FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

Summary: The FY2019 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, enacted as Division A of P.L. 115-245 , provides $667.3 billion in new budget authority to fund all activities of the Department of Defense (DOD) except for the construction of military facilities and the operation of military family housing complexes.

Summary: While the total amount appropriated for DOD for FY2019 was nearly equal to the Administration's request, the act provides more funding than requested for dozens of weapons acquisition programs, with the gross increase exceeding $10 billion. Those additions are offset by hundreds of reductions made elsewhere within the budget request.

Summary: In effect, these reductions allowed Congress to add billions of dollars to the Administration's DOD budget request without exceeding the cap on defense spending that arose from the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 ( P.L. 115-123 ). That cap applies to discretionary appropriations for DOD's base budget —that is, appropriations designated by Congress and the President as funding for emergencies or for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). OCO activities include current operations in Afghanistan and Syria, and any other operations which are so designated by Congress and the President.

Summary: As enacted, H.R. 6157 funds the Administration's major defense initiatives, including an increase of 16,500 active-duty military personnel. Among the weapons procurement programs for which the bill provides substantial additions add to the amounts requested are the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter used by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps (77 aircraft requested and 93 funded) and the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (one requested and three funded).

This report provides both an overview of the FY2019 defense appropriations act ( P.L. 115-245 ) and access to other CRS products providing additional detail and analysis on particular issues and programs dealt with by that law.

The Overview section of the report immediately following this Introduction covers the legislative history of the bill and the strategic and budgetary context within which is was debated. Subsequent sections of the report detail the bill's treatment of specific issues including procurement of various types of weapons. Each section dealing with procurement of a certain type of weapon includes a table presenting basic budget information and links to any relevant CRS product.

For FY2019, the Trump Administration requested $668.4 billion to fund programs falling within the scope of the annual defense appropriations act. This included $67.9 billion to be designated by Congress and the President as funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) and $599.4 billion for DOD's base budget, comprising all operations not designated as OCO. OCO-designated funding is related to current operations in Afghanistan and Syria, but includes other activities that Congress and the President so-designate.

As enacted, H.R. 6157 provides $667.3 billion, a net reduction of $1.09 billion amounting to less than two-tenths of 1% of the total (i.e., base budget plus OCO) request. Compared with the total amount provided by the FY2018 defense appropriations bill (P.L. 114-113), the FY2019 act provides an increase of 2.3%. (See Table 1 .)

The House initially passed H.R. 6197 on June 28, 2018, by a vote of 359-49. On that same day, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 3159 , its own version of the FY2019 Defense Appropriations bill. Subsequently, the Senate adopted several amendments to H.R. 6157 , including one that substituted the text of the Senate committee bill for the House-passed text. The Senate also adopted an amendment that added to the defense bill the text of S. 3158 , the FY2019 appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, which the Senate Appropriations Committee had approved on August 20, 2018. The Senate then passed H.R. 6197 , as amended, on August 23, 2018, by a vote of 85-7.

A House-Senate conference committee reported a version of the bill on September 13, 2018. The Senate approved the conference report on September 18 by a vote of 93-7 and the House did likewise on September 26 by a vote of 361-61. President Donald J. Trump signed the bill into law ( P.L. 115-245 ) on September 28, 2018. (See Table 2 .)

The total amount requested for DOD that falls within the scope of the annual defense appropriations bill and amounts provided in P.L. 115-245 as enacted are relatively close. Within those gross totals, however, there are differences between the amounts requested and the amounts provided for hundreds of specific elements within the sprawling DOD budget. Many of these individual differences reflect congressional judgements about particular issues. However, there also are patterns of differences that reflect congressional views on broad policy or budgetary questions:

Title I of the act, that funds Military Personnel accounts, provides $2.2 billion less than was requested for pay and benefits. House-Senate conferees said the reduction should have no adverse impact on the force. According to the conference report, revised estimates of the budgetary impact of recent changes in the military retirement system were the basis for a net reduction from the request of $1.54 billion. Other reductions totaling $430 million were justified by conferees on the basis of "historical unobligated balances," that is, an accumulation of funds in certain accounts that were appropriated in prior years but were not spent. Base budget funding provided by the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) title of the act (Title II) amounts to a net reduction of $5.2 billion from the request. In part, the apparent cut reflects a transfer of nearly $2.0 billion to Title IX of the act, which funds OCO. The conferees justified additional reductions totaling $1.34 billion on the basis of either large unobligated balances or "historical underexecution," (i.e., a pattern of repeatedly spending less on military personnel in a given fiscal year than had been appropriated).

On the other hand, total procurement funding for the base budget (Title III) is $4.8 billion higher than the request. While the act makes hundreds of additions and cuts to the funding requested for particular items, three broad themes all push the act's procurement total upward: $2.48 billion is added to buy aircraft and other equipment for National Guard and reserve forces; $2.31 billion is added to fully fund or acquire major components for additional six ships (see Table 9 ); and $2.13 billion is added to the $8.49 billion requested for procurement of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (see Table 10 ).

Similarly, base budget funding in the act for research and development (Title IV) is $3.8 billion higher than the request, partly because the legislation would add $2.3 billion to the $13.7 billion requested for science and technology (S&T) programs – that is, the part of the R&D effort focused on developing new and potentially useful scientific and engineering knowledge rather than on designing specific pieces of equipment intended for production.

The Trump Administration presented its FY2019 defense budget request – nearly 96% of which is funded by the annual defense appropriations bill – as responding to an international security environment that has become increasingly contentious in recent years. Many observers view events such as China's construction of military bases in the South China Sea since 2013 and Russia's seizure of Crimea in March 2014 as marking an end to the post-Cold War era that began in the late 1980s and 1990s with the decline and collapse of the Soviet Union.

Many observers of contemporary international security trends contend that the United States and its allies are entering an era of increased strategic complexity. Very broadly speaking, during the Cold War and beyond, U.S. national security challenges were difficult, yet relatively straightforward to conceptualize, prioritize, and manage. U.S. national security and foreign policies during the Cold War were focused on its strategic competition with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and on containing the spread of communism globally. In the years following the end of the Cold War, U.S. national security policies and practices were largely designed to curtail genocide in the Balkans and Iraq, while simultaneously containing regional aggressors such as Iran and North Korea and recalibrating relations with China and Russia.

The terrorist attacks on U.S. territory on September 11 th , 2001 ushered in an era of national security policy largely focused on countering terrorism and insurgencies in the Middle East while containing, if not reversing, North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons programs. As a legacy of the Cold War's ending, U.S. and allied military forces had overwhelming military superiority over adversaries in the Middle East and the Balkans. Accordingly, operations were conducted in relatively permissive environments.

