core OCO Total Core OCO Total
U.S.-China Economic and
Security Review
3.50 3.49 3.49 3.50 3.50 3.49 3.49 3.49 3.49
State/Broadcasting/Related
Agencies, TOTAL
15,929.81 13,362.79 4,627.44 17,990.23 14,439.92 4,361.65 18,801.57 12,929.07 2,886.95 15,816.02 14,696.05 1,583.20 16,279.25
Title II. U.S. Agency for
International Development
1,528.44 1,268.50 259.50 1,528.00 1,448.45 84.00 1,532.45 1,195.91 258.41 1,454.32 1,472.10 109.80 1,581.90
USAID Operating Expenses 1,347.30 1,092.30 255.00 1,347.30 1,263.05 84.00 1,347.05 1,015.71 258.41 1,274.12 1,281.10 109.80 1,390.90
Conflict Stabilization
Operations
4.99 — — — —
USAID Capital Investment
Fund
129.74 129.70 129.70 134.90 134.90 129.70 129.70 140.00 140.00
USAID Inspector General 46.41 46.50 4.50 51.00 50.50 50.50 50.50 50.50 51.00 51.00
Title III. Bilateral
Economic Assistance,
Subtotal
21,205.03 18,353.94 3,218.56 21,572.50 20,339.52 1,037.87 21,377.39 17,247.24 2,678.81 19,926.05 22,382.20 600.00 22,982.20
Global Health Programs
(GHP), State + USAID
7,832.31 8,167.86 8,167.86 7,854.00 7,854.00 8,017.71 8,017.71 8,478.97 8,478.97
GHP (State Dept.) [5,334.31] [5,542.86] [5,542.86] [5,350.00] [5,350.00] [5,542.86] [5550] [5550]
GHP (USAID) [2,498.00] [2,625.00] [2,625.00] [2,504.00] [2,504.00] [2,474.85] [2928.97] [2928.97]
Development Assistance 2,519.95 2,519.95 2,519.95 2,525.50 2,525.50 2,519.95 2,519.95 3,050.00 3,050.00
International Disaster &
Famine Assistance
863.27 825.00 150.00 975.00 960.00 960.00 772.60 150.00 922.60 1,250.00 1,250.00
Transition Initiatives 54.89 50.14 6.55 56.69 57.60 57.60 50.14 6.55 56.69 59.00 59.00
Complex Crises Fund 39.92 10.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 50.00 — — 50.00 50.00
Development Credit Authority
–Admin
8.28 8.30 8.30 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20
Development Credit Authority
Subsidy
[30.00] [40.0] [40.00] [40.0] [40.00] [40.0] [40.0] —
Economic Support Fund 5,931.71 2,994.75 2,801.46 5,796.21 4,848.57 1,037.87 5,886.44 2,916.72 2,293.26 5,209.98 4,524.33 600.00 5,124.33
Assistance for Europe; Eurasia
& Central Asia (AEECA)b
695.74 626.72 626.72
Middle East and North Africa
Incentive Fund
770.00 770.00 1,000.00 1,000.00
CRS-28
FY2011
actuala
FY2012 estimate
(P.L. 112-74) FY2013 request
FY2013 House
(H.R. 5857)
FY13 Senate
(S. 3241)
Total Core OCO Total Core OCO Total Core OCO Total Core OCO Total
Democracy Fund 114.77 114.77 114.77 119.77 119.77 230.00 230.00
Migration & Refugee
Assistance
1,694.60 1,646.10 229.00 1,875.10 1,625.40 1,625.40 1,454.40 229.00 1,683.40 2,300.00 2,300.00
Emergency Refugee and
Migration
49.90 27.20 27.20 50.00 50.00 47.00 47.00 50.00 50.00
Independent Agencies
Inter-American Foundation 22.45 22.50 22.50 18.10 18.10 18.10 18.10 23.50 23.50
African Development
Foundation
29.44 30.00 30.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 31.00 31.00
Peace Corps 374.25 375.00 375.00 374.50 374.50 375.00 375.00 400.00 400.00
Millennium Challenge
Corporation
898.20 898.20 898.20 898.20 898.20 898.20 898.20 898.20 898.20
Department of Treasury — — — —
Treasury Department
Technical Assistance
25.45 25.45 1.55 27.00 25.45 25.45 25.45 25.45 29.00 29.00