The 2014 Russian invasion of the Crimean peninsula and subsequent proxy war in eastern Ukraine fostered concern in the United States and in Europe about an aggressive and revanchist Russia. Meanwhile, China began building and militarizing islands in the South China Sea in order to lay claim to key shipping lanes. Together, these events highlighted anew the salience in the U.S. national security agenda of dealing with other great powers , that is, states able and willing to employ military force unilaterally to accomplish their objectives. At the same time, the security challenges that surfaced at the end of the Cold War – fragile states, genocide, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation, to name a few – have remained serious threats to U.S. interests. In this international context, conceptualizing, prioritizing, and managing these myriad problems, arguably, is more difficult than it was in eras past. The situation is summarized by the December 2017 U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS), which notes:

The United States faces an extraordinarily dangerous world, filled with a wide range of threats that have intensified in recent years.

Likewise, the January 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) argues:

We are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing rules-based international order—creating a security environment more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory.

The Trump Administration's 2017 NSS and the 11-page unclassified summary of the NDS explicitly reorients U.S. national security strategy (including defense strategy) toward a primary focus on great power competition with China and Russia and on countering Chinese and Russian military capabilities.

In addition to explicitly making the great power competition the primary U.S. national security concern, the NDS also argues for a focus on bolstering the competitive advantage of U.S. forces, which, the document contends, has eroded in recent decades vis-à-vis the Chinese and Russian threats. The NDS also maintains that, contrary to what was the case for most of the years since the end of the Cold War, U.S. forces now must assume that their ability to approach military objectives will be vigorously contested.

The new U.S. strategy orientation set forth in the 2017 NSS and 2018 NDS is sometimes referred to a "2+3" strategy, meaning a strategy for countering two primary challenges (China and Russia) and three additional challenges (North Korea, Iran, and terrorist groups), although given the radically differing nature of these challenges, one might posit that such a heuristic oversimplifies the contours of the strategic environment.

Congressional action on all FY2019 appropriations bills was shaped by an effort to rein in federal spending, out of concern for the increasing indebtedness of the federal government. The fastest growing segment of federal spending in recent decades has been mandatory spending for entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. (See Figure 1 .)

The Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) was intended to reduce spending by $2.1 trillion over the period FY2012-FY2021, compared to projected spending over that period. One element of the act established binding annual limits (or caps) to reduce discretionary federal spending through FY2021 by $1.0 trillion. Separate annual caps on discretionary appropriations for defense-related activities and non-defense activities are enforced by a mechanism called sequestration . Sequestration provides for the automatic cancellation of previous appropriations, to reduce discretionary spending to the BCA cap for the year in question.

The caps on defense-related spending apply to discretionary funding for DOD and for defense-related activities by other agencies, comprising the national defense budget function which is designated budget function 050 . The caps do not apply to funding designated by Congress and the president as emergency spending or spending on OCO.

Congress has raised the annual spending caps repeatedly, most recently with the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123), which set the national defense funding cap for FY2019 at $647 billion. Because the cap applies to defense-related spending in other agencies as well as to DOD, and because the annual defense appropriations bill covers most but not all of DOD's discretionary budget, the portion of the cap applicable to FY2019 defense appropriations bill is approximately $600 billion. The Administration's request for the bill was consistent with that cap, as is the enacted bill.

The total FY2019 DOD request – including both base budget and OCO funding – continued an upswing that began with the FY2016 budget, which marked the end of a relatively steady decline in real (that is, inflation-adjusted) DOD purchasing power. Measured in constant dollars, DOD funding peaked in FY2010, after which the drawdown of U.S. troops in OCO operations drove a reduction in DOD spending. (See Figure 2 .)

The law funds the Administration's proposal to increase the size of the armed forces by 15,600 personnel in the active components – with nearly half of that increase destined for the Navy – and by a total of 800 members of the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard. The Senate-passed version of the bill would have funded less than half the amount of the proposed increase in active-duty personnel and none of the amount of the proposed increase in the reserve component. (See Table 3 .)

The Senate Appropriations Committee report on S. 3159 (which became the basis for the Senate-passed version of the appropriations bill) stated no reason for recommending less than half the amount of the Administration's proposed increase. However, on this point, the Senate version of the appropriations bill mirrored the Senate-passed version of the companion John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019 (H.R. 5515; P.L. 115-232), which also would have approved half the amount of the proposed increase in the active-duty components and none of the amount of the proposed reserve component increase. In the Senate Armed Services Committee report to accompany its version of the NDAA, the panel expressed concern that, because unemployment is at historically low levels, the services might have trouble recruiting enough additional personnel to fill a larger force while maintaining their current standards for enlistment.

As with the FY2019 defense appropriations bill, the conference report on the FY2019 NDAA authorized the Administration's proposed increase in military end-strength.

The enacted version of the appropriations bill funds the Administration's recommended 2.6 % increase in military basic pay effective January 1, 2019 (as both the House and Senate versions would have done). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the cost of this raise to be $1.8 billion.

In terms of total funding, the act appropriates $34.0 billion for the Defense Health Program (DHP) in FY2019, which represents an increase of less than 1% over the Administration's $33.7 billion request. As usual, those similar totals mask a number of differences. Compared with the request, the enacted bill cuts:

$213 million to force DOD to deal with what House and Senate conferees labelled "excess growth" in the cost of pharmaceuticals; $215 million in anticipation that the funds will not be needed because the program will continue to exhibit its pattern of historical underexecution; and $597 million to correct what the House Appropriations Committee said was erroneous accounting for congressional action on the FY2018 DHP budget.

Among the amounts the enacted bill would add to the request are:

$10 million for training therapeutic service dogs; and $2 million to coordinate the actions of DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs to study the possible adverse health effects of the widespread use of open burning pits to dispose of trash at U.S. military sites in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Senate-passed version of the bill would have added to the request $750 million for maintenance and repair of DHP facilities, but this was not included in the final version of the bill.

Continuing a 28-year-long pattern, the act adds to the Administration's DHP budget request funds for medical research and development. Beginning with a $25 million earmark for breast cancer research in the FY1992 defense appropriations act ( P.L. 102-172 ), Congress has added a total of $13.2 billion to the DOD budget through FY2018 for research on a variety of medical conditions and treatments.

The Administration's DHP budget request included $710.6 million for research and development. The House-passed version of H.R. 6157 would have added $775.6 million, most of which was allocated to one of 27 specific medical conditions or treatments. The Senate version would have added to the request $963.2 of which $431.5 million was allocated among 10 specific diseases or treatments. The enacted version of the bill appropriates a total of $2.18 billion for DHP-funded medical research, an increase of $1.47 billion over the request that covers each of the particular medical conditions and treatments that would have been funded by either chamber's bill.

As has been typical for several years, the largest amounts for particular diseases in both the House and Senate versions of the FY2019 bill are aimed at breast cancer, prostate cancer, and traumatic brain injury (TBI). (See Table 4 .)

The act cuts $4.8 billion from the Administration's $199.5 billion request for base budget O&M funds, making the final appropriation $194.7 billion. However, more than one-third of the apparent reduction ($2.0 billion) is accounted for by funds that the bill appropriates as part of the budget for OCO, despite their having been requested in the base budget.

For dozens of additional cuts from the base budget O&M request, House-Senate conferees cited rationales that imply that the reductions need not have an adverse impact on DOD activities:

Cuts totaling $1.3 billion were justified by the assumption that particular programs would underspend their budget requests by that amount, often on the basis of what the conferees called a pattern of historic al underexecution of their annual appropriations; Cuts totaling $1.3 billion were justified on grounds that DOD had not justified its request for those funds; and Cuts totaling $343 million were justified on grounds that the requests amounted to unrealistically large increases over the prior year's appropriation.

The House-passed version of the bill would have added a total of $1.0 billion spread across the active and reserve components of the armed forces to "restore readiness." According to the House committee report, the funds were intended to be spent on training, depot maintenance, and base operations according to a plan DOD was to submit to Congress 30 days in advance of expenditure. The funds were not included in the enacted version of the bill.

The Administration's FY2019 budget request continued the across-the-board modernization of the U.S. strategic arsenal that had been launched by the Obama Administration. Within that program, the initial House and Senate versions of H.R. 6157 funded the major initiatives with some changes, many of which reflected routine budget oversight. (See Table 5 .)

The enacted version of the bill adds a total of more than $300 million to the amounts requested to develop three new long-range weapons. Specifically it adds:

$69.4 million to the $345.0 million requested for a new, nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) to replace Minuteman III missiles deployed in the 1970s, an increase conferees said would meet an unspecified "unfunded requirement"; $203.5 million for "program acceleration" to the $263.4 million requested to develop Conventional Prompt Global Strike weapon sufficiently accurate to strike a target at great range with a conventional (i.e., non-nuclear) warhead; and $50 million, also to meet an unspecified "unfunded requirement," to the $614.9 million requested to develop a Long-Range Stand-Off (LRSO) weapon to replace the nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) carried by long-range bombers.

The act supports the general thrust of the administration's funding request for ballistic missile defense, with the sort of funding adjustments that are routine in the appropriations process.

For so-called mid-c ourse defense, intended to protect U.S. territory against a relatively small number of intercontinental-range warheads, the Administration's program would expand the fleet of interceptor missiles currently deployed in Alaska and California, while developing an improved version of that interceptor. The program also is deploying shorter-range THAAD, Aegis, and Patriot missiles to provide a so-called terminal defense intended to protect U.S. allies and forces stationed abroad and to provide a second-layer of protection for U.S. targets. (See Table 6 .)

The act cuts a total $301.7 million from the amounts requested for various projects associated with mid-course defense of U.S. territory on grounds that these funds were intended for purposes Congress already had funded in the FY2018 defense appropriations act ( P.L. 115-141 ). That measure was enacted two months after the FY2019 budget request was sent to Congress, reiterating the request for the funds in question.

The act adds more than $400 million to the amounts requested to develop and acquire missile defenses for South Korea and U.S. forces stationed there. North Korea has tested long-range and short-range ballistic missiles as well as nuclear weapon. The increase includes $284.4 million to develop a network linking THAAD interceptor missiles and shorter-range Patriot missiles based in South Korea and Japan with sensors that could track incoming North Korean missiles.

The act also adds $140 million to the $874 million requested to procure THAAD interceptors that are deployed in Guam, in the Middle East, and in South Korea.

While Congress and the Administration weighed alternative ways to organize a new organization – a Space Force – to address long-standing criticisms of DOD's acquisition of space satellites and associated launchers, the debate was not cited by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees in their reports on the FY2019 defense appropriations bill. Nor was it cited by House and Senate conferees in their Joint Explanatory Statement to accompany the conference report on the bill. The enacted bill funded – with largely modest changes – the Administration's requests for several major defense-related space programs. (See Table 7 .)

The most sizeable departure from the Administration's request was the addition of $200 million to the $245.4 million requested in R&D funding associated with the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), which is the program for acquiring satellite launch rockets and launch services for relatively heavy DOD space payloads.

The act supports the general thrust of the Administration's program to beef up the capacity of Army and Marine Corps units to prevail in full-scale, high-tech combat with the forces of near-peer adversaries, namely Russia and China. The increased DOD emphasis on conventional combat with major powers is rooted in the 2018 National Defense Strategy of which DOD published an unclassified synopsis on January 19, 2018.

In addition to modernizing the ground forces' existing capabilities, the Administration's FY2019 budget request included stepped-up investments to improve two capabilities the Army identifies as among its top modernization priorities: mobile defenses against cruise missiles and drone aircraft; and improved firepower and mobility for infantry units. While taking some reductions from the amounts requested for some programs – cuts based on program delays, the availability of prior-year funds, and so forth – the bills would provide funding above the requested level to accelerate other programs. (See Table 8 .)

The act funded most of the roughly $2.5 billion requested to continue upgrading the Army's fleet of M-1 tanks, built between 1980 and 1996. For the program to continue modernizing the service's Bradley armored troop carriers – which is roughly contemporary with the tank fleet – it would cut nearly a quarter of the $1.04 billion requested, mostly on grounds of a "change of acquisition strategy."

The act provided more funds than requested in order to accelerate modernization of two other components of the Army's current combat vehicle fleet, adding:

$110.0 million to the $310.8 million requested to replace the chassis and powertrain of the M-109 Paladin self-propelled with the more powerful and robust chassis of the Bradley troop carrier; and $94.0 million to the $265.3 million requested to replace the flat underside of many types of Stryker wheeled combat vehicles with a V-shaped bottom intended to more effectively deflect the explosive force of buried landmines.

The act generally funded programs to replace two older types of tracked vehicles, providing:

$447.5 million (of $479.8 million requested) to continue procurement of the Advanced Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV), intended to replace the Vietnam War-vintage M-113 tracked personnel carrier; and $167.5 million, as requested, for procurement of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV), a successor to the Marine Corps' equally dated AAV-7 amphibious troop carrier.

The Administration requested a total of $449 million to develop and begin purchasing vehicles intended to boost the lethality and mobility of Army infantry units – that is, forces not equipped with M-1 tanks and other armored vehicles. Nearly 90% of those funds were for development of a relatively light-weight tank (designated Mobile Protected Firepower or MPF) with the balance of the money intended to begin purchasing four-wheel-drive, off-road vehicles for reconnaissance missions and troop transport, designated Light Reconnaissance Vehicle (LRV) and Ground Mobility Vehicle (GMV), respectively.

The act funds the three programs with some relatively small reduction reflecting concerns that their development or testing schedules are unrealistically ambitious.

The FY2019 budget request includes nearly $450 million for programs intended to beef up mobile Army defenses against aircraft, including unmanned aerial systems and cruise missiles. These include a Stryker combat vehicle equipped to launch Stinger missiles (designated IM-SHORAD) and a larger, truck-mounted missile launcher (designated IFPC).

The act cut the total R&D request for the programs by nearly 25% for various, relatively typical rationales including development program delays.