Debt Restructuring 49.90 12.00 12.00 250.00 250.00 — — —
Title IV. Military/Security
Assistance, Subtotal
8,413.96 7,269.82 3,097.27 10,367.09 7,941.23 2,761.00 10,702.23 7,308.85 2,474.35 9,783.20 8,599.23 — 8,599.23
International Narcotics
Control & Law Enforcement
1,593.81 1,061.10 943.61 2,004.71 1,456.50 1,050.00 2,506.50 1,061.10 1,297.00 2,358.10 1,484.62 1,484.62
Nonproliferation, Anti-
Terrorism, Demining
738.52 590.11 120.66 710.77 635.67 635.67 590.11 75.35 665.46 695.67 695.67
International Military Education
& Training
105.79 105.79 105.79 102.64 102.64 102.64 102.64 103.02 103.02
Foreign Military Financing 5,374.23 5,210.00 1,102.00 6,312.00 5,472.32 911.00 6,383.32 5,210.00 1,102.00 6,312.00 5,849.82 5,849.82
Peacekeeping Operations 304.39 302.82 81.00 383.82 249.10 249.10 345.00 345.00 391.10 391.10
Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Capability Fund (PCCF)
297.22 800.00 800.00 800.00 800.00 — 50.00 50.00
Global Security Fund — 50.00 50.00 25.00 25.00 — — 25.00 25.00
Title V. Multilateral
Assistance, Subtotal
2,299.47 2,971.10 2,971.10 2,952.65 2,952.65 2,237.54 — 2,237.54 3,345.95 — 3,345.95
World Bank: Global
Environment Facility
89.82 89.82 89.82 129.40 129.40 64.70 64.70 139.40 139.40
CRS-29
FY2011
actuala
FY2012 estimate
(P.L. 112-74) FY2013 request
FY2013 House
(H.R. 5857)
FY13 Senate
(S. 3241)
Total Core OCO Total Core OCO Total Core OCO Total Core OCO Total
International Clean Technology
Fund
184.63 184.63 184.63 185.00 185.00 — — 300.00 300.00
Strategic Climate Fund 49.90 49.90 49.90 50.00 50.00 — — 100.00 100.00
World Bank: Int’l.
Development Association
1,232.53 1,325.00 1,325.00 1,358.50 1,358.50 1,325.00 1,325.00 1,358.50 1,358.50
Int. Bank Recon & Dev 117.36 117.36 186.96 186.96 58.68 58.68 186.96 186.96
Inter-Amer. Dev. Bank -
capital
75.00 75.00 102.02 102.02 51.01 51.01 113.50 113.50
IADB: Enterprise for Americas
MIF
24.95 25.00 25.00 — — — — 25.73 25.73
IADB: Inter-American
Investment Corporation
20.96 4.67 4.67 — — — —
Asian Development Fund 100.00 100.00 115.25 115.25 100.00 100.00 115.25 115.25
Asian Development Bank -
capital
106.37 106.59 106.59 106.80 106.80 53.29 53.29 106.80 106.80
African Development Fund 109.78 172.50 172.50 195.00 195.00 172.50 172.50 195.00 195.00
African Development Bank -
capital
32.42 32.42 32.42 32.42 16.21 16.21 32.42 32.42
International Fund for
Agricultural Development
29.44 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 19.85 19.85 32.24 32.24
Global Food Security Fund 99.80 135.00 135.00 134.00 134.00 99.80 99.80 200.00 200.00
International Organizations &
Programs
351.29 348.71 348.71 327.30 327.30 276.50 276.50 375.00 375.00
Multilateral Debt Reliefc 174.50 174.50 — — — — 65.15 65.15
Title VI. Export Aid,
Subtotal
(149.40) (413.01) (413.01) (493.62) (493.62) (522.01) — (522.01) (493.62) — (493.62)
Export-Import Bank (net)d 2.58 (266.00) (266.00) (359.10) (359.10) (368.10) (368.10) (359.10) (359.10)
Overseas Private Investment
Corporation (net)d
(201.88) (197.01) (197.01) (192.12) (192.12) (203.91) (203.91) (192.12) (192.12)
Trade & Development Agency 49.90 50.00 50.00 57.60 57.60 50.00 50.00 57.60 57.60