National Guard and Reserve Force Equipment

Following what has long been the usual practice, the act adds to the DOD budget $2.35 billion for procurement of aircraft, ground vehicles, and other equipment for National Guard or other reserve component units. These funds are provided in addition to the $3.64 billion worth of equipment for Guard and reserve forces that was included in the Administration's FY2019 budget request.

The increase includes a total of $1.30 billion in the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA) which is allocated among the six reserve force components: the Army and Air National Guard, and the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force Reserve. In their Joint Explanatory Statement on the final version of the bill, House and Senate conferees directed the funds to be used "for priority equipment that may be used for combat and domestic response missions."

Amounts are not earmarked for specific purchases, but conferees on the defense bill directed that "priority consideration" in using the funds be given to 18 types of items. The 18 categories range in specificity from "digital radar warning receivers for F-16s" to "cold-weather and mountaineering gear and equipment."

Other congressional initiatives include specific increases for National Guard equipment:

$640 million for 8 C-130J cargo planes; $168 million for 6 AH-64E attack helicopters; $156 million for 8 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters; and $100 million for HMMWV ("Hum-vee") vehicles.

The act funds the major elements of the Administration's shipbuilding program, which aims at enlarging and modernizing the Navy's fleet. The stated goals of the program are to improve the Navy's ability to respond to increasingly assertive military operations by China in the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans, and to halt, if not reverse, the decline in the technological edge that U.S. forces have enjoyed for decades. (See Table 9 .)

The Administration's $1.60 billion request to fund a Ford -class aircraft carrier was intended as the fourth of eight annual increments to cover the estimated $12.6 billion cost of what will be the third ship of the Ford class. That ship, designated CVN-80 and named Enterprise , is slated for delivery to the Navy at the end of FY2027.

The act, which provides nearly the total amount requested, includes a provision that allows the Navy – under certain conditions – to use the funds for a block buy contract that would fund procurement of components for both CVN-80 and the planned fourth ship of the Ford class, designated CVN-81. Proponents of such an arrangement contend that it could accelerate the delivery of the fourth ship and reduce the overall cost of the two vessels. Before the funds could be used for a block buy, DOD would have to certify to Congress an analysis demonstrating that the approach would save money, as required by Section 121 of the companion FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 5515 ( P.L. 115-232 ).

The act adds to the Administration's request $1.1 billion to accelerate the planned production of ships to support amphibious landings and large air-cushion craft to haul tanks and other combat equipment ashore. This total includes:

$350 million to begin construction of an LHA-class helicopter carrier; $350 million to begin construction of either an LPD-17-class amphibious landing transport or a variant of that ship designated LX(R); $225 million for an Expeditionary Fast Transport, a catamaran that can carry a few hundred troops and their gear hundreds of miles at 40 mph; and $182.5 million to buy eight air-cushion landing craft (instead of the five requested) to haul tanks and other equipment ashore from transport ships.

Generally speaking, the act funds the Administration's requests for military aircraft acquisition, subject to relatively minor cuts reflecting routine congressional oversight. The major departures from the request were increased funds to accelerate production of the F-35 Joint Strike fighter and the addition of funds to buy helicopters and C-130 cargo planes for the National Guard.

The act's largest addition to the Administration's request for a single weapons program is the addition of $1.70 billion to acquire 16 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to the 77 F-35s funded in the budget request. The additional funds provides eight more aircraft in addition to the 48 requested for the Air Force, two more of the short-takeoff, vertical-landing (STOVL) F-35s for the Marine Corps (in addition to the 20 requested), and six more of the aircraft carrier-adapted version – four for the Navy (in addition to the nine requested), and two for the Marine Corps.

Other notable funding increases in the bill for procurement of combat aircraft include:

$65.0 million to extend the life of A-10 ground-attack planes by replacing their wings; and $100.0 million to begin acquisition of a relatively low-tech (and relatively inexpensive) ground-attack plane designated OA-X for use against other-than-top-tier adversaries.

Following are the full citations of CRS products identified in tables by reference number only.

CRS Report RS22103, VH-71/VXX Presidential Helicopter Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Jeremiah Gertler

CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke

CRS Report RL31384, V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Program , by Jeremiah Gertler

CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke

CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke

CRS Report RL33745, Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke

CRS Report RL34398, Air Force KC-46A Tanker Aircraft Program , by Jeremiah Gertler

CRS Report R41129, Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke

CRS Report R41464, Conventional Prompt Global Strike and Long-Range Ballistic Missiles: Background and Issues , by Amy F. Woolf

CRS Report R42723, Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV): Background and Issues for Congress , by Andrew Feickert

CRS Report R43049, U.S. Air Force Bomber Sustainment and Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress , by Jeremiah Gertler

CRS Report R43240, The Army's Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV): Background and Issues for Congress , by Andrew Feickert

CRS Report R43618, C-130 Hercules: Background, Sustainment, Modernization, Issues for Congress , by Jeremiah Gertler and Timrek Heisler

CRS Report R44463, Air Force B-21 Raider Long-Range Strike Bomber , by Jeremiah Gertler

CRS Report R44968, Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) Mobility, Reconnaissance, and Firepower Programs , by Andrew Feickert

CRS Report R44972, Navy Frigate (FFG[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke

CRS Insight IN10931, U.S. Army's Initial Maneuver, Short-Range Air Defense (IM-SHORAD) System , by Andrew Feickert

CRS In Focus IF10954, Air Force OA-X Light Attack Aircraft Program , by Jeremiah Gertler


Department of State, Foreign Operations Appropriations: A Guide to Component Accounts

Summary: The annual Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriations legislation funds many of the nondefense international affairs activities of the United States. The State Department portion makes up about one-third of the funding, and the Foreign Operations accounts comprise the remainder. SFOPS is one of 12 annual appropriations acts that fund the federal government each fiscal year.

Summary: Congress appropriated SFOPS in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6), under Division F, "Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2019." That act is divided into eight titles. Each title funds a variety of government activities, ranging from the operational and administrative costs of government agencies, to direct grant funds for private nonprofit or multilateral organizations. By title, SFOPS provisions set out activities as follows:

Summary: Title I—Department of State and Related Agency: Funds State Department general operations and diplomatic programs, such as cultural exchange programs, dues to the United Nations, international broadcasting, and grants to U.S. diplomacy-focused nongovernmental organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy. Title II—United States Agency for International Development (USAID): Funds general operations of USAID, but not USAID foreign assistance programs (see Title III). Title III—Bilateral Economic Assistance: The primary funding source for humanitarian and international development programs of the U.S. government. Includes bilateral assistance for disaster relief, global health, and economic development activities, as well as funding several independent development-oriented agencies, notably the Millennium Challenge Corporation and Peace Corps. Title IV—International Security Assistance: The primary title for U.S. security cooperation programs abroad outside of the National Defense appropriations bill. Includes antinarcotics and rule of law strengthening programs; nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, and demining programs; some assistance to foreign militaries; and some funding for international peacekeeping efforts. Title V—Multilateral Assistance: Contributes funds to several multilateral finance and grant-making institutions. Title VI—Export and Investment Assistance: Funds the three independent export promotion agencies of the U.S. government, the Export-Import Bank; the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; and the Trade and Development Agency. Title VII—General Provisions: Establishes guidance for the allocation of funds appropriated in other titles and lays out restrictions and priorities for programming. Title VIII—Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism: Provides additional funding to accounts in Titles I to V, to address ongoing U.S. military operations priorities overseas, particularly terrorist threats in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as worldwide.

The annual Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations legislation (SFOPS) funds many of the nondefense international affairs activities of the government. It is one of 12 appropriations bills that Congress considers annually to fund the discretionary activities of the government. Congress structures SFOPS into several titles, which consist of broad spending categories. These titles are subdivided into paragraphs that each address one component account, a funding line item that includes one or several activities of the government. A single component account may cover one agency's entire annual budget, grant funds to an independent organization, or fund multiple activities associated with statutory authorities, among other things.

In the FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 116-6 ), the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act (Division F) is divided into eight titles, each associated with the following activities:

Many of the component accounts within these titles correspond to one or several authorities in statute. Title 22 of the U.S. Code contains many of these authorities. Major acts in Title 22 include the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-885; hereinafter the Basic Authorities Act), the Foreign Service Act of 1980 ( P.L. 96-465 ), and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195; hereinafter the FAA), among others. This report identifies the statutory authorities that enable each component account to function. A list of these major acts, and cross-references to their location in the U.S. Code , are in Appendix A . For information on SFOPS funding levels, trends, and congressional action, see CRS Report R45168, Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs: FY2019 Budget and Appropriations , by Susan B. Epstein, Marian L. Lawson, and Cory R. Gill.

Title I—Department of State and Related Agency

Title I funds (1) State Department personnel, operations, and programs; (2) U.S. participation in international organizations, such as the United Nations, and international commissions; (3) U.S. government, nonmilitary international broadcasting; and (4) several U.S. nongovernmental agencies and other U.S. commissions and interparliamentary groups, such as the National Endowment for Democracy.

The Administration of Foreign Affairs account category provides funding for the State Department's personnel, operations, and programs; including diplomatic security and the construction and maintenance of its facilities in the United States and around the world. It is composed of the following component accounts:

DP, the principal operating account of the State Department, includes four funding categories:

Human Resources . Funds the salaries of domestic and overseas State Department employees, training services at the Foreign Service Institute, the operating costs of the Bureau of Human Resources, and diversity recruitment and development programs such as the Pickering and Rangel Fellowships. Overseas Programs . Funds the Department's various regional and functional bureaus, along with bureau-administered foreign policy programs. Historically, the account has, for instance, funded the bureaus of African Affairs, International Organization Affairs, and Conflict and Stabilization Operations as well as the costs of department employees' travel on assignment. Diplomatic Policy and Support . Funds many of the Department's strategic and managerial units, such as the Office of the Secretary and the Bureaus of Administration, Budget and Planning, Legislative Affairs, Information Resource Management, the Comptroller and Global Financial Services, and Intelligence and Research, among others. Security Programs . Funds the Department's security programs and policies, including those implemented by the Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism and the Office of Foreign Missions. It is also the primary source of funding for the Worldwide Security Protection subaccount, which provides funds to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and other bureaus to implement programs to protect the department's staff, property, and information.

Until FY2019, this account (named Diplomatic & Consular Programs in prior years) included some consular fees and surcharges that offset expenditures. Beginning with FY2019 appropriations, the State Department is to use that revenue to fund the administration of consular and border security programs directly under a new Consular and Border Security Programs account (the CBSP account). That account does not require annual appropriations and thus does not appear in the FY2019 act.

CIF funds information technology (IT) and other capital equipment procurement to ensure efficient management, coordination, and utilization of IT resources. Funds allocated to this account, established by Congress in 1994, have supported the ongoing IT modernization initiative at the State Department.

This account funds the State Department's Office of Inspector General, which conducts independent audits, inspections, evaluations, and investigations of the programs and offices of the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (operationally renamed in 2018 as the U.S. Agency for Global Media).

Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs

This account funds the State Department's management of U.S. educational, professional, and cultural exchanges, such as the Fulbright Scholar Program, the International Visitor Leadership Program, and the Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange. Authority for these programs derive from the Mutual Education and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (popularly referred to as the Fulbright-Hays Act; P.L. 87-256 ), as amended, though several of these programs predate that act.

The Representation Expenses account reimburses Foreign Service Officers for entertainment of government officials to advance diplomacy.

Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials

This account funds reimbursable expenses to municipal, state, and federal law enforcement agencies throughout the United States for "extraordinary" services provided to foreign missions and officials, in particular to the New York Police Department to protect representatives to the United Nations.

Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM)

ESCM funds provide for the general management and maintenance of U.S. State Department embassies and other facilities in the United States and abroad. This includes ongoing renovations to the State Department headquarters in Washington, DC. This account also funds Worldwide Security Upgrades (WSU), which provides the State Department's share of the costs to plan, design, and build new embassies and facilities to comply with requirements of the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (Title VI of P.L. 106-113 ).

Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service

This account addresses unexpected events, such as the evacuation of U.S. diplomats and their families or, in some circumstances, private U.S. citizens or third-country nationals as a result of natural disasters, epidemics, terrorist attacks, or civil unrest. It also funds some nonemergency activities of senior Administration officials, such as G-20 Summits or the Organization for American States (OAS) General Assembly (Basic Authorities Act, §4). This account also funds rewards for informants about international terrorism (the "Rewards for Justice" program), narcotics-related activities, transnational organized crime, and war crimes (Basic Authorities Act, §36). For example, information obtained through Rewards for Justice led to the capture and conviction of one of the planners of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in New York.

The Repatriation Loans Program Account subsidizes small loans to destitute U.S. citizens abroad who are unable to fund their return to the United States (Basic Authorities Act, §4).

Payment to the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT)

AIT is a nonprofit, private corporation established for "[p]rograms, transactions, and other relations conducted or carried out by the President or any agency of the United States Government with respect to Taiwan," in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act ( P.L. 96-8 ). It provides consular services for Americans and the people of Taiwan. The account supports a contract providing for salaries, benefits, and other expenses associated with maintaining AIT.

The International Center, or the International Chancery Center (ICC), is a 47-acre diplomatic enclave owned by the U.S. government and is located in Washington, DC. Fees from other executive agencies and proceeds from past leases fund ICC development, maintenance, security, and repairs. Congress established and authorized the ICC in the International Center Act ( P.L. 90-553 ) to provide territory for diplomatic missions of foreign governments to the United States.

Payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund

The payment covers the U.S. government's contribution to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System and the Foreign Service Pension System for USAID and the Department of State.

Through the following two accounts in the International Organizations category, the United States meets its assessed obligations (dues) to the many international organizations and peacekeeping efforts that the United States supports. Title V of SFOPS appropriates voluntary contributions to multilateral organizations.