Foreign Ops TOTAL 33,297.50 29,450.35 6,575.33 36,025.68 32,188.23 3,882.87 36,071.10 27,467.53 5,411.57 32,879.10 35,305.86 709.80 36,015.66
State-Broadcasting-Related,
TOTAL
15,929.81 13,362.79 4,627.44 17,990.23 14,439.92 4,361.65 18,801.57 12,929.07 2,886.95 15,816.02 14,696.05 1,583.20 16,279.25
CRS-30
FY2011
actuala
FY2012 estimate
(P.L. 112-74) FY2013 request
FY2013 House
(H.R. 5857)
FY13 Senate
(S. 3241)
Total Core OCO Total Core OCO Total Core OCO Total Core OCO Total
State-Foreign Operations,
TOTAL
49,227.31 42,813.14 11,202.77 54,015.91 46,628.15 8,244.52 54,872.67 40,396.60 8,298.52 48,695.12 50,001.91 2,293.00 52,294.91
Title VII. General Provisions
(Rescissions)
(505.88) (513.70) — (513.70) — — — (105.70) (54.00) (159.70) — —
State-Foreign Ops Total,
Net of Rescissions
48,721.43 42,299.44 11,202.77 53,502.21 46,628.15 8,244.52 54,872.67 40,290.90 8,244.52 48,535.42 50,001.91 2,293.00 52,294.91
Title VIII. Overseas
Contingency Operations
While listed in a separate title in FY2013 legislation, OCO-designated funding has been listed here in the OCO columns above, in the appropriate account lines, to allow for
easier year-to-year and bill-to-bill comparison of account totals.
Source: FY2011, FY2012, and FY2013 request data are from the FY2013 CBJ; FY2013 House data are from H.Rept. 112-494; Senate data are from S.Rept. 112-172.
Notes: Shaded columns indicate fiscal year totals. Figures in brackets are subsumed in the larger account above and are not counted against the total. Figures in
parentheses are negative numbers.
a. FY2011 figures reflect a 0.2% across-the-board rescission included in P.L. 112-10.
b. Although no funding was requested through the AEECA account for FY2013, funding for many programs and activities currently supported by this account was
requested in the ESF, GHP and INCLE accounts.
c. Includes MDRI funds both for the World Bank IDA and the African Development Bank.
d. Figures are net of offsetting receipts.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 31
Appendix D. International Affairs (150) Budget
Account
Table D-1. International Affairs (150) Budget Account, FY2011-FY2013
(in millions of current dollars)
FY2011
Actuala
FY2012
Estimate
FY2013
Request
FY2013
House
FY2013
Senate
State-Foreign Operations,
excluding commissionsb 48,575.79 53,366.21 54,738.39 48,403.41 52,150.56
Commerce-Justice-Science
Foreign Claim Settlement
Commission 2.16 2.00 2.14 2.00 2.14
Int’l Trade Commission 81.70 80.00 82.8.0 83.00 82.8.0
Agriculture
P.L. 480 and McGovern-Dole 1,696.10 1,650.00 1,584.00 1,330.00 1,650.00
Total International Affairs
(150) 50,355.75 55,098.21 56,407.33 49,818.41 53,885.50
Source: FY2013 International Affairs Congressional Budget Justification; H.Rept. 112-494; S.Rept. 112-172;
H.Rept. 112-463; S.Rept. 112-158; S.Rept. 112-163; CRS calculations.
a. Funding levels in this column reflect the 0.2% rescission across all non-defense accounts for FY2011 funds
b. While funding for certain international commissions are appropriated in State-Foreign Operations bill, they
are not part of the International Affairs Function 150 Account. The State-Foreign Operations totals reflect
rescissions.

Back to Index