Contributions to International Organizations (CIO)

The Contributions to International Organizations account funds U.S.-assessed contributions to the budget of the United Nations, certain U.N. system organizations, inter-American organizations, war crimes tribunals, and other intergovernmental organizations.

Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA)

The Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities account funds U.S.-assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations worldwide, as well as assessed contributions to certain ad hoc courts, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals.

American Sections, International Commissions

Accounts under the International Commissions category provide funding for U.S. obligations under law or treaty to the following bilateral and multilateral commissions:

International Joint Commission and the International Boundary Commission (both between the United States and Canada), International Boundary and Water Commission and the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (both between the United States and Mexico); and International fisheries and waters commissions.

The sole listing under the "Related Agency" category, BBG is the U.S. civilian international media agency. BBG was established as the successor to the U.S. Information Agency in the International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (Title III of P.L. 103-236 ). BBG renamed itself the United States Agency for Global Media in 2018, but recent appropriations have maintained the BBG title. It comprises the Voice of America (VOA) and Radio and TV Martí (under the Office of Cuba Broadcasting [OCB]). BBG also funds grantee organizations Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), and Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa (under the Middle East Broadcasting Networks [MBN]). The broadcasting category is divided into two accounts, as follows.

This account funds the operations of the BBG and all U.S. government, nonmilitary international broadcasts, including salaries and benefits for new hires and other operating expenses. Programmatic expansion priorities in FY2019 include new Russian and Korean language programs, an increased focus on Venezuela, and a digital media program in the Middle East and North Africa to counter extremist narratives.

The Capital Improvements account supports improvements and maintenance of BBG's global transmission network and digital multimedia infrastructure and capital projects.

This category includes funding to entities created by the U.S. government that today are nongovernmental but pursue objectives aligned with U.S. foreign policy. Several of these organizations fund themselves with income from trust funds created by Congress, so appropriations authorize use of that income and do not require appropriation of funds. Others receive funding exclusively from the U.S. government, or from both the U.S. government and other donors.

The Asia Foundation is a nonprofit organization based in San Francisco that seeks to strengthen democratic institutions in Asia, counter violent extremism, promote economic opportunities for Asian and U.S. businesses, and improve U.S.-Asian relations. In addition to annual appropriations, it receives support from foreign governments, nonprofits, corporations, competitive grants, and individual charitable contributions.

The U.S. Institute of Peace works to increase the United States' capacity to prevent, mitigate, and help resolve international conflict without violence. Congress established USIP in 1984 to offer training, analysis, and additional resources to governments, organizations, and individuals seeking to build peace (United States Institute of Peace Act, Title XVII of P.L. 98-525 ). It is prohibited from receiving non-U.S. government funding.

Center for Middle Eastern-Western Dialogue Trust Fund

The International Center for Middle Eastern-Western Dialogue (the Hollings Center), based in Istanbul, promotes dialogue between the United States and nations with significant Muslim populations to generate new thinking on key international issues and expand people-to-people contacts. Congress established it in 2004 with a dedicated trust fund ( P.L. 108-199 ).

The Eisenhower Exchange Program brings professionals who are rising leaders in their countries to the United States and sends their U.S. counterparts abroad. Financed by a dedicated trust fund, it provides programs tailored to each participant and career development opportunities to prepare participants for increasingly senior positions in government, business, and nongovernmental institutions.

Financed by a dedicated trust fund, the IASP funds scholarships for Israeli Arabs to attend institutions of higher education in the United States.

The East-West Center, based in Hawaii, promotes better relations and understanding among the people and nations of the Asia-Pacific region and the United States through cooperative study, training, and research. In addition to annual appropriations, it receives support from foreign governments, nonprofits, corporations, competitive federal grants, and individual charitable contributions.

NED is a private, independent, nonprofit organization that is dedicated to fostering the growth of a wide range of democratic institutions abroad, including political parties, trade unions, free markets, and business organizations. Established in the National Endowment for Democracy Act of 1983 ( Title V of P.L. 98-164 ), NED supports a variety of organizations but maintains four "core institutes," each affiliated with a U.S. domestic organization. The National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) are nonpartisan entities that promote election-related capacity building. The Center for International Private Enterprise, affiliated with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, supports the private sector by strengthening democratic institutions, and the Solidarity Center, associated with the AFL-CIO, supports labor rights in workplaces abroad. NED also receives funding from the Democracy Fund in Title III of SFOPS.

Congress has established a number of organizations to advance selected U.S. objectives in the international arena. Most of these organizations are listed under the Legislative Branch Boards and Commissions in the President's budget request to Congress. Though all except the Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad are legislative branch bodies, Congress funds them through SFOPS appropriations given their international affairs focus.

Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad

This 21-member independent executive agency seeks to identify cemeteries, monuments, and historic buildings in Eastern and Central Europe that are associated with the heritage of U.S. citizens, particularly endangered properties and especially American Jews. It works to obtain, in cooperation with the Department of State, assurances from the governments of the region that the properties will be protected and preserved. The commission also encourages, sponsors, assists, and otherwise facilitates private and foreign government site restoration, preservation, and memorialization projects.

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) 16

Established in 1998, the commission seeks to promote international religious freedom in consultation with the State Department. Composed of both presidential and congressional appointees, it advises and makes policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress through ad hoc publications and an annual report.

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)

The CSCE, established in 1975, seeks to advance U.S. interests by monitoring and promoting human rights, military security, and economic cooperation in the 57-country Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Members of Congress lead the commission jointly with executive branch officials.

Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China (CECC)

The CECC monitors human rights and the development of rule of law in China . Members of Congress lead the CECC jointly with executive branch officials.

United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission

This commission, appointed by congressional leadership, monitors, investigates, and submits to Congress an annual report and recommendations on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China.

Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission

Established in 2017, this commission is required to submit a report evaluating and proposing alternatives for U.S. foreign policy regarding the supply and abuse of illicit drugs in the Western Hemisphere. Unlike the other commissions, it is scheduled to disband after the report's completion.

Title II—United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

This title provides operational funds for USAID, an independent agency under the foreign policy guidance of the Department of State directly responsible for implementing most bilateral development assistance and disaster relief programs, many of which are funded in Title III of the State, Foreign Operations Appropriations Act.

The OE account funds USAID's overseas and domestic operational expenses, including salaries and benefits, overseas mission activities, staff training, physical security, and information technology maintenance.

A program begun in FY2003, the CIF supports the modernization of USAID's information technology systems. Unlike the State Department's Capital Investment Fund, USAID's CIF also funds the construction of facilities overseas in lieu of a separate component account to that end.

This account supports operational costs of USAID's Office of the Inspector General, which conducts audits and investigations of USAID programs, as well as of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Inter-American Foundation, the United States African Development Foundation, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

Under this title, funds are appropriated in support of U.S. government departments and independent agencies conducting humanitarian, development, and other programs meeting U.S. foreign policy objectives throughout the world.

GHP is made up of two accounts supporting multiple health activities conducted by USAID and by the State Department (FAA, §104).

Managed by USAID, appropriations in this account fund programs focused on combating infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. Programs also focus on immunization, oral rehydration, maternal and child health, vulnerable children, and family planning and reproductive health.

Managed by the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC) in the Department of State, this account is the largest source of funding for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Funds from this account are transferred to programs implemented by USAID, the Department of Defense, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Peace Corps, among others. A specified amount from the Global Health-State account supports the U.S. contribution to the multilateral Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.

Managed by USAID, the Development Assistance account funds programs aligned with priorities in Part I of the FAA, including sectors referenced in Chapters 1 and 2 targeting

agriculture and rural development (§103); education and human capital (§105); energy (§106[b]); urban economic and social development (§106[d]); technical cooperation and development (§106[d][1]); economic development research and evaluation (§106[d][2]); and disaster preparedness and reconstruction (§106[d][3]); U.S. citizen-sponsored schools and hospitals overseas (§214); and micro-, small-, and medium-enterprise development programs (including credit access) (§252).

Through the FAA's general authorities, DA also funds environment, democracy and governance, water and sanitation, and human rights programs, among others. In sub-Saharan Africa specifically, DA funds particular priorities for that region described in FAA Chapter 10, including agricultural production and natural resources, health, voluntary family planning services, education, and income-generating activities (§496).

Managed by the USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, this account provides relief and rehabilitation to nations struck by natural and manmade disasters and emergencies (FAA, §491[b]). In recent years, the account has been used increasingly to provide emergency food assistance to supplement commodity food aid provided through the P.L. 480 Title II account in the agriculture appropriation (FAA, §491[c]). In 2017, for example, approximately half of obligated IDA funding went to emergency food aid, compared with less than 5% in 2010.

The Transition Initiatives account supports the activities of USAID's Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), an entity launched in 1994 to bridge the gap between stabilization and sustainable development. It supports flexible, short-term assistance projects in political transition countries that are moving from war to peace, civil conflict to national reconciliation, or where political instability has not yet erupted into violence and where conflict mitigation might prevent the outbreak of such violence. Although both Transition Initiatives and IDA operate under disaster response authority of the FAA (§491), IDA focuses on humanitarian needs, while Transition Initiatives targets political factors to build peaceful and democratic societies.

The fund supports USAID responses to emerging or unforeseen crises with projects aimed at addressing the root causes of conflict or instability. Previously funded through Defense appropriations (as authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006, Section 1207, P.L. 109-163 ), today USAID administers it under the general authorities of the FAA. Unlike IDA, it may not be used to respond to disasters, and unlike Transition Initiatives, this account is not associated with its own operational component; rather, it is a flexible funding source available to the USAID Administrator.

DCA is a USAID-administered mechanism to subsidize loan guarantees in support of housing projects, water and sanitation systems, and microcredit and small enterprise development, among other programs. In addition to appropriations for the administrative costs of running DCA, Congress authorizes transfers from other component accounts to DCA for loan guarantees. For FY2019, only DA, GHP, and Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia are authorized to transfer funds to DCA. In 2018, Congress passed the Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development (BUILD) Act (Division F of P.L. 115-254 ), which requires the merger of DCA into a new United States International Development Finance Corporation. FY2019 appropriations for DCA also provide for the costs associated with this transfer.

The Economic Support Fund, authorized under Part II, Chapter 4 of the FAA (§531), uses economic assistance to advance U.S. political and strategic goals in countries of special importance to U.S. foreign policy. Once used primarily in support of the Middle East peace process (in FY1997, for example, 87% of ESF went to Israel, Egypt, the West Bank and Jordan), the use of ESF funds has expanded in recent years to support a broader range of countries of importance to the U.S. counterterrorism strategy. ESF supports development projects that may be indistinguishable from those supported by other accounts, but is also used for occasional direct budget support aid and sovereign loan guarantees. The State Department makes ESF programming decisions; USAID, in large part, implements the programs.

This account supports democracy promotion programs overseen by the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL). While in past years a portion of this funding was designated for USAID's Office of Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, appropriations since FY2017 have gone exclusively to DRL, though transfers to USAID may occur. Authorities for this account are found throughout the FAA, but specific reference to the Democracy Fund was added in 2002 (§116, P.L. 107-228 ).

Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia (AEECA)

This account provides economic assistance to once-Communist states of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and is the successor to two earlier accounts that channeled aid to the region after the Cold War. AEECA was discontinued at the Obama Administration's request between FY2013 and FY2015, during which time these activities were funded through the ESF, GHP, and INCLE accounts, and reinstated in FY2016. Authorities under this account are found in the FAA (§498-499) and the Support for Eastern European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989 ( P.L. 101-179 ).

The Migration and Refugee Assistance account, administered by the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM), supports refugee assistance and protection activities worldwide. The MRA account supports U.S. contributions to U.N. entities such as the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM), as well as organizations such as the International Committee for the Red Cross. It funds resettlement of refugees to other countries as well as processing and initial placement of refugees to the United States. The Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, as amended, sets out these authorities ( P.L. 87-510 ).

United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) Fund

ERMA is a humanitarian contingency fund for rapid deployment in unanticipated urgent refugee and migrant emergencies. Appropriations typically replenish this account up to a congressionally authorized level, and the executive branch must notify Congress when funds are used.

Several agencies operate independently and report directly to the Executive Office of the President, unlike USAID, which operates under guidance from the Secretary of State.

The Peace Corps sends U.S. volunteers to developing countries to provide technical aid and to promote mutual understanding on a people-to-people basis between the United States and citizens of foreign nations (Peace Corps Act of 1961, P.L. 87-293 ).

Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)24

The MCC provides large-scale, five-year development grants to foreign governments. Known as "compacts" and underpinned by bilateral agreements, these grants are intended to promote economic growth and to eliminate extreme poverty in countries chosen and determined to be eligible, in part, based on their demonstrated commitment to just and democratic governance; investment in health, education, and the environment; and support for economic freedom. Congress established and authorized the MCC in the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (Title VI of P.L. 108-199 ).

The IAF is a nonprofit corporation that finances small-scale enterprise and grassroots community self-help activities aimed at the social and economic development of poor people in Latin America, as originally set out in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1969 ( P.L. 91-179 ) establishing it as an independent entity.

United States African Development Foundation (USADF)

The USADF is a nonprofit corporation that finances small-scale enterprise and grassroots community self-help activities aimed at the social and economic development of poor people in Africa. Modeled after the IAF, the African Development Foundation Act established it in 1980 (Title V of P.L. 96-533 ).

Department of the Treasury: International Affairs Technical Assistance

This program deploys financial advisors to provide technical assistance to developing or transitional countries in support of economic reforms, with a focus on banking and financial institutions, financial crimes, government debt, revenue policy, and budget and financial accountability (FAA §129, added in 1998 by P.L. 105-277 ).

Title IV—International Security Assistance

International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE)

INCLE funds international counternarcotics activities; programs combatting human and wildlife trafficking; and rule of law activities, including support for judicial reform and law enforcement capacity building. Many of the activities under INCLE are overseen and coordinated through the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL). More than half of funding in recent years has gone to programs in the western hemisphere; other major recipients have included Afghanistan, Pakistan, and West Bank/Gaza. INCLE authorities primarily derive from the FAA (§481-490).

Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR)

This account funds a variety of State Department-managed activities aimed at countering proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (FAA, §581-586), supporting antiterrorism training and related activities (FAA, §571-575), and promoting demining operations in developing nations (FAA, §301). It also funds voluntary contributions to certain nonproliferation-focused international organizations (FAA, §301). Programs also finance certain defense articles related to nonproliferation, demining, and antiterrorism to friendly governments (Arms Export Control Act, §23, P.L. 90-629), and disarmament in the former Soviet Union (FREEDOM Support Act, §504, P.L. 102-511 ).

Unlike the Title I Contributions to Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account, which provides assessed funds for U.N. peacekeeping operations, the PKO account provides voluntary support for multilateral efforts in conflict resolution, such as the training of African peacekeepers and funding operations of the Multinational Force and Observers mission in the Sinai. The State Department controls the funds and sets PKO program policies (FAA, §551-563). DOD implements the activities. Funding through this account has in recent years been devoted almost entirely on the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa.

International Military Education and Training (IMET)

Through IMET, the United States provides training and education to selected foreign military and civilian personnel on U.S. military practices and standards, including democratic values like civilian control of the military. Participants take courses at military education facilities in the United States or receive instruction from U.S. training teams abroad. The State Department controls the funds and has policy authority over the program (FAA, §541-549), which the Department of Defense implements.

Foreign Military Financing Program (FMF)

The Foreign Military Financing Program supports U.S. overseas arms transfers on a loan and grant basis. Funding generally may be used by recipient countries only to purchase U.S. weapons, equipment and training, though a portion of FMF to Israel may be used to support purchases from Israeli defense firms. The State Department controls the funds and has policy authority (Arms Export Control Act, §23). The Department of Defense implements this program.

International Organizations and Programs (IO&P)

This account provides voluntary State Department-administered U.S. donations that support the programs of international agencies involved in a range of development, humanitarian, and scientific activities, including the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF), and U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA). This is distinct from the CIO account under Title I, which funds assessed contributions (dues) to international organizations. Authority is derived from the FAA (§§301-307 on International Organizations and Programs).

Under this category, funds are provided through the Department of the Treasury to a wide range of multilateral financial institutions, which offer loans—both "soft" (i.e., concessional) and "hard" (i.e., near-market rate)—and some grants to developing countries and private sector entities in those countries. Not all international financial institutions require or receive U.S. contributions from year to year; some receive funding under multiyear "replenishments." Authorizations for these contributions have historically been provided in appropriations acts of the relevant year.

In the case of concessional lending or grant-making institutions, U.S. appropriations contribute through annual installments toward periodically-agreed donor replenishments as capital is drawn down. Nonconcessional bank institutions typically require new financial commitments only in order to increase the institution's capitalization, as in the ongoing capital increase for the African Development Bank (see below). In FY2019, funds were appropriated for the following entities:

Cosponsored by the UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank, the GEF, administered by the World Bank, makes grants to help developing countries deal with global environmental problems.

World Bank: International Development Association (IDA)

As the World Bank's "soft loan" window, IDA provides concessional loans, grants, and debt relief to the lowest-income countries in the world.

The AsDF is the grants-only window of the Asian Development Bank (AsDB), which finances economic development programs in lower-income countries in Asia and the Pacific. AsDF ceased issuing concessional loans in 2017. AsDB now finances and issues all concessional loans directly through its capital reserves.

The AfDB lends at near-market rates to public and private entities, with special emphasis on agriculture, infrastructure, and industrial development. To support a general capital increase, legislative provisions include both paid-in capital and callable capital subscriptions.

Part of the African Development Bank, the AfDF provides concessional loans and grants to low-income African countries.

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

IFAD is a UN-system financial institution that issues grants and low-interest loans to developing countries to increase rural incomes, improve nutritional levels, and advance food security.

Title VI—Export and Investment Assistance

Export-Import Bank of the United States31

Ex-Im Bank issues direct loans, loan guarantees, and export credit insurance to support U.S. exports of goods and services. It aims to support U.S. jobs by providing such financing and insurance when the private sector is unwilling or unable to do so alone and/or to counter financing offered by foreign countries through their export credit agencies. Ex-Im Bank program and administrative expenses are financed by collections such as loan interest, risk premia, and other fees, for which congressional appropriations establish a ceiling. Congress also provides an appropriation for the agency's Office of Inspector General. Ex-Im Bank's enabling legislation is the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (P.L. 79-173).

Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)32

OPIC offers political risk insurance, guarantees, and investment financing to encourage U.S. firms to invest in developing countries, under the authority of the FAA (§231-240). Although the agency funds itself in full with loan receipts, appropriations set ceilings on administrative expenses to carry out the insurance programs and denotes a level of support for credit financing. The BUILD Act authorizes a new U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC), which is to absorb OPIC along with portions of USAID (See DCA section) and assume their responsibilities. It also adds new authorities to this entity. The aforementioned section of the FAA is to be repealed after the IDFC is operational, thereby terminating OPIC.

TDA funds project preparation services such as feasibility studies and other activities to link U.S. businesses to export opportunities in emerging markets for infrastructure and other development projects (FAA, §611). For example, TDA funds reverse trade missions which bring foreign decision-makers to the United States.

General Provisions set out limitations and prohibitions on assistance; administrative, notification, and reporting requirements; and more detailed funding requirements for specific accounts in other titles of the legislation. This title specifies also allocations for various aid sectors, including education, democracy promotion, water and sanitation, and food security, as well as cross-cutting issues such as gender equality. In addition, Title VII provides more detail about aid to certain countries and regions.

Title VIII—Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism

Since FY2012, executive branch budget requests have distinguished between "core" or "enduring" international affairs funding and funding to support "overseas contingency operations" (OCO). The OCO designation was described initially in budget documents as reflecting "the extraordinary costs of Department [of State] and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) operations and programs in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan," its use quickly expanded to include a broader range of activities and countries. OCO funds are not counted toward spending caps established by the Budget Control Act, 2011, as amended ( P.L. 112-25 ), and as a result have been used as a means of maintaining international affairs funding levels while complying with BCA budget restraints. While the Trump Administration has proposed the elimination of OCO funding under SFOPS for FY2019 and FY2020, Congress has continued to use the designation in SFOPS legislation. OCO funding supports accounts that received core funding in Titles I-V of the legislation, but is identified separately in Title VIII.

Appendix A. State, Foreign Operations Authorizing Legislation and U.S. Code